karthik_v

Franklin Graham has stated the obvious; though most would be circumspect about stating that. I have read Quran for a while and there are many verses that denigrate the followers of other faiths and urge Muslims to attack them. What else is this if not a call for terrorism? Neither do we find exemplary behaviour in the life that Mohammad lead. His conduct was not that befitting a moral human being, leave alone a sage. The only justification for his lifestyle has been that he acted in ordance to the will of Allah. To me that is baloney. We cannot accept somebody just on blind faith. If someone is a chosen messenger of the Lord, why can't he even live upto the standards that normal men meet? There is one possibility that the real Mohammad and Quran are different from what we know of today. Quran was written 30 years after Mohammad was gone and the Hadiths were compiled 250 years later. So, there is scope for a lot of interpolation; but we cannot presume that. Going by what is prsented as the life and teachings of Mohammad, they are not worth emulating or following. Srila Prabhupad hailed Jesusoften; but I didn't come across an instance where he praised Mohammad or Quran directly.

Isn't this Kalki Bhagavan you are mentioning the same one a.k.a. Vijay Kumar who used to work for an insurance company before he became God? Isn't he the same one who went into hiding after being threatened with the possibility of an arrest? I am sorry if we are talking of 2 different people. Nevertheless, Kalki avatar is yet to manifest. It will manifest only at the end of Kali yuga. This yuga is just 5000 years old and has a long way to go before Kalki avatar incarnates. So, anyone claiming as Kalki avatar is bogus.

Among the Srutis Bhagavad Gita is the only one which is extant and complete. Virtually all schools of Sanatana dharma accept Bhagavad Gita. So, it would be safe to conclude that any debate on Sanatana dharma should be based on Bhagavad Gita. If we take a stance and if it can be supported unequivocally with reference to Bhagavad Gita, then we are on the right track.

Among the Srutis Bhagavad Gita is the only one which is extant and complete. Virtually all schools of Sanatana dharma accept Bhagavad Gita. So, it would be safe to conclude that any debate on Sanatana dharma should be based on Bhagavad Gita. If we take a stance and if it can be supported unequivocally with reference to Bhagavad Gita, then we are on the right track.

That is an excellent point by J N Das. The goal of any vedic process is to attain the abode of Krishna (if you follow personal conception of the God) or Brahman (if you are an impersonalist. In other words, the central theme of vedic scriptures is spiritualism, which is beyond material things. So, it makes more sense for us to follow a bonafide acarya and pursue spiritual growth. On the other hand, if we try to explain vedic scriptures from a material perspective, trying make it synchronize with modern science, our attempts are fraught with danger.

Hari bol Satyaraja Prabhu, That is a nice topic. So, let us define the parameters for discussing the same. When we talk of sanatana dharma, what should be our basis? Should we base our arguments on shrutis, in which case, we are faced with the handicap that only 6 percent of the shrutis are extant? Or should we base our arguments on smritis, in which case, there is the stark reality that many of them have been interpolated over centuries? I think defining the scope is very important for this debate to be meaningful.

Hari bol Satyaraja Prabhu, That is a nice topic. So, let us define the parameters for discussing the same. When we talk of sanatana dharma, what should be our basis? Should we base our arguments on shrutis, in which case, we are faced with the handicap that only 6 percent of the shrutis are extant? Or should we base our arguments on smritis, in which case, there is the stark reality that many of them have been interpolated over centuries? I think defining the scope is very important for this debate to be meaningful.

Hari Bol Caitanyacandra Prabhu, I agree with you in principle that the spiritual literature should not be judged from a material perspective. First of all our material knowledge is very limited and even science doesn't describe realities in full. So, judging spiritual literature using this limited scientific knowledge is dangerous. But, I am also a little wary of attempts to explain descriptions of the material universe as found in the scriptures by relating them to modern scientific data. First of all, modern scientific premises get demolished and reconstructed every few decades. So, are we going to relate our scriptural utterances of the material universe (like distance of the moon) to each emerging set of data? I wouldn't go with that. We should also consider the possibility that many of our literarture might have got interpolated over periods of time. How else can we explain differences in the manuscripts held by various mutts? So, it is not highly impossible that some of the descriptions of the material universe found in the scriptures might have got interpolated during medieval times. If that is the case, we are starting off on the wrong foot while attempting to explain them. There is a strong case for interpolations from archeological and literary perspectives too. Many temples that belong to the period 10th century A.D. to 12th century A.D. have sculpted images of explicit sex. We find similar mention from the writings of Megasthenes and Fahien that tends to suggest that women had a different role to play in those days. But, the role of the women and attitude to sex as perceived from the medieval period onwards is very different. Does it suggest that some elements we find in our culture and literature may not be original but might have got interpolated as a result of changing scenarios? Of course, this is a wide open question. What do you think?

How generous! I have been thinking all along that India just exists in my imagination! Thanks for reminding that it has actually come into existence! Your concept of nation is very limited in its scope. A nation is not defined by its constitution or boundaries or government. It is defined by an underlying cultural and religious fabric. Though, by your definition, Kashi and Rameshwaram may have been parts of 2 different nations, the people of India didn't perceive so as they undertook pilgrimage to both these places. Nor was the mobility of the people across states restricted. Perhaps, the ancients had a clear distinction between a state (which is symbolized by a government, constitution and boundaries) and a nation (which is based on socio-cultural and religious structures). Let me put it a little different. Over long periods of time, a nation may be governed by many a state.

Hari bol! You may want to read the book Forbidden Archeology written by Michael Cremo (Drutakarma Das) and Richard Thompson (Sadaputa Das). There they are showing the flaws in the theory of evolution. There is absolutely no basis for the theory of evolution. Recent studies in genetics suggest that there is not even a theoritical foundation to assume that we could have evolved from the apes. Regards

Is that why A L Basham put forth rididulous propositions like: The Indus script is Dravidian and not Aryan. Asserted that there was an Aryan invasion of India. Brahmi script was never used in Tamil. When Srila Prabhupada was referring to 'dried up sects of Hinduism' he was also speaking with regards to bogus gurus. So, you cannot isolate a part of the sentence. Naturally, I would consider the likes of Sai Baba, Shiv shankar Baba etc. as bogus. Just because they seem to worship the Hindu pantheon of Gods doesn't mean they are bonafide sects. Srila Prabhupad's criticism was of the bogus adherents. In the 60s, US was flooded by bogus gurus calling themselves Hindu and he was criticizing them. Elsewhere, he also glorifies Adi Sankararacharya stating that "Acharya means Sankara". So, it is obvious that he doesn't consider Sankara's advaitists as bogus or a dried up sect, though he considers their philosophy as incomplete. Hope that explains.

One major reason was the pressure from the Jewish lobby (especially scientists who defected from Germany). Both USSR and USA shared these scientists who were responsible for building the nuclear bomb and rockets. Before and during WWII, the Vatican actively supported Hitler and was in many wasy responsible for his rise. The Vatican also turned a blind eye to the butchering of the Jews. And the Jewish lobby strongly resented this. In particular Pius XII refused to even make a comment even when the Jews beseeched him. So, the intense pressure for forming Israel came form this lobby of scientists. And, the west needed the nukes and rockets badly and complied. I guess that is the reason.

Here, I choose to differ with Sri Aurobindo (assuming you quoted him correct and not out of context). Krishna (God) doesn't fail; for success and failure are signs of a conditioned souls. Nor does He fail (let down) his devotees. Sometimes we perceive that He has let us down only because we are not pure in devotional service. So, we see everything from a material perspective. If we get rich, we believe that Krishna has rewarded us; if we have a heart attack we believe that (despite our being a devotee) He has let us down. That is only because we are not pure. On the other hand, pure devotees like Srila Prabhupad, never validate Krishna's actions from a material perspective. When SP suffered 2 heart attacks on board Jaladuta, he did not blame Krishna. He instead thought that Krishna was testing his resolve to serve Him. So, a pure devotee doesn't differentiate between (material) pleasures and sufferings. For him they are the same. All that matters is serving Krishna. That is why in SB, Prahalad humbly requests Narasimha to allow him to serve the devotee of the devotees of Krishna. He doesn't ask for material benedictions. So, where is the question of Krishna failing or letting down His devotees? For He is beyond success and failure.

That Christian is most welcome here. If he is open-minded, he will be pleased to realize that unlike many Christian missionaries we are not fanatical. I can myself contribute a little with the history part.

Which ones shvu? Should I read the ones that emanated from the Boden chair, the ones that came from the left led by Romilla Thapar or the recent Hindutva ones from RSS? They are all sold in India and often come from the same publisher. Yet, they contradict each other. So, whic of them do I believe?

Luigee: Anyways, the objective should not be to become a Hindu. That defeats the very purpose of spiritual pusuit. Spiritualism is not about confining ourselves to sectarian boundaries. What you should instead aspire is to become an eternal servant of the Supreme Lord whom we call Krishna. That is exactly the purpose the books and the movement of Srila Prabhupad serve. We are all conscious of the Supreme, while in the womb. Yet, after we are born, the all powerful maya, binds us with a magic wand of the hand. And we forget Him and falsely believe that we are the independent enjoyers. When we sincerely aspire to seek Krishna, through the teachings of a bonafide guru, we transcend this maya. In other words we come out of repeated cycles of birth, old age, disease and death. And that is realization.

Luigee: You may want to start with the following books: Science of self-realization by Srila Prabhupad Bhagavad Gita by Srila Prabhupad.

I have one more question. Perhaps members like Valaya and gHari can enlighten me on this. In the Bible Jesus also said "If someone slaps you, turn the other cheek for him". What was the context? What is the verse? Jesus was a bonafide acharya and a great guru, as Srila Prabhupad often stated. Yet, I find that this teaching of Lord Jesus is not in the same line as that of BG, where Lord Krishna wants Arjuna to fight for dharma and even more dedicate every action to Krishna. So, if an adharmic person harms you, you should fight back, though you may not be having material desires. Then, why did Jesus say otherwise? Is my understanding incomplete or was the time, place and circumstance different? Please enlighten me.

Thanks Satyaraja very much, for the information part of your reply.

Hare Krishna Valaya and gHari, Thank you very much for the wonderful references.

Hari Bol Valaya Prabhuji, AGTSP! PAMHO! Thank you for this most wonderful posting. I am going to steal it and post it in my egroup. I know I should get the permission of H H Indradyumna Swami Maharaj for doing that, but I don't want to wait to post it. So, I will send him an email with due apologies for not getting his permission. Once I post it, atleast one of my friends will be very sad. He was, till recently in Vrindavan and moved to Kashmir. He was already sad about that. Now I will be glad to compound his woes. YHS, Karthik

I have heard in some lectures that Jesus said: " I am yet to reveal everything, but you are not ready yet." In which book or part of Bible does he say this? Could someone kindly quote the exact verse and its meaning and context?

If such propaganda is not initiated by Muslims or Christians, it is invariably started by the Dravidian parties. First thing you should know is that he who spews hate is least interested in truth. Hate and truth are like oil and water. Read through Bhagavad Gita, Mahabharata or Ramayana for yourself and you shall be enlightened. Personally, I would recommend the 'Bhagavad Gita as it is' by Srila Prabhupad, Mahabharata by University of Chicago Press and Valmiki Ramayana (Sanskrit-English) from the Gita Press of Gorakhpur. You will relish reading them. And you will have strong reasons to be proud of being a Hindu.

Faithless devotee: How do you know you are for real? You may perceive yourself..but that only confirms that the perception is real. That doesn't mean you are for real. When you can't even be sure that are for real, why should you bother so much about realization? When you can't even be sure that you are for real why should you bother about posting stupid questions? When you can't even be sure that you are for real why should you expend so much time breathing and eating to sustain a probable self. I guess you should stop breathing and eating for a while. After all why bother to do so much to sustain yourself when you can't be sure that you are for real.

There are many instances in Tibetan Buddhism where a monk attained samadhi by just evoporating into the thin air in front of his many followers. Whether we choose to believe this or not is a matter of faith. My American colleague, who has spent almost half of his life in Tibet asserts that his guru attained samadhi that way in his presence. He is a sane guy and intelligent and I cannot suppose that he is spreading a myth. The same applies to Jesus, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Ramana Maharishi et al. When Ramana Maharishi passed away many sannyasis in the Himalayas said that they perceived his soul depart this abode and merge with the Brahman. Whether we believe them or not is a matter of faith. So, it is tough to prove whether someone is a bonafide guru. There are broad indications though. He preaches love of the Supreme, his actions towards his disciples and others are driven by this consideration of spiritual love. So, when some one's actions fail miserably against these broad parameters, he can be deemed bogus. Like Mohammad.