Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by suchandra


    Going by Vedic chart, He has capricorn as rising if the time 19:24 is correct. This way the only grand feature would be exalted moon in 5th?


    If you study Obama's personality it should be clear that he has not Capricorn rising.


    This nobody understands how they even call this vedic chart, something what is totally obvious, Ascendant identification.


    His Mercury is Lion, element Fire, his Ascendant is Aquarius, element Air. Air is heating up Fire, in this way you understand why he is a good speaker.


    With Capricorn rising and Mercury in Cancer he would never stand at the lectern, rather take a back seat - being of introverted and withdrawn character.

  2. Ok, three pics were deleted by the moderators and a wrong link added.

    So, I try to just post one.



    "When we are talking about something unusual then how can we think that China’s name won’t be there in the list. Therefore, here are huge potatoes from Jiangsu, China. Each weighs 31 k"

  3. This is modern China, right after a huge milk scandal they present "new" vegetables - healthy potatoes from Jiangsu, China, see below - each weighs 30 kilos.

    Gigantic sprouts reared by a little boy.

    Commenting, this is done by farmer Joe Public and small children.

    Looks rather like a coup of the Genlab mafia.


    Gigantic Vegetable Show

    Disha Singh

    Sometimes you may see a giant crop in your farm or at times, you make giant crop with the help of hybrid. Imagine if your kitchen garden produces such huge pieces then? I think you will definitely change your mind to grow vegetables there and opt for farm.


    A giant cabbage weighing 85-pound is being carried to Alaska’s fair at Palmer.


    Hold on this is not a cabbage but Brussels sprouts. It is typically 2.5-4 cm diameter and here you can see the oversized sprout in the kid’s hand. It weighs 0.68 kg (1.5 lb), which is 50 times heavier than the average sprout. This Sprout was naturally growing in the garden of Carol Farley, a 41-year-old market gardener, in Devon, UK.


    When we are talking about something unusual then how can we think that China’s name won’t be there in the list. Therefore, here are huge potatoes from Jiangsu, China. Each weighs 31 kg.



    Tags: Huge Cabbage, Huge Brussels Sprouts, Huge Potatoes, Lifestyle




    If abortion were to be finally made illegal, they would lose a large part of their base. They would be left only with racists, gun nuts and hunters, millionaires and Bible-thumpers (who would ban any religion except their own) to be their core supporters. It is my opinion that the Republicans do not care about abortion, but use the issue to "fire up" their minions. As a recent example, witness the ranting of Sarah Palin.



    Probably another topic, where does abortion exactly start?


    Guess abortion does NOT start when a girl walks into an abortion clinic to get her baby removed because she was raped by an unknown criminal.


    Abortions starts when leaders of a nation establish illicit sex and intoxication as part of social life.


    In other words, abortion clinics are the tip of the iceberg but not its cause.


    Excellent understanding. Also I agree with you that Obama is good for the world, I am reminded of the 1960 elections...

    As soon a president of the United States doesnt do what the tycoons are telling him he will be assassinated. At least this should be clear.


    I wrote at another post, concerning Barack Obama's birth chart:




    He has Aquarius Ascendant and Sun in 6, Saturn, ruler of his chart in 12, Mercury in Lion. In other words, Obama is not a doer, man of action, but a subordinate, someone who receives orders and enforces these orders to the people, Mercury in Lion.

    Could be you find him always carrying with him four or more mobile phones.


    Since he has Neptune in 9, Saturn and Jupiter in 12, he is very receptive for spiritual knowledge, the devotees should preach to him like anything.

    Especially about the law of karma.


    It's already in ISKCON internal.


    So why is this in Spiritual discussions?


    Silly question. What is more important Spiritually than the Spiritual Welfare of a Great Spiritual teacher like H.H. Jayapataka Maharaj - just look at the amount of views this thread has had! I think that speaks for itself.


    Hare Krsna. All glorious to Jayapataka Swami Maharaj


    No, Jaypataka Swami is not a spiritual teacher for all since he rejects and bans those who see Prabhupada as current spiritual master.

    He is an ISKCON guru for his followers but not a guru for others.


    Well he has a very strong chart. As usual he is a Libra Ascendant. It seems that over 50 % of famous people I have seen are Libras. He has a Sasha yoga, a great person's chart for Saturn which is in its own Sign of Capricorn. Saturn is also YogaKaraka for Libra.


    He has Sun in the 10th, Mars w/ Rahu in the 11th, an exalted moon. His chart shows a very fine individual with a strong mind and good heart.


    Jupiter is the only weak planet, debiliated in 4th house. Still, a debilitated planet in an angle with such a powerful Saturn can "turn around" and act very strong. Obama is currently in such a Jupiter cycle.


    So, overall it is quite a different chart than Bush's which has a very malevolent Saturn in the 1st house of Cancer and one of the main reasons America suffered so much the last 8 years.


    I hope his term brings great fortune and success.


    - Pablo



    He has Aquarius Ascendant and Sun in 6, Saturn, ruler of his chart in 12, Mercury in Lion. In other words, Obama is not a doer, man of action, but a subordinate, someone who receives orders and enforces these orders to the people, Mercury in Lion. Could be you find him always carrying with him four mobile phones.


    Since he has Neptune in 9, Saturn and Jupiter in 12, he is very receptive for spiritual knowledge, the devotees should preach to him like anything.

    Especially about the law of karma.

  8. Clear indicator what will happen soon.


    India seeks 'velvet divorce' from Iran



    By M K Bhadrakumar – Asia Times November 5, 2008



    Amid the rubble of the Middle East policy of the George W Bush-Ehud Olmert duo, there has been a true success story. The United States and Israel have largely succeeded in snatching India from the "other" side of the Middle Eastern geopolitical divide. This became evident more than once in the past week.


    On October 26, US forces based in Iraq attacked the Syrian border village of Sukkaryiah. The attack triggered outrage regionally. Even the Arab League, which has an ambivalent attitude toward Damascus, felt compelled to condemn Washington. But Delhi looked away. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who paid a five-day visit to India in June - the first visit by a Syrian head of state in more than three decades - must be bemused why Delhi didn't say at least what was so patently obvious, namely, it is wrong to violate the territorial integrity of a sovereign country.


    Only in June had an Indian spokesman claimed that Assad's visit "further consolidated the excellent relations that exist between India and Syria and identified new areas of bilateral cooperation".


    This dichotomy in India's diplomacy with regard to the Muslim Middle East - excellent photo opportunities not quite translating as official policy and ultimately degenerating as publicity exercises in the competitive environment of Indian politics - was again on display during the weekend visit to Tehran by Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, from October 31 to November 2.




    Kashmir issue in focus


    Mukherjee's visit was badly timed. Only a few weeks had passed since Delhi hosted two visits by the Israeli and US army chiefs, Avi Mizrahi and George Casey, to the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir in a clear policy departure from past practice. The visits marked a quantum leap in US-Israel-India security cooperation. It provoked some sharp comments in the official Iranian media - about Delhi opening the door to Israeli and US involvement in the "Kashmir problem" against the backdrop of the Islamic militancy in the adjoining Pakistani tribal areas and in Afghanistan.


    Just four days before Mukherjee arrived in Tehran, the Tehran Times newspaper, which is credited with reflecting Iranian thinking, featured an article roundly condemning the Indian stance on the Kashmir issue. Titled "The Black Day of Kashmir - 61 years of pain", the article was ostensibly meant to coincide with the anniversary of the Indian military intervention in Kashmir on October 27, 1947, which it called "one of the darkest chapters in the history of South Asia".


    The article amounted to an unvarnished endorsement of the Pakistani point of view. It said, "India continues to defy the world by denying Kashmiris their inalienable right to determine their destiny ... The atmosphere of tension in India-Pakistan relations has engendered instability and insecurity in South Asia. The urgency of the situation and the need to resolve the dispute as soon as possible cannot be over-emphasized ... The world's Muslims will always stand by the Kashmiris until they succeed in their struggle to attain the right to self-determination."


    The lengthy article recalled Iran's "deep-rooted spiritual and cultural bonds with the people of Kashmir" and went on to fondly underscore that in Tehran, Kashmir is known as "Little Iran" - Kashmir-Iran-e-saghir.


    Such rhetoric on the eve of a foreign minister-level visit from India hardly served the purpose of a "curtain-raiser", except to warn Delhi in advance that it cannot be business as usual in Iran-India relations and that the chill in bilateral ties and the dissipation of mutual understanding must not be lightly taken as a mere hiccup.


    Simply put, if Delhi's intention was to project a semblance of normalcy in India's relations with Iran and to create a favorable impact thereby on Muslim opinion in India, Tehran decided it would not play ball.


    Washington and Tel Aviv must be quietly chuckling. Up until some three years ago, there was a constant refrain in India-Iran political exchanges - that their relationship constituted a factor of peace and stability in the region. But the mantra was completely lacking in the pronouncements of the two sides during Mukherjee's visit. The two countries are drifting apart.




    Indian naval deployment


    Mukherjee candidly admitted that "in this changing context, we need to look at India-Iran relations afresh". Indeed, that "context" is dramatically changing. A fortnight before the visit, Delhi deployed for the first time ever a warship in the Persian Gulf region, which will operate in close coordination with the Western navies under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the region.


    Mukherjee assertively said in Tehran, "India has a natural and abiding stake in the safety and security of the sea lanes of communication from the Malacca Strait to the Persian Gulf."


    But Delhi didn't consult Tehran beforehand. Delhi instead approached Oman for assistance in berthing facilities for its warship. Tehran, meanwhile, views the Western naval deployments in the Persian Gulf with alarm. Last week, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mohammadi criticized the expansion of NATO to the east and called on regional governments to "distance themselves from competitive and hostile policies".


    Tehran would have most certainly noted Delhi's decision to host a large-scale naval exercise with the US along India's western coast in late October in which the nuclear-powered American aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan and US nuclear submarines and frigates participated. Iran has since announced the opening of a new naval base in the southern port of Jask in the eastern part of the Strait of Hormuz. According to the chief of the Iranian navy, Admiral Habibollah Sayari, "With this new naval base, a new line of defense was created in the Persian Gulf. If necessary, we can prevent any enemy from entering the Persian Gulf's strategic area."


    Sayari announced that Iran proposed to build yet another naval base to establish "an impenetrable line of defense at the entrance to the Sea of Oman". He added, "If the enemy goes insane, we will drown them at the bottom of the Indian Ocean and the Sea of Oman before they reach the Strait of Hormuz and the entrance to the Persian Gulf." Curiously, the Iranian announcement coincided with the consultations of Indian National Security Advisor M K Narayanan in Oman regrading an Indian proposal that the sultanate provide berthing facilities for the Indian warship deployed in the region.


    Though Mukherjee's visit to Tehran ended on Sunday, it has not yet been revealed whether President Mahmud Ahmadinejad received him. A call on the Iranian president - and, perhaps Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei - was customary for visiting Indian foreign ministers in the halcyon days of the India-Iran strategic partnership. In another sign of the change in the Iranian mood, Tehran "downgraded" the Joint Economic Commission with India. Mottaki is no longer its co-chairman, as is the practice with Iran's other major interlocutors and partner countries.


    Thus, a series of icebergs has been lately slicing through the hull of the Titanic that used to be the grand old India-Iran "strategic partnership". A disaster was waiting to happen ever since India voted against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency three years ago following US President George W Bush's entreaties with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.




    Pipedream of energy cooperation


    At the root of it lies unprecedented US-Israeli interference in India's Iran policy. Such interference is nothing new since the early 1990s, when Delhi established diplomatic relations with Israel. Delhi skillfully navigated the relationship with Iran, despite the robust growth of ties with Israel on a parallel track.


    However, things began changing three to four years ago as Indian foreign policy in the region began getting more "security-centric" and Israel was elevated as a pivotal relationship. Today, in the Iranian perception, Delhi's avowal that it is capable of buttressing the India-Iran relationship from the predatorial skill of US and Israeli diplomacy lacks credibility.


    Tehran used to respect India's perceived political will to retain its autonomy of action and thinking on regional issues. That confidence seems to have evaporated. Mottaki forcefully pleaded with Mukherjee that the two countries should focus on a relationship that served their "real interests" rather than fall into the "conspiracies of foreign powers" which hatch "mischief aimed at sowing discord" in Iran-India relations.


    The litmus test is the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project. It is obvious that Delhi is dragging its feet on the project, despite its great potential to boost India's energy security - all because of US and Israeli pressure. Tehran finds itself in a dilemma. No doubt it is keen to partner with India in the project, but Tehran realizes that political will is lacking in Delhi.


    At the same time, Tehran cannot cut out India altogether as it estimates it is only logical that some day soon, under a different leadership in Delhi, India will revert to this project in its compelling self-interest. The Iranian frustration showed when Oil Minister Gholamhossein Nozari told the media soon after Mukherjee concluded his visit, "Considering that we have lost many opportunities in the 'peace pipeline' project due to India's procrastination, we have told that country to engage more actively."


    The US$7.5 billion, 2,700-kilometer pipeline has been in discussion for almost two decades. The pipeline is to begin from Iran's Assalouyeh energy zone in the south and stretch over 1,100 kilometers through Iran. In Pakistan it is to pass through Balochistan and Sindh before linking up Rajasthan and Gujarat in western India.




    Strategy toward Afghanistan


    Again, the geopolitics of the region dictate that Delhi and Tehran explore the frontiers of a common strategy towards Afghanistan at a time when the Taliban's resurgence is apparent and its induction by the US into a coalition government in Kabul in the not-too-distant future appears highly probable. Mukherjee could have conceivably utilized the visit for such purpose.


    The Iranian side indeed appeared keen for purposeful dialogue on Afghanistan. But Delhi isn't willing. The priority in the Indian mindset is to harmonize its regional policies with the US (and Israel) as regards the "war on terror". That includes Delhi's Afghan policy.


    The powerful chairman of Iran's Expediency Council and former president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, told Mukherjee, "Resolving the current crisis in Afghanistan requires extensive cooperation between Iran, India and Pakistan. This cooperation can bring tranquility to the region ... The experience of the Soviet Union in this country [Afghanistan] shows that the path the West is now treading in Afghanistan will not yield the desired results. The signs that are currently observed in Afghanistan show that the West is not capable of resolving the problems of this country."


    Mukherjee responded, "No country outside the region can find a solution to the problems of regional countries and the regional states themselves should resolve the problems through cooperation with each other." He added that India, Iran and Pakistan could play "important roles in regional events" and their cooperation would "help establish peace and stability" in the region.


    The Indian timidity is despite the fact that India and Iran were staunch allies supporting the anti-Taliban alliance until the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Delhi would be aware that Tehran has sharply reacted to the current US, British, Saudi and Pakistani efforts to accommodate the Taliban. Actually, the Indian and Iranian positions have striking similarity insofar as neither thinks there is anything conceivable as "good Taliban". Yet, Delhi shies from coordinating with Tehran lest it tread on US-Israeli sensitivities.




    The Obama factor


    So far so good. But what happens if a Barack Obama presidency moves toward normalization of relations with Iran? Indeed, Russia and China seem to be getting ready for such an eventuality. Iran's admission into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as a full member has now become a certainty, with both the Russian and Chinese prime ministers affirming their support of the Iranian candidacy. Iran has been offered membership of the Black Sea Union. Russia is forming a gas cartel with Iran. (The SCO comprises China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.)


    Above all, Delhi will face a new situation if Obama revisits the "war on terror". As well-known Lebanese commentator Rami Khouri thoughtfully wrote, "US-backed governments in half a dozen countries are losing their battles and political confrontations with Islamist-led indigenous oppositions, and have to form national unity governments or explore other means of power ... The American-Afghan tentative move to engage the Taliban politically is ... a welcome sign that Washington is finally learning the value of seeing and resolving conflicts in their wider local and regional context. We may well see something similar happen in Iraq, including American-Iranian-Saudi-Syrian contacts in the near future."


    During his visit to Tehran, Mukherjee characterized the Persian Gulf as India's "proximate neighborhood", but there is no evidence Delhi has thought through its Middle East policy against the backdrop of impending shifts and realignments in the geopolitics of the region. Creative diplomacy lies in keeping all options open at a time of extreme volatility in regional politics.


    On the other hand, it is a measure of the success of the US-Israeli diplomacy in recent years that Delhi increasingly finds itself at odds with Tehran's growing ambitions as a regional power, whereas sufficient elbow room is available for them to co-exist. There is no real clash of interests between India and Iran. So, ultimately, who is to blame - Washington, Tel Aviv or New Delhi?


    As far as Tehran is concerned, it is countering the US's containment strategy and India's political support is no more an imperative need in the denouement of the Iran nuclear file. Moreover, as Iran's engagement by the West advances, Tehran will have no dearth of partners for energy cooperation. Least of all, the Gulf Cooperation Council states themselves are seeking accommodation with Iran and, arguably, they won't need India as a "balancer". The net result is that any weakening of India's strong ties with Iran at the present juncture can only debilitate Delhi's overall foreign policy in the Persian Gulf region in the critical period that lies ahead.


    Delhi may ruffle feathers not only in Tehran but in regional capitals too - apart from Islamabad - if it presses ahead with the claim to be the pre-eminent power between the Persian Gulf and the Malacca Strait.


    The Persian Gulf is a tough neighborhood and any grandstanding will not pass unnoticed. With only a fortnight to go for Manmohan to pay his first-ever visit to Saudi Arabia, Riyadh abruptly sought a postponement. If there is any political symbolism behind the Saudi move, it will surely emerge.




    Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.



  9. Since Srila Prabhupada introduced the term "transcending" others also adopted this word what rises this question, are people fully conscious about the real meaning of transcending?



    source: Iglesia ni Cristo, Central Avenue, 1107 Philippines, Telephone (632) 981-4311

    It is of course encouraging to see that God consciousness is spreading also into regions of voodoo and strongholds of black magic.




    It spurred people on to seek an alternative.

    Thats a good point, unless people see reasonable alternatives they only feel suppressed and will simply develop more and more materialistic solutions how to get along.


    Since materialistic brains can only figure what works right now and mainly what works for me right now, we never get solutions that work successfully in the long term and that work successfully for all people.



    Our leaders may have some good qualities but they are also pigs.





    Agreed, our leaders are basically like animals. Therefore they ultimately can only rule like we see it in the animal kingdom, only the strongest survives.



    Any fool can run for Prime Minister but needs to win a seat in the House of representatives first.


    I would vote for Sarva gattah as Prime Minister in Australia!


    No more fools who officiate as leaders but are in fact sudras.


    It is a sickening thing whereby some people are trying to turn SP words and thoughts 180 degrees around to match their own. It's criminal.:mad2:

    This is very important point. If Prabhupada would have spoken in public like this in order to attract Christians to become Vaishnavas, Prabhupada would have clarified his policy in his books, letters, morning walks, conversations with disciples/guests.


    Especially, when it comes to theological/philosophical questions - the actual situation of succession in Christianity. If there would be something wrong, the succession interrupted, broken, because a succession requires a physical present successor, Prabhupada would have mentioned this in detail.


    And, would have come to the conclusion, since there is no living successor of Jesus, instead only ritviks, officiating priests, the whole Christian religion is cut off and without effect.


    Prabhupada, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja and many others acaryas, like Ramanujacarya, never mention anything like this.


    It should be therefore 100% clear, present policy that we need a living guru to receive genuine diksha is nothing but a concoction of opportunistic Vaishnava institutions, who at the same time walk on thin ice of deriding Lord Jesus by debasing his ritvik system of worship as humbug.


    It is therefore fully valid what Prabhupada says, it is an aparadha to deride Lord Jesus, the first offense while chanting the Holy Name.


    Wishful thinking. Guruvani used to post crap about Jesus being an ape or something.


    Below Prabhupada says, unless one knows things as they are one shouldnt teach. People who say things without actually knowing are cheaters.


    Prabhupāda: You must be sure that whatever knowledge you are giving, that is perfect. Then you are teacher.

    Mr. Wadell: Well, you see, what you are… In that case, I should have to pretend, you see. I would have to pretend to know something which I did not know at all. Then I should be a cheater, wouldn’t I. And that would be wrong. And there must be many things which I do not know.

    Prabhupāda: Yes. It is better to become honest. If I do not know anything perfectly I should not be teacher. That is right thing. And if I have got doubtful knowledge, perhaps, maybe, why shall I be teacher. I should, “No, no I cannot teach. The subject is unknown.” That is our process.

    Mr. Wadell: Yes. I must say that I, there are many things of which I haven’t got knowledge.

    Prabhupāda: Yes, that is going on. That is going on. Therefore people are misled.

    Mr. Wadell: No. I would mislead them more if I said that I knew.

    Prabhupāda: No. No, no. If you do not know, why should you say you knew? That is another cheating.

    Mr. Wadell: How do you mean?

    Prabhupāda: If… When you know…

    Mr. Wadell: Oh, yes, I don’t pretend. If I know something, I say I know, but…

    Prabhupāda: Then you say that…, you say, “I know.”

    Mr. Wadell: But when I do not know something then I admit that I do not know it.

    Prabhupāda: Yes. That admission, that’s all right. But in that case, one should not take the post of the teacher. That is our Vedic injunction. One must know perfectly.

    Mr. Wadell: You may well be right. (laughter) But actually, I think there are many things which, about which knowledge is changing. There are things…

    Prabhupāda: That means cheating.

    Mr. Wadell: I see you have here, certain bits of equipment which didn’t exist…

    Prabhupāda: That is described in the Vedic literature: andhā yathāndhair upanīyamānāḥ: “A blind man is trying to lead other blind men.”

    Mr. Wadell: I suspect that that is as probably very near to the truth of human situation…

    Prabhupāda: Yes. Andhā yathāndhair upanīyamānāḥ. What is the benefit? If I am blind and if there are hundreds of blind men, “All right, come on, I shall…”

    Mr. Wadell: I think we are all partially blind.

    Prabhupāda: No, then there is no question of knowledge. Somebody must be with eyes. He can give knowledge. That is our proposition. As soon as you say blind, there must be somebody with eyes. It is a relative term. It is a relative term. You cannot say, “all are blind.” Then there is no question of blind and with men eyes. As soon as you accept blind man, you must accept the other side, man with eyes.

    Mr. Wadell: Oh, I see. You mean just as you distinguish from white, black because it is different…

    Prabhupāda: Yes, this is relative world.

    Mr. Wadell: I agree, but I am using this in, as an example, not as an absolute description. I think my view—may I explain this—of the whole of which I am, as I say, I think, an imperfect part, a part which is trying to learn something which I am not even quite sure what it is that I am trying to learn…

    Prabhupāda: No, no, this is… You are perfect gentleman, means that you say that “I am imperfect.” That is nice. But our point is that from imperfect man, imperfect knowledge is received. We cannot expect perfect knowledge from imperfect man.

    Mr. Wadell: No. But where does your perfect knowledge come from and how do you recognize it?

    Prabhupāda: Yes, that is very important point, where to get the perfect knowledge. That is wanted. That is intelligence. Therefore the Vedas says, gurum eva abhigacchet: “You go to a guru.” “Guru” means heavy, who knows better than you, or who knows perfect. That is injunction.

    Mr. Wadell: But, you see, this is…

    Prabhupāda: We have to find out, we have to find out who can give the perfect knowledge.

    Mr. Wadell: How do you know that you know? May I ask this? (laughter)

    Prabhupāda: Yes, yes.

    Mr. Wadell: This is the point which, I would find, you know, without disrespect, this is something which is very difficult, whatever kind of faith you have.

    Prabhupāda: It is not the question of faith. Faith may be wrong, belief may be wrong. That perfect knowledge can be received from the perfect source. So God is perfect. God is perfect. And one who follows the path of God, he is also perfect.


    Conversation with Mr. Wadell

    His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

    July 10, 1973, London


    Thanks Suchandra...and by the way I am not the cat. I am the kangaroo...


    Oscar Wilde once said, 'No point me being anyone else, they are already taken.'


    Just me and my dog, and eeepc.

    Since present Vaishnavas are always eager to analyze - what is the highest position?


    In sum, Christians who are worshiping Jesus, a great devotee of the Lord, but are addicted to sinful activity are in a far better position than those who falsely claim to be absolute, liberated representatives of God, Krishna's direct successor.


    Fooling the public to be God's direct representative, Krishna's successor, although not being qualified is most demoniac. Very, very difficult and complicated way of atonement to be finally excused.


    Whereas sinful activity is immediately excused as soon we become fixed up in the four rules and regulations.


    Since there are always two parties, cheater, those who foolishly let it happen to become cheated and those who support the cheating - all are almost in the same category, demoniac.





    <!--//--><hr size="1" noshade="noshade">header_exclusive.gif<hr size="1" noshade="noshade">ELECTION 2008

    Obama: Spike energy costs to make people go 'green'

    2007 interview: Proposes government create 'price signals' to control behavior

    <hr size="1">Posted: November 01, 2008

    7:05 pm Eastern

    By Drew Zahn

    © 2008 WorldNetDaily

    JOHNSTON, Iowa – In a recently publicized video from the Democratic primaries, Sen. Barack Obama said the government should drive energy bills up through "price signals" in order to force Americans into more environmentally friendly choices.

    In the Nov. 9, 2007, interview on Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press," Obama said Americans like driving SUVs and leaving the lights on, but since "it is undisputable that the climate is getting warmer," consumers would have to change their habits.

    When asked what would make consumers change, Obama said government-created "price signals" would make people more mindful of energy costs and compel them to start changing light bulbs and turning off light switches.

    Watch the video documentary, "Global Warming or Global Governance? What the media refuse to tell you about so-called climate change"

    Associated Press reporter Mike Glover asked, "How do you convince people to change their lifestyle, to live differently?"

    Obama's answer, viewable in the video below, was, "I think it is important for us to send some price signals to change behavior. You know, if electricity goes up, people start becoming more mindful of their electricity bill."




    <embed src="

    " type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344">



    When Des Moines Register reporter David Yepsen asked Obama what part of his campaign Americans may not like to hear, the candidate returned to the theme of price signals.

    "Number one, we're going to have to start doing a better job of conserving on energy," Obama said. "Americans like to drive their big SUVs. They like to leave all the lights on in their house. We're going to have to change our habits."

    He then clarified how the government could implement the kind price signals that change consumer habits.

    "We're going to have to cap the emission of greenhouse gases," Obama said. "That means that power plants are going to have to adjust how they generate power. They will pass on those costs to consumers. … A lot of us who can afford it are going to have to pay more per unit of electricity, and that means we're going to have to change our light bulbs, we're going to have to shut the lights off in our houses."

    The full context of Obama's comments about driving up electricity prices to bring about consumer change can be viewed in a second segment of the interview below:



    <embed src="

    " type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344">



    Internet bloggers that began circulating the video earlier today also lent their opinion on Obama's plan for consumer change.

    "Is that the function of government — to fix prices as a punitive measure to change consumer behavior?" asked the Hot Air Blog. "It will be in an Obama administration. He and a few elites will decide which consumer behaviors are bad and penalize it with price signals."

    New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, however, commented in a May editorial on the issue of government-created price signals, arguing that a federal gasoline tax would be just the kind of energy "price signal" that would finally persuade Americans to give up their SUVs.

    "We need to make a structural shift in our energy economy," Friedman wrote. "The only way to get from here to there is to start now with a price signal that will force the change.

    "Barack Obama had the courage to tell voters that the McCain-Clinton summer gas-giveaway plan was a fraud. Wouldn't it be amazing if he took the next step and put the right plan before the American people? Wouldn't that just be amazing?" Friedman wrote.


    Alright, I can accept and appreciate what you're saying Suchandra.

    I still think there are some really good indian preachers out there who excell western white body preachers..

    But I can accept that maybe where you're living the Indian preachers are quite bad and are not good at preaching.


    One thing I'd like to add though, whether it be Indians or white people preaching or indoctrinating - most people are not picking up the chanting of the holy name. At least I have observed where I live.

    When wonderful devotees go out on the street for harinam they mostly get harassed by the public. This to I have observed.


    One person had said to me last weekend in fact "You know why people hate those Hare Krishnas, because they walk up to people on the street and just start telling them they're wrong, everyone gets so pissed off".


    The majority of these book distributors where I live are white bodied ISKCON people, so surely it's not just the Indians who are lacking knowledge in how to preach if the white bodied book distributors are causing such problems to the public.


    Perhaps both the ISKCON indians and white bodied westerners need training in how to preach in order to get people adopting the chanting of the holy names.


    I don't know?

    Thanks Thehat, yes this is correctly analyzed. According desire and quality of work the conditioned soul receives a material body from material nature like a prisoner receives a prison uniform.


    Meanwhile his normal dress is kept in custody and when having served his time in prison and is released he gets his original dress delivered. Now, trying to communicate with prisoners is always a difficult job, some are traumatized, some are revengeful, some are unteachable, some are violent, so many illusions.


    As soon you enter the prison let's say as a jail psychologist, you need a whole university studies in order to properly deal with all those inmates. And still it so happens that sometimes a jail psychologist is being killed or injured for having wrongly assessed someone's character.


    And this is the situation when God consciousness is being spread, the preachers have to carefully study the specific situation in order to expertly present spiritual knowledge so people can accept.


    A common mistake is to immitate - what works in one place might not work somewhere else. Best thing would be to have someone who knows that science. I tried to make the point that when telling people to chant on beads, you can recount for example how this is nothing new in their cultural background but that ancient monks also used to chant on beads.


    And when getting informed about more details, when the monks used to rise from bed etc people might not find it so much outlandishly when being told to chant Hare Krishna.


    Whereas a preacher who doesn't know anything about a nations culture might behave like to indoctrinate and people react with refusal upon indoctrination.


    One more time: Where have I ever said that worship of Jesus is humbug. I've said that humbug "worship" of Jesus is humbug. But whatever you keep repeating I've said is not something I have ever said, here or elsewhere, and your repeating it doesn't make it so.

    It is very difficult to counter a double mill and to get out of a tight spot, now you have chosen to become an advocate of ritvikism, although I remember that you clearly rejected ritvikism. Ritvikism means by officiating priests not by successors it is how Lord Jesus is being worshiped and his mission continued since 2000 years.




    I would like to explore thise quote of yours from above. I may not understand how you meant it. I see two ways it might mean. One is that it is just useless to pray unless we pray wihout motivation which is how I originally took it. But now I think you may be meaning from looking down from the eternal plane such motivated prayers may be useless because they are not purely meant for krisna's satisfaction.


    Similar to

    the wrong church idea from above. It only became "the wrong place" once you had found something better. I see a similarity in motivated prayer. Once liberated from material conception Gajendra would have also seen it useless to pray for the crocidile to let go of his elephant bodies leg.


    Self-motivated prayer is present in everyone, including SP disciples.

    It is rather impossible that Babhru doesn't know exactly what he's doing.


    He says, yes, Prabhupada is right, Jesus is a great devotee of the Lord who does nothing but to glorify the Lord.


    But then he says, no, Lord Jesus cannot give diksha.


    Did any great acarya of our sampradaya ever say this?


    Worship of Jesus is humbug since the succession is cut off?


    No great acarya of the Brahma-Madhava-Gaudiya sampradaya ever offended and attacked the giving of diksha directly through Lord Jesus so badly as presented herewith by Babhru.


    Babhru thus represents the inner conflict and ambivalence of present Vaishnava institutions who concocted the idea that only physically present gurus can bestow diksha.

  • Create New...