sumedh

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam Lord Rama did worship Lord Shiva playing the part of a human; i do not know when he recommended it. In this context the following quotes may be helpful: Therefore, we should only follow the instructions as given in Bhagavad-Gita etc and as brought to us by the authorized sampradayas. As guestji has said above demigod worship rarely with the view to advance in KC (seeing demigods as exalted vaishnavas) is okay, but even then it should not stem from our lack of confidence in our devotional practise or mahamantra; also there is no question of regular worship of demigod(s) in any case.

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam As far as i understand Jaiva Dharma says that the rasa with Krishna is inherant and cannot be chosen by free will. Jaiva Dharma Chapter 21:

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam Dear devotee, i think you are not familiar with the actual situation as regards same-sex so it would be better to go through the threads here (and if you want at audarya). The issue is not of bias rather of formal recognition of same-sex couples in the perview of krishna-consciousness which is not possible since in KC marriage is meant for procreation of KC children and nothing else. Sometimes devotees have used the word demonaic, but since there is not a full understanding of this term and so this perception of harshness. Let me try to explain to the best of my ability: The vaishnava religion is defined as the property or inherant function of the soul which is causeless love for God -- the soul has no other function; any love to which even a slightest cause can be attributed, which is not permanent but flickering etc. is not coming from soul but from the mental plane and so is termed "lust" coming from the mode of passion. The activities which are conducive to the attainment of this pure nature are godly or spiritual. The activities in the mode of ignorance are mostly called demonaic which leads to more and more separation from God. When the pure love manifests it is for God and consequently for all beings without distinction; as long as there is a distinction it is only lust. Basic difference of perception is that religion is actually a very serious business though some may think that we can enjoy matter as we like and still attain God. We can atmost get only what we desire; if we have even the slightest desire for something other than God we will get it for we can attain to our eternal nature only when we solely desire God and nothing else, after all we want something of eternal value -- this takes time and perseverance but when we actually take to it seriously it is easy and not difficult at all. There is no bias; these things cannot be "formally" accepted just as sex before marriage, meat-eating etc cannot be. Issue is simple: everyone (even animals can in a limited way) should take to Krishna consciousness but no one who is serious can act as he/she wants after taking to it. This is somewhat more involved. We have to consider the definitions: in the material realm male means having so and so genitals and female means having the other kind -- the distinguishing aspect being that female bears the children. This material realm has been described as a perverted reflection of the spiritual realm, so all the concepts/things that are found here are found in their true form in the spiritual realm. When we consider the spiritual realm then we find that there is no birth and death there for it is an eternal realm. There the original definitions are then different -- Purusha (male) means the energetic and female means the energy. Thus when we speak from the material point of view then the soul is neither male or female, but when we speak from the spiritual point of view then the soul is female being the energy of God. There is only one Purusha. However, when we come to rasa or spiritual relationships then it is different matter altogether. So even from the spiritual viewpoint there are two distinct things: one is from the point of view of tattva or metaphysical truth and other from the point of view of rasa or spiritual relationship with God. Right now i shall only try to explain from the tattva point of view the little i have understood. The situation of Radha-Krishna is slightly complex and i cannot hope to explain it in few words as this post would allow. The infinite energies of God or vishnu-tattva have categorized in three as internal potency, marginal potency (called jiva-shakti) and external potency. Sri Sri Radharani is the embodiment of the internal potency, and is non-different from Krishna. As energy cannot be separated from energetic, there is no meaning to energy without energetic and vice-versa; so Radha-Krishna are One appearing as Two for transcendental pastimes. Factually, the personal energy (or chit-shakti) of Krishna is inseparable under all circumstances but in the lilas they appear in different transcendental bodies. This situation is called acintya-bheda-abheda tattva or inconceivable simultaneously one and different. This principle holds for all the energies of Krishna: marginal potency or jiva-shakti is the infinitesemal jiva souls who again have acintya-bheda-abheda relation. But due to the infinitesemal nature the bheda (difference) aspect is much more prominent and jivas are called vibbhinnamsa (seperated persons); while for the cit-shakti which is the complete infinite energy the bheda aspect is that energy acts in accordance with the desires of the energetic. Actually, the energy and energetic are truly One and inseparable. When we say God or Krishna it includes everything, while when we say Radha-Krishna we also specifically denote the transcendental pastimes and relations. All this has got to do nothing with the concepts of male and female as we understand them in the material realm.

is having remembered the Lord as Allah; better than nothing.

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam I am slightly confused; for i thought that this was what the muslims hold to be true. Since Allah is the only Eternal One, and material world is not eternal how are paradise or hell eternal for this sounds somewhat contradictory. Actually, the words of God are a great mystery and no normal human can understand them. They come from the transcendental realm of Allah; we think that they belong to this realm or we can understand them but the fact is that the two realms have nothing in common. Maybe eternal for hell means much longer periods of time compared to our life on earth.Anyway, if you do not know a clear-cut answer leave it; just a minor point. No no you misunderstand me, it has nothing to do with being poor or rich; i was just giving an example that consider some section of people who did not even get a chance to know about God then what would become of them. Indeed, by your response we are coming to the crux of the matter. thanks. Please do not worry about the latter part; this forum is quite extraordinary with many wonderful devotees. In fact you will find so many devotees who are so much closer to the spirit of Islam than you can imagine, who know the true meaning of Islam and whose analysis of the world events is exacting and free from tinge of bias. Dear friend, even though you think differently Srila Haridasa Thakura is a true believer in Allah and Paigambar Muhammad as Allah's messenger so is a Muslim and what an exalted Muslim... We have no hesitation in calling ourselves as following Islam for our aim is submission to Allah and we consider Muhammad as a Spiritual Master meaning empowered representative of God; just as we have no hesitation in calling ourselves christians for we consider Jesus as Spiritual Master (but this does not hold for Buddhism/Advaitism/... etc). Srimad-Bhagavatam directs us 11.8.10 "An intelligent man should from the smallest as well as the biggest religious scriptures take the essence, just like a honey bee does with all the flowers big and small"; it gives that essence as "that religion is first-class which makes one a lover of God" and this is the sum and substance of religion; unless you mean muslim as in groupism, which then is not religion rather religiosity. Sri Gauranga takes the essence from Quran and explains it in the following way: There are other transcendental relations like friend, son etc. while that of Paigambar Mohammad was that of a servitor. But why take my word or words of any/all muslims; we may all be wrong. More often than not our judgements are far from perfect. If your opinion turns out to be wrong then it would be a great offense at the feet of Allah who does not tolerate innappropriate words for His dear devotees. Allah is seated in our hearts closer to us than even the jugular vein, isn't it; so my sincere request to you would be to pray to Allah with deepest feelings and humility to let you know the correct situation as regards Srila Haridasa Thakura and other devotees. How can He ignore a sincere prayer; He works in mysterious ways to help us. But His mercy can only be held in the cup of our humility, greater our cup greater will be His mercy; just an advise from a well-wishing friend.

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam Dear muslim guest, i am only trying to understand your position and since you have pointed some errors i would like you to clarify them. That no one is exempt from sin is okay, but could you elaborate on the definition of sin (i mean how do even whom you would consider perfect muslims sin).The earlier part of your assertion "slightly barbaric" is a gross understatement. Are you sure you understand the meaning of eternal (as we do)? Eternal means infinite, so how does punishment by God measure up to any number of sins one has committed. Eternal is not some trillion years (age of one cycle of creation); however large number you can *imagine* (10000... or 10^10^10^10... to fill the whole universe) is precisely zero when compared to eternal. If you really think that God can put anyone into hell for eternity then i am afraid he cannot be identified with Allah. Another question is that what all do the muslims consider as eternal and what not. Of course, Allah is eternal without doubt. Were the souls created at some point in time; are they eternal; is this material world eternal; where is the hell situated -- in material world or somewhere else. Okay, this part is clear. Then what do muslims believe the reason for original falldown of all other humans; the reason for falldown of Adam/Eve i suppose is the same as in christians. The other question would be what muslims believe the reason for different humans being born in different conditions. Some are born in good muslim households who would attain paradise mostly, while the others who are born to say primitive people who have no chance of knowing about Allah are destined to go to eternal hell by default. Also the fact that billions who were born before Hazrat Muhammad (or Jesus) will also go to eternal hell. How do muslims understand this? This one i have not heard before. Are you sure of this? I mean could you confirm this (say from some scholar) so that we may not get some disinformation. thanks.If this is the case then i am surprised that you were opposing that soul cannot go into body of worm, for you believe animals too have souls. Or you mean that animal souls are different from human souls -- am i right in coming to this conclusion? The other questions in this relation would then be: Why then do the muslims eat meat? What do muslims believe of the fate of all the animal souls? From other things the conclusion would be that all go to eternal hell. Is it correct? The meaning of Jihad, i think, everybody understands. It would be futile to discuss this any further, and anyways this is out of this thread. The question that comes to mind is how muslims are required to treat non-muslims (who are not their "enemies"); also if some muslim thoroughly mistreats a non-muslim who is not an enemy what is his fate etc. Dear friend, you do not even consider that your (or all the muslims) recognition has no value. It is the recognition by Allah which matters. You do not even know me and yet claim to know the mind of Allah on the basis of having read a book. The unfortunate thing that can be seen is that the attitude of muslims has not changed even a wee-bit from that time. As for ultimate religion thing is concerned, let Allah decide this; unless you have talked to Allah how can you come to this conclusion except as an emotional sentiment. I have no hesitation in saying that Allah is my Lord, and i want to become His servant but i would be an arrogant fool to consider myself having enough intelligence or worth to be able to understand the words of God in the scriptures (either Quran/Gita/Bible); my only hope of understanding them is through the medium of other God-realized souls.

Hare Krishna and dandavats I see why you consider soul in body of worm as difficult to understand. Regarding sin, as our friend has already explained that the worm is infact only strictly following its nature (for it has very little freedom) and sin etc. are not applicable to it; no freedom no sin. Just think, if you are in deep-sleep then do you become less "god-like". The consciousness of plants has been compared to that of "deep-sleep" (you can guess what: if a human stays put in one place all the time sleeping then he/she has every chance of going to plant life), and that of animals to that of dreaming. Of course, there are many gradations in the level of consciousness (8,400,000 according to Vedic texts). The soul itself does not become lesser or greater in anyway, who is spirit by nature all the time rather just the "medium of expression" (if i may say so) through the material bodies changes. Also regarding revenge, we (mostly) forget our previous life by the arrangement of nature (we don't even remember our dreams etc). This is particularly true of plant/animal life because there the level of consciousness is much less and remembrance is very little; particularly for plants they have (almost) no remembrance at all.

Hare Krishna and dandavats Dear muslim friend i will like to add one thing, if you would not be offended. Yes, we may consider the Vedic accounts as myths but that is not the point. We have no idea of this material world what then to speak of the spiritual world, and so the story of satan etc. could be true but the problem is that the philosophy depends on it and so is really implausible. For example, the idea of the eternal hell i.e. infinite punishment for finite sins, is completely unacceptable when you have an all-merciful God or that when both animals and humans are conscious then how do humans have souls and animals don't have; or that all humans are being punished for the sin of Adam/Eve and so on. The Vedic philosophy does not stand or fall on the strength of those accounts which some may consider as myths. You are welcome to put all your misgivings about Vedic culture (sanatana-dharma or vaishnavism) in this forum so that we can understand each others' position clearly. (i think what you call as "idol" worship would be a prominent one)

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam Likewise the Supreme Lord in Vedic texts is said to be the Supreme Brahman from which everything emanates, the cause of all causes (Primal Cause), the Primal Purusha, Parama-Ishvara (the Supreme Controller), the Absolute Truth etc. full (i.e. in infinite measure) with six opulences namely strength (i.e. He possesses all the energies), fame (no one in material world or spiritual world has more fame), wealth (He is the possessor of everything), knowledge (Absolute knowledge of everything), beauty and renunciation (He is Supremely Independent and everything and everyone else is completely dependent on Him). All the innumerable universes emanate from the transcendental body of the Lord (called exhalation of the First Purusha) and after the duration of one cycle of creation is complete they merge into His body (called inhalation); i see no difference. Incarnation of God means coming down or descending to this material world, i.e. He is the Supreme Lord who appears to be a human. So to the pure devotees with the transcendental eyes/senses see His original transcendental form while the normal humans see only a material reflection of His form as a normal human. So there is only as much of a difference in God and His incarnation, as would be a if you went from your country to a distant one. Of course, by His inconceivable potency the Lord can expand into infinite number of forms; He can be situated at one place and still be in everyone's heart, He is both within and without etc. The concept of Jesus among christians is indeed quite different for they believe that as son of God he is (effectively) God in human body. Incarnation or avataarvada is completely different; in fact it is quite an offense in vaishnavas to even consider that God can take a material human body, or can become less in any way anywhere for He is Absolute. His body is completely spiritual "composed" of sat(Absolute existence)-cit(Absolute knowledge)-ananda(Absolute bliss). But even if you consider an incarnation to be in any way "lesser" than God (God is Omnipotent remember, so it will not be prudent to say that He cannot appear in this material world at all -- although, of course, He has got to do nothing with matter) then you should consider Lord Narayana as Allah, for by definition there is no difference in the two; at least i cannot find one. Our friend has already explained this before. I will only add that because we wanted to enjoy independently of God leaving His service, He kindly provided this material world to us to try and fulfil these desires. While in the lower species of life the soul naturally evolves to life forms with higher consciousness, but at the human platform the freedom is substantially more (so more responsibility) and whatever desires and consequently consciousness we develop we attain to that in next life. For example, if we remain in ignorance and develop tiger/wolf like tendencies of attacking others etc. then we attain to those forms -- nature has facility for fulfilling such desires of all persons. If we have gravely sinned then we do go to the corresponding hell (in accordance with our sins) and suffer in proportion to our sins (then return to the life form in accordance with our consciousness). So we can develop consciousness from God-consciousness (then we become the servitor of God) down to a plant in this human life.

I think we should advise them to engage among themselves which hopefully would never end.

Hare Krishna and dandavats Dear Vishnu, as i have said i must add that it must be read after Bhagavad-Gita as it is, else you will misunderstand it.

Dear Vishnu Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam Okay i realize there are many books and will take a long time to read. However, i missed one important one which will give a true insight into vaishnavism so that we can find the common platform to understand and glorify the Lord. It is Teachings of Lord Chaitanya, a very nice summary biography and since Lord Chaitanya is the centre of gravity of the KC movement you will be able to understand its underpinnigs and direction; if you have read Sri Ishopanishad and Gita then this will be a very good one for a sort of "crash course":). But as i said you will need to read it for finding nectar (just read for the pleasure of it) and not finding errors which could be offensive to the Lord and the whole point will be lost. You can get offline version here: http://www.hare-krishna.org/books/chaitanyateachings.zip (as i said you will need fonts here: http://www.hare-krishna.org/v-fonts.zip) or an online version here: http://lordcaitanya.com/en1 or if you prefer hardcopy then at www.krishna.com or amazon This is a medium sized book, something like 300-pages.

Dear devotee of the Lord Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam Please excuse me if you have been offended by any of my words. Although this has no relevance to the orignial post and the discussion regarding that is pointless but since you have brought up the question of philosophy, i will try to explain to the best of my ability for the pleasure of devotees. You have confused different things. So let us analyze as Lord Krishna has done it in Gita. For example the (material) food is in one of the three modes. But the Prasadam is above the three modes, it is in shuddha-sattva. Similiarly if we give charity it is one of the three modes, but charity for purpose of Krishna is above the three modes. Likewise, our activities are in material modes but those in Krishna-consciousness are above the three modes in shuddha-sattva. If it were not so then there would have been no chance of coming to liberated platform, for material activities cannot lead one to spiritual realm. When Srila Prabhupada was asked about the situation of devotees, this is what he replied: He doesn't mean to say that all the devotees are uttam-adhikari neither is he referring to only uttam-adhikaris. So Srila Prabhupada repeatedly gives the example of iron rod coming in contact with fire which will become like fire. Which means that by performing spiritual activities our mind,body,ego,intellect will gradually become spiritualized. So when Kristji talks of the vision of Lord Shiva asking him to take to KC, he doesn't pretend that suddenly he has become transcendental in nature or has the transcendental eye to see the transcendental form of Lord Shiva; he sees only a material reflection. He made it clear in subsequent replies that he does not imagine so and also said that the NDE may be real or not, but without reason you continued to put him down. So when you said that they are not dreams of Krishna, you are right in the sense that we have not seen the real form of Krishna and no one disputes that fact but the thing is that since we have remembered God it is a spiritual activity. Similiarly making fun of Hare-Krishna is not a spiritual activity but taking the Name of Krishna (even when not directly relating to Him) is spiritual activity and what is known as ajnata-sukriti (remember the example of Ajamila). Lastly when you say that we connect to God indirectly, you are right in the sense that we have not attained the spiritual senses to be able to see Him, but still the Guru is a transperant via-medium of God so as good as God. Serving him is serving Krishna and is a spiritual activity. There is no question of watering the philosophy for getting a member in forum, but your attitude of trying to only find errors in the name of philosophy even when he says he agrees with you is what is really problematic.

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam We ourselves with our sincere reflection. Do we understand the two philosophies completely before trying to harmonize them? Have we seen the results of the practise of both to be able to judge them. Otherwise our premature judgements will be necessarily wrong. You asked us to be openminded to be able to accept that Vedas are wrong, but we can see the teachings of Jesus as being given in Vedas; you will see this as a super-arrogant statement but again i will only say that such a judgement is premature. The essence of both is the same. Vedanta-sutra defines the Supreme Brahaman (ParaBrahman Krishna) to be the One from whom everything/everyone emanates. Then He is also called param-ishvara i.e. the Supreme Controller. He possesses six opulences in full (i.e. infinite) viz. strength (i.e. He possesses all the energies), fame (no one in material world or spiritual world has more fame), wealth (He is the possessor of everything), knowledge (Absolute knowledge of everything), beauty and renunciation (He is Supremely Independent and everything and everyone else is completely dependent on Him). Srila Prabhupada explains: You said: On what do you base your judgement on; you reject without having any knowledge of those persons. Quite simply either one is a Guru or not; of course there are many false "gurus" (i.e. they are not Gurus at all) but that is not any reason to reject everyone before Jesus. If you believe in Jesus as the one and only Spiritual Master for the eternity then all i will say that this belief is ill-founded.

Dear Vishnu Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam I will try to explain the situation. Firstly, the links are the three which were provided after you posted your original quotes from that site (Jesus went to India... thread). Secondly, these themselves are of dubious nature because they come from Aquarian gospel which most christians themselves do not believe in anyways. A few senior devotees have explained these with the Vedic knowledge, but we should not try such things. We must be like a honey-bee but first we must be qualified to understand what the nectar is. Then the snippets you gave have been interpolated and there is no mention of Vedas or timurti etc. being false in the originals. Instead if you read the second link it says that Jesus read the Vedas in the Jagannath temple and explained their full meanings clearly. All vaishnava Masters already oppose the behaviour of smarta brahmana community which has really digressed from Vedas. But since you have not tried to understand these things your conclusions have been quite wrong. How they have been offensive is simple, though you will not realize it. The quote said and you supported the thesis that Jesus rejected the Vedas, trimurti, etc. in favour of his own conception of God -- from the point of view of one who understands Vedas this means that Jesus rejected God/Krishna because Krishna Himself says that He is the Veda and compiler of Vedanta-Sutra and Vedas talk of God full with six opulences. For the vaishnavas who understand Deity worship this means that Jesus did not even know what Deity worship means, or how is it any different than worshipping a mental conception of unmanifest God (or cross), or that when he says "idols or lesser gods" it means nothing for there is only one God. This means that by presenting this and justifying it you effectively rejected that Jesus was a Guru. And such a conclusion is offensive to both Jesus and Krishna. I have been trying to explain that Truth cannot be have had by reading and pasting things from internet from xyz sites. There are three ways to get there: by Guru, Sadhu and Shastra. Guru has two aspects -- one sad-Guru or external Guru and other chaitya-Guru meaning the Lord in the heart. In the absence of our capability to recognize a Sadhu, or a sad-Guru nor being able to clearly listen to chaitya-Guru the way to understand a spiritual discipline is to read its authorized books and practise it which is particularly true of the Vaishnava philosophy. Without practising it for some time it is not possible to understand it. Then the way to do it is to read Sri Ishopanishad, booklets like Perfect Questions and Perfect Answers, Bhagavad-Gita as it is, Srimad-Bhagavatam in that order before going to Chaitanya-Charitamrta, Brahma-Samhita etc. (all these are available in the books section of this site) and try and practise it. It takes some time particularly with the vaishnava disciplines. (there are many unauthorized and incorrect translations of Gita floating around, so if you want to read from Krishna-Consciousness point of view you will need to get this version) So the questions from your side should have been of the kind of trying to understand verses or meanings from scriptures or the practise/philosophy, rather than comparing status of scriptures or trying to find errors in them using quotes from here and there. You should realize that there are many-many quotes which can show the multitude of errors in Bible but that will hardly serve any purpose. I sincerely want you to be successful in your endevour and find all the pearls i have found and more, but there is a procedure for this which will show our sincerity. The only thing that is wanted is to leave this "quotes from websites" thing and read the authorized books instead, and then everyone will be happy.

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam Please ignore these ghostji's who do not even care to sign their names. They clearly have their own ideas and do not even know what is spiritual, that spiritual means Krishna and so is all pervading etc and will continue debating to the end of the universe. I consider it highly improper that for one or two of ghostji's the other devotees should be bereft of the association of all others. I would like all the devotees who agree to simply ignore such posts. Thanks. All sincere devotees are only getting "headaches" out of such discussion. I have taken Max prabhuji's advise to completely refrain from answering to junk posts whether by some christians or by some guests who claim to be in KC. In particular i would love to hear from you.

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranams to all the devotees Kristji posts about his life changing event, and some guestji tears it apart for having ever uttered the word spiritual. In the case of Vishnu i am largely responsible for having thought of him as someone wanting to learn. Anyway, my request to all would be to return to more meaningful level -- discussing Krishna /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam I seriously doubt if you believe what you write or just doing this for the sake of it. You mean to say that neophytes worshipping Krishna or chanting Mahamantra etc. is not spiritual but a mundane activity. Or you mean that dreams of Krishna are mundane if for neophyte/intermediate devotee. First you said that the result of this event in taking up KC was spiritual, then you say that only pure devotees can be connected to spiritual realm at all. Care to explain how was the result spiritual when you say that spiritual can only be for pure devotees. You brought the humble thing up. That is a different question. But if he has seen Lord Shiva (whether hallucination or for real) who has asked him to take to KC then it is spiritual for it is directly connected to God (remember whatever is connected to Me is real and other things are unreal ?? remember Krishna Name, etc. are spiritual etc.). Taking Krishna's Name or thinking of Krishna while awake or asleep is a spiritual activity, not mundane -- okay. But what is your point. Why are you interested in increasing the pages of this pointless discussion? (other than saying to Kristji that you are in delusions and need to learn many things)

Hare Krishna Dear Vishnu, your click-paste game has gone too far now. You have not bothered to visit the links i provided to you earlier which have the original versions of these texts (the accuracy of whom itself are very doubtful) and then used this plagarised version which you have picked from some Christian propaganda site and unscrupulously pasted here to claim false gods etc. The originals are completely different, and in any case these themselves are very doubtful because they come from Aquarian gospel or something. You will need to do a lot of research to find the originals which are in some lhasa monastary and no longer exist. I tried to help you to the best of my ability, but your intentions are clearly different than trying to learn the Truth or Krishna-Consciousness philosophy. You indulge in blasphemy of both Jesus and Krishna though, of course, since you have tried to show the superiority of Jesus you will be very happy and think that Jesus will be mighty pleased with you but you do not recognise the fact that it just maybe completely opposite. You presented everything and everyone in poor light by your words, and there is nothing more i can do for you -- sorry.

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam You have advised to take initiation when he doesn't know who is a Spiritual Master, what is meant by accepting a Spiritual Master, what means surrendering to him and how to find a Spiritual Master. This unneccessary overhaste in such matters is very dangerous. He has said already that he reads both Bible and Bhagavad-Gita and is trying to find the Truth. He has made some strange-sounding statements, but why jump to opposite conclusions.

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam And you should not consider your coming to this forum as a coincidence too. Precisely, and that is why there is no question of finite sins causing infinite suffering. And only the Vedic position corresponds with this statement correctly; whatever the actions one shall reap the fruits proportionately (good/bad) in heaven/hell and whatever the state of consciousness we develop we shall attain in next lifetime. Judgement means proportionate judgement not infinite punishment for finite wrong-doings. God is our so dear Friend that He has been following us since time immemorial as the SuperSoul fulfilling all our desires, and as soon as we in sincerity turn towards Him, He personally paves our way to Him, though small as we are cannot see this. Depth of sin etc. does not matter since this material world has been designed to ultimately bring us to Him; He has been waiting patiently and patiently in the meantime. It is like a child forgetting his father wanting to play a game with his brothers becomes engrossed in the game maybe getting bruised in the meantime and when he tires of it, remembers the father who takes him without delay. Our vision being very small and limited cannot see this perfect arrangement of the Lord designed to take us to Godhead sooner or later -- this is His special mercy. I will burden you with an online version of Sri Ishopanishad with purports by Srila Siddhaswarupananda. It is smaller, and will be nice to read both and just see how the Spiritual Masters convey the same things in different ways. Actually due to our material vision we start comparing Spiritual Masters as big or small (who is actually a Spiritual Master is another matter though) but they are one and the same. Here: http://www.geocities.com/mahaksadasa/18p.html p.s. which version of Bhagavad-Gita do you have; there are many versions which give incorrect translations/purports trying to impose their own philosophy.

Dear Vishnu Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam This has given me much satisfaction. Just like the Lord is called bhakta-vatsala meaning overly protective of His devotees, similiarly the devotees are very protective of their Lord and oppose any inappropriate words for the Lord. My outburst was with good intentions only, for it appeared to me that you have some conception (as regards Lord Buddha) which could be problematic for yourself; so please forgive me if you were hurt by it. Point is that those clothes are of completely different kind and they will not resemble the clothes the monk was wearing on the earth. When a soul with the subtle body enters the hellish planets (of which there are many and 28 different kinds have been described in the Bhagavatam) it will take on a body appropriate for that hell just like we take a body on earth, and so its clothes cannot be same (or look the same) as those worn on earth.Anyway forget it, it a very minor point. Since you have not placed your faith in this NDE discussing this is futile. So maybe this only explains what eternity is and not that anyone remains in hell for eternity. Try to think from deep within; for a limited number of sins God cannot punish infinitely; impossible, not even any normal human will do that what to speak of that all-merciful God. So maybe eternity of hell in Bible means only much longer times as compared to earth and not infinite Time. But how can it be fair if so many humans have not even got a chance to know about Him what to speak of loving Him. If someone does not even know about God what possibility is there of loving Him. Maybe you were a fortunate one who had love for God since birth, but there are many many who do not have, and do not come to know of a Supreme Controller in their lives. Thing is that according to Vedic texts such persons will attain to that species as they have developed their consciousness and not hell (unless they have committed grave sins and even then remain in hell in proportion to their sins). So why did God not put Satan in the hell for eternity (btw where is he now). And how has that satan got so much influence on the humans, that we have to be so careful of the satan. Why did God allow the influence of Satan to spread and did not completely annihilate it. If God cannot remove influence of satan then the conclusion can only be that satan can indeed compete with the Lord in some way by influencing humans more than God. I empathize with you because i have spent so many years for that too (not through internet at that time though). I had read and practised many spiritual practises and philosophies but was only jumping around like a frog. Interesting was the fact that when i inadvertantly looked in internet, KC was the first thing i found and have never jumped since /images/graemlins/smile.gif Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.8.10 May i suggest you to read Sri Ishopanishad here:http://www.hare-krishna.org/books/isopanisad.zip It is small, and i think you will like it. You may require to install the fonts (here: http://www.hare-krishna.org/v-fonts.zip) first.

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam You are really giving an incorrect advise. Initiation is not a normal material ceremony and means full surrender to the Spiritual Master; it is the most serious thing, additionally because our relation with Spiritual Master is eternal. If we go with the conception of treating Spiritual Master as a means to attain God then we commit offenses because Spiritual Master is directly the representative of God and non-different from Him. If i go and search a Spiritual Master i will most likely end up with a wrong one, because i am imperfect and will most likely be attracted by an imperfect person not knowing who is a pure devotee. When we require a Spiritual Master, are ready for it and pray to sincerely and fervently God for attaining His pure love then He sends a Spiritual Master; not the other way round. We should really read this article by Srila BhaktiSiddhanta Saraswati very carefully: http://www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/bmgs/acaryas/bhaktisiddhanta/writings/initiation.htm How is praying to Lord an incorrect worshipping system? Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has Himself said that Krishna has millions of Names in whom He has invested His transcendental energies. Even otherwise if he is following Jesus Christ, then Jesus is his Spiritual Master (shiksha-guru). Okay don't get started about diksha-guru; i have already said about that above that when the time comes God will come as Spiritual Master.

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam (sorry kristji could not resist /images/graemlins/smile.gif) You sure have an argument for everything and are really compelled to present it without even remotely trying to know the other person. You have to win this argument in any way. Let me play your game. Really? You know what fanaticism is; did you care to first know what "other socalled" spiritual books he is talking about. His statement is perfect; either a book is coming from the spiritual platform or it is not. The "socalled" spiritual books means those that are not spiritual at all. Okay so at least you don't be fanatic and go read books by the mayavadi gurus with great faith ... No anything directly connected with God is spiritual (in a higher sense everything is spiritual because coming from the Supreme Spirit; our misuse and not seeing in relation to God is material). So if he had a vision directly about God where Lord Shiva is talking about Spiritual life, it is spiritual. I guess most devotees will see who needs to be more humble; again do i need to present quotes from Srila Prabhupada and Srimad-Bhagavatam as regards what means by spiritual and what not.

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam Same in what sense? Every jiva is same as Krishna in one sense (i.e. qualitatively same); internal energy of Krishna is also the same as Krishna; even material world is same as Krishna in one aspect (because energy is not different from energetic); Brahman is same as Krishna; Shiva is same as Krishna in one way still different and so on and so forth. To simplify it let me try to illustrate by an example. Suppose there is a King who orders the construction of a temple of the Lord. Then there is his Prime Minister and other ministers who actually chalk out the where/when/how to do it, then the job is assigned to a Chief Engineer who deputes many engineers, and a Chief Architect who designs the temple with help from assistants, and then there are workers etc. So where do you put in Jesus in this scenario. Vague terms like let us create hardly help to understand. Who all are included in the us; what is the role of each in creation. Creation is not a haphzard activity that angels and/or Jesus will do; the realm of each and everyone is precisely defined by the will of the Lord. King is the Father, of course, but He directly does not create; still the temple will be called as having been created by the King. So when you say Vishnu/Krishna creates then it is incorrect, only that creation is by the will of Vishnu and so He creates (indirectly).