karthik_v

Here is what exactly Luke 21:24 says: They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. What is the fact? In 70 CE, the Roman army led by Titus crushed the Jews led by Josephus. Only a few hundred folks were taken as prisoners and that too only to Rome. The rest of the population remained very much in Israel. If the accounts of Josephus are correct, only 2 generals and a total of about 40 warriors were taken prisoners. Hardly any sign of scattering! Looks like the church can only fool those who don't care to check the facts

Long before Jesus was born, assuming that he was born, Jews were scattered all around. They had been driven out of their homeland called Israel many a time before that. Don't you recall as to how Moses brought his people, slave Jews in Egypt, back to their homeland? Scattering of Jews had been a regular feature before and after the time of Jesus. If at all anything was scattered more often, it must be the pollen. So, it doesn't take a messiah, that too son of the God, to predict that the Jews will be scattered. By the way, if the Christians claim that the specific event of 70 CE was predicted by Jesus, then they should show atleast one mention about Jesus, either in history or hagiography, in the period preceding that. There is none. Jesus had not yet been invented by then. He was invented a little later and given a celestial status by St.(really?!) Paul almost a century later.

Before you return to the topic, I would like to make my profound observation here: Those who have dogs as pets have a tendency to either commit suicide or end up having diabetes. Those who have fish, in tanks at home, have almost certainly had a love failure.

The only version of the war results that is extant is that of Josephus, who wrote it for the Romans. So, even by his not so partial and obviously exaggerated account, only 40 odd prisoners were taken. I mentioned a "few hundreds", taking into account the possibility that their families were also imprisoned. Gentiles are non-Jewish folks.

I agree with this observation. One should validate the claims, no matter which religion they belong to. Of course, I would be more concerned with Christianity because of its monetary clout and propaganda machinery. One shouldn't forget that it is the church that, by sheer propaganda, made a "saint" out of a cheap criminal like Mother, my left foot, Teresa.

Perhaps, in a day or two I will present my bhashyam on Purusa suktam. It is nothing abusive like these anti-Hindu folks present. I will also write on Shambhuka's slaying by Rama.

Excellent posts J N Das, Ram and gHari Prabhus. We should not only glorify a pure devotee like Jesus but also there are quite a few Christians who serve in India without motives and without insulting the vedic religion. Arch Bishop Arulappa is one such example. He went public with the statement: "I don't at all believe that Jesus is the only way to realization. I get the same serene feeling when I read the sublime teachings of Krishna as I do when I read the psalms." Vatican vent out its ire is another story. There are also true Christians who really serve in remote villages, though they are a minority. Theist prabhuji, Please read the link I provided and form your own opinions. Please don't be influenced by the documentaries of propaganda. Many American kids grew up believing that the USA nuked Japan only to avoid the death of millions. Remember the slogan? We killed thousands, but saved millions. She raised atleast US $ 190 million till 1993 for MOC Calcutta alone. Where is all that money? What use has it been put to? Please look beyond the apparent and see the truth yourself. It is also a myth that she led a simple life. Despite the fact that there are many good hospitals in India, she always flew into John Hopkins for even minor check ups. That alone cost several millions. She also had a permanent suite for her in JH. She also had a recuperation villa in Zurich. All her simplicity was only for the poor who were denied even the basic medicine.

Theist prabhu, Did you also read through the link I gave you? Have you ever been to/in Calcutta? Have you ever had any personal interaction with MOC apart from reading about Mother, my left foot, Teresa in the media?

Because she was the worst criminal of this century. She amassed money in the name of the poor of Calcutta, but didn't spend anything on them. Instead that money was used by Vatican for undisclosed purposes. She helped the mafia dons launder money. The methodology was simple. Criminals like Marcos will donate a few millions to her. She will, in turn help them invest through Bank of Vatican in benami names. Over time, that transaction will get laundered. Here is a nice starter if you are interested in Mother, my left foot, Teresa: http://website.lineone.net/~bajuu/index.htm My friend has stunning amount of data on her and MOC. He even has copies of the tele fax her MOC sent ordering transfer of funds. I hope that one day I make a nice serial titled: Mother of crimes Teresa. But the problem is how do I get it past the media that is dominated by Brahmins, Christians and leftsists, who have a vested interest in preserving the myth of Mother, my left foot, Teresa? Any suggestions? I seriously suggest that you visit Kalighat sometime and see for yourself.

That is very apt. High reservation in the south has restricted the entry of Brahmins to colleges and they find succour in Christian institutions. Also, the press is dominated by southern Brahmins. Many of these went to Oxford or Cambridge, the very bastions of Christianity and anti-Hinduism, and they are the ones who take up the cudgels in favour of Christian missionaries. These are the very spineless characters who made a saint out of a third rate criminal like Mother my left foot Teresa.

Catholics, Protestants, Pentecoast, SDA, Baptist, Methodist...you name it. The only difference between Catholics and others is that the Catholics don't publish filthy stuff against Hinduis. By filthy stuff I mean use of foul language. Others will print material on why Hindu women worship the giant sized phallus of Lord Siva. Catholics won't stoop to that level. But, they are the most dangerous because of their clout in the government and the media. How many of you have ever wondered as to how a criminal like Teresa has been made into a saint by the media? Catholics own most institutions among the Christians. As J N Das said, Hindus should own up responsibility. How many of us donate for just Hindu causes? When was it last that you are I wrote a check for Ramakrishna mission hospital or Sankara mutt's Hindu mission hospital? Why go that far? When was it last that you and I wrote a check for J N Das, who is feeding the very same poor tribals of Orissa? I am sure that I took my family to eat ice cream last Sunday and spent $ 20, but the thought of J N Das and his poor tribal children never crossed my mind as I relished that 3 scoop sundae. I bet J N Das would have served 100 children with prasadam with that kind of money. Unless we act, the missionaries will rule.

Here is more on the modus operandi of the Christian missionaries: Initially, they land in India with a lot of western funds and set up a small dispensary or school. Indian government accords minority status to Christians and Muslims and their insitutions are paid for by the givernment. The same privilege is not available to the Hindus. In these minority institutions, Christians can employ 50% of their people and only the remaining 50% is thrown open. With government money, the school is built and teachers employed. This is the bait with which they convert the poorest tribals. It is not spiritualism. BTW, caste exists in church very much. For example, in Trichy, Tamilnadu, there are seperate Brahmin Christian congregation. Even their marriages are celebrated with a fire ceremony in the church There are seperate churches for untouchables. It is all money at the end of the day.

Theist prabhuji, Indian society accords less privacy than the US society. So, if you have idols at home, everyone knows of it. I was told that both Catholics and Protestants convert. They also indulge in vicious campaigns against Hinduism. They teach the poor that Hindu scriptures advocate untouchability. Then they entice them with money. An Oriya friend of mine, a courageous and glorious human being and a wonderful devotee of Lord Jagannatha, once threw a cart load of Bible into the gutter. The missionaries had them for free distribution. He warned them that they would be stripped naked if they ever again came in his sight. They ran away. At that time I thought that he was very crude. Now I think that he was right.

A concerned friend of mine was explaining yesterday that the Christian missionaries, with huge funds, are converting many villagers in Orissa who are poverty-stricken. He said that there are villages where you won't find a Hindu. Can someone with experience in Orissa [J N Das perhaps] throw some light on this?

The very essense of the teaching of BG is that you are not this body but the eternal spirit soul. BG also teaches that a realized devotee treates everyone as equals. Much of the inequality is due to material contamination and is directly linked to economic aggrandizement. When you even attempt becoming spiritual, you start looking at the other person as a devotee and not as a rich or poor fellow. So, spiritualism is a great leveller. How do you react when someone disrespects you? That depends on your level and the situation. Most of us are materially contaminated and not spiritual. So, our reactions will be material too. Most of us who would flex our muscles at a poor devotee like J N Das who is toiling in Orissa, would eat the humble pie if a boss at work insults us. This will continue till we become spiritually realized. You should draw your lines as to what you will consider as an insult you can't put up with. Then react in such a way that will prevent recurrence of such insults. As another person said, read BG as that will help form a clear conception. You may even become detached from material problems as I have

What has your post got to do with the title? I am a little weak in de-encrypting Why should anyone be respected just because he is rich or powerful? Kuchela was neither rich nor powerful, yet Krishna treated him as his dearest friend. When Srila Prabhupad came to the USA, he treated even hippies with utmost respect if they showed the slightest inclination to become Krishna conscious. On the other hand, he turned away quite a few rich and influential persons, though respectfully, if they didn't display that inclination. We can also see this from the examples of saints from other schools. The Paramacarya of Kanchi mutt once turned away Indira Gandhi refusing to see her as she had sinned. Realized souls treat everyone as equal - so says Krishna in Bhagavad Gita. They don't accord respect to someone just because of his social status. The only status that matters to them is one's spiritual status.

That is a powerful and valid argument. I agree that this certainly exposes ALB's basic premise as flawed. Also, my earlier response that multiple paths to realization can also be found in SU negates ALB's basic premise. Can you write more on how the successive verses are linked to present a series? Perhaps, you or others can present the writings of Sankara and other Vaishnava or GV acaryas in this specific regard.

Ram prabhu, Reproducing below what I had posted earlier. Does this not mean that the realization attained, that is Brahman realization as found from 5:24-5:28, the highest? Another request - can you please use quotes, bold and italics to improve readability. That helps in long posts.

Actually, nobody can nullify the effects of karma, good or bad, by himself. That is why you need the mercy of the guru. When you surrender to a bonafide guru and get accepted by him, your past karma is taken by the guru and you are freed from its reactions. You are still prone to accumulate karma in the future by performing fruitive actions. That is why Krishna says in BG that you should dovetail even your material activities in service of Krishna. By doing so, you are not attached to any material action, but act under the guidance of the guru. That is the only way to be free from karmic reactions. It is not that you can do anything, but the guru takes your karma away. One more thing. Even after complete surrender to the guru, you may still suffer due to prarabdha karma. Srila Prabhupad gives the anology of a fan that still rotates for a while even after being switched off. Like that, you may be fully surrendered to the guru and act 100% by his directions. Yet, due to your prarabdha karma, you may still suffer. But if you are fixed steadily in bhakti yoga, material suffering or pleasure makes no difference to you. Your suffering then, is only in the perception of this world. In Mahabharat, Bhisma was lying on a bed of arrows. The world might have thought that he was suffering, but he was oblivious to that. Srila Prabhupad, set out to the USA in a cargo ship at the age of 70. On his way, he had 2 heart attacks. In the eyes of the world, he was suffering. Yet, when he arrived in the USA, he didn't go to any hospital. That 70 year old man cooked prasadam for 40-50 people, sang kirtans and taught every bystander who cared to lend his ears, the beauty of Krishna bhakti. He was oblivious to the pain caused by the 2 heart attacks. So suffering and pleasure in the material world are very relative to our level of conditioning. I tend to take a day off from work, if I have a slight cold. For someone surrendered unto a guru, there is no suffering.

Shvu, Thanks for the references. I will go through them. Ram, I don't know from where you got the idea that ALB was using Sankara's commentary. He doesn't. Like many indologists and philologists, he also holds the view that Sankara distorted grammar and lexicon to establish his line. It was I who asked Shvu for Sankara's commentary so that we can get another perspective apart from SP's.

I think A L Basham attempted that too. He doesn't find any reference to BG in any tradition or scripture before 7th century CE. Nor does he find any commentary on BG before this period. I also pointed out that BG doesn't find any mention at all in the writings of Azhwars and Nayanmars either. This has led some indologists to declare that BG was authored sometime around 7th century CE. Basham takes a differing view. He says that it was authored around the 2nd century BCE. He has given a few reasons for that. I don't buy into them and I will address them later on, but thought of sharing this with you. There is also another school of indologists who maintain that BG gained ascendency only in the post Sayanacarya era, that is after 14th century CE. They point out that only 4 commentaries were written to BG before that. There is a different school of indologists, I think it includes many contemporary Harvard professors including Edwin Bryant, who believe that BG was authored and completed certainly before the time of Buddha, that is 6th century BCE, as it shows no knowledge of Buddhism. Has any member come across any reference to BG in the older treatises in Tamil, Sanskrit or Pali?

In his introduction to the 10th canto of SB, this is what Srila Prabhupad writes: Chapter Thirty contains forty-four verses, describing how the gopis, being separated from Krsna, went mad and began to wander in the forest in search of Him. The gopis met Srimati Radharani, the daughter of King Vrsabhanu, and they all wandered on the bank of the Yamuna searching for Krishna. I have not read that chapter, so some knowledgeable devotee may comment. But I have read a couple of indologists also mention that Radha exists in an insignificant manner in SB. GV acaryas have differed with this perception and Jiva Goswami states that Radha is actually the ahadilini shakti of Krishna, which I understand, means that She is inseperable from Krishna, though not mentioned by name. Shvu, you had once posted a link to Sankara's commentary on BG. I lost it. Can you please post it again? Thank you for the response on BG recensions. Which book contains more information on this?

Why should an indologist accept either advaita or Vaishnava point of view? He is free to approach the book empirically. Many great kings and even acarya's have been addressed as Bhagavan. For example, Jaina texts refer to many Tirtankaras as Bhagavan, though they are only gurus. So, just because Krishna is saluted as Bhagavan, Bhashyam need not accept His divinity. In RV, Indra is also called the maintainer of people. Likewise, many titles like Purandara that are used for Siva and later Krishna too, have also been used for Indra. Sage Tiruvalluvar addresses a just king as the maintainer of vedas. So, that title alone doesn't establish divinity. Divinity of Krishna is established in many other chapters of BG, but not in the first two. We see that surrender to the guru in Buddhism and Jainism too and they have no bhakti at all. Don't worry, he died in 1986

Also, if you see the writings of Kanchi Paramacarya, he glorifies Narayana all the time and guides people to worship Narayana and Tulasi devi. Since this is recommended by a highly conservative and traditional advaita school, it is obvious that bhakti is the most critical vehicle in virtually every school, be it Vaishnava or Advaita.

May be there is truth in all systems. Since we live in a 3 dimensional world, our perception is limited to our understanding of this limited reality. Rg veda says that the hymns of the vedas exist at 4 levels and only one can be understood even by the seers. So, the argument that the Supreme has both the personal and impersonal aspects is correct. Personally, I find the path of bhakti yoga more enjoyable and easy to follow. Even advaitins cannot do without bhakti. For most part, a neophyte is better off following the teachings of a bonafide acarya with whom he is most comfortable with. It is very essential to resolve philosophical doubts, but it is best not to get into an argumentative mood. Then, don't ask me if I am the right person to tender this advice