Gaea

anyone?!?!

 

When He comes personally, why does He always choose that specific tract of land?

In addition to jndas' comments, Avatars may have taken place the world over but not reognised as such because only the ancient Vedic civilisation attributed God to God-like men/women. Others may have just been seen as great leaders or warriors or peace-makers or sages - who knows? That is the humility of the Lord - He doesn't need to show off, He just comes and enjoys His creation and shows us the right way.

Hari Bol All!

 

I just wanted to start off a discussion about Krsna's pastimes with Radha. How did they meet? What was it like? Refs to SB/other sources would be great! What was the relationship like - intimate, friendly? What about the other Gopis and Gopas? I really want to get a feel of what those first few years were like!!!!

 

Hare Krnsa!

 

Subsequently implying that rebirth is not an essential belief of Hinduism.

 

The operative words in my reply were "not many" - very few Hindus, at least the ones that know anything about the Vedas, will deny reincarnation. That said, I read your question with respect to my own beliefs about Hinduism itself. You ask "essential" belief. In my opinion, the only essential belief is Love and Devotion to God. Doesn't matter if a devotee does not believe in reincarnation, know the 64 subtle marks of an incarnation, know the Vedas inside out, etc. etc... The only thing that matters in the end of the day is Love and Devotion - THAT is the essential belief.

These are interesting points. Whilst I won't say that Hinduism encompasses all religions, I will say that if you do away with the belief of the absolute word, the seeming contridictions become no more. What i mean by this is that the words of the Bible/Koran/etc can never fully describe God and His infinite lila because He cannot be contained by language or grammar. So with that in mind, let's answer some of your questions:

 

1- One of the essential beliefs of Christianity and Islam is the Day of Resurrection of the Dead and the Day of Judgment. Does Hinduism too ascribe to that belief?

 

Absolutely. Is it not concievable that these concepts of resurrection and judgement are a direct synonym for reincarnation and karma alike?

 

2- One of the essential beliefs of Christianity is that Jesus Christ was the son of God. Does Hinduism ascribe to this belief?

 

Why not? The "Son of God" phrase is widely accepted as a synonym for incarnation (Avatar).

 

3- One of the essential beliefs of Islam is that God is absolutely unique and was never born to any parents, nor has or requires any children. Does Hinduism hold this as true?

 

Yes, God is unique. He is the original. And being as such, there is no possibility that He had parents - if you are original, you have no predecessor. So yes, Hinduism holds this true. God is One without a second.

 

4- If what you have mentioned is true, then Hinduism would comprise of the belief that Jesus was the son of God (from Christianity) and also that God has no children (from Islam). Would that not be mutually exclusive?

 

Following my explanation, Hinduism would hold that Jesus was an incarnation of God (or perhaps a prophet - i won't say either way, i don't want to get into that argument). So that is now reconciled. You may argue that an Avatar has parents and that Islam says God cannot have parents. I would ask you to open your mind - The original supreme Lord has no parent. If He wants to appear in this Earth (which, by the way, Hinduism holds as a grand illusion anyway so anything that happens here is not really real) He selects parents. Are these His "true" parents? No. Of course not. They are just His "tools" with which He acts in this world.

All a bit confusing, no? That's why when you first posted on this forum my reply had an emphasis on Love and Devotion. If x amount of effort is put into finding contridictions (which are unavoidable and inevitable) then x amount of effort must also be put into finding commanalities - fair is fair. So, Love and Devotion - the universal Truth of every religion - is the unifying factor.

Hi

I can only answer your questions from my viewpoint so please forgive me if i'm not more expansive...

 

Thank you, Gaea for your response.

I really would appreciate if you can give a little more elaboration on this. Do you mean that the vedas have differences in their teachings?

 

This can be the case. For example, the Shiva Purana will have a teaching that many Dvaitins will find antagonistic. You see, you it must understood that there are different teachings for different people. Imagine your body is a vessel. Different people have different sized vessels. Moreover there may be some substances that the vessel might not be able to hold because of its material. Therefore the Vedic people of old, realised souls, evolved beings (whatever you want to call them) taught an ideology that was relevant for the time and the place and for the people who were listening. So, Christ taught his Teachings, Mohammed taught his Teachings, etc. etc. - the teachings were relevant for the time/place/constitution of the people who "needed saving". The one thing you will find constant is LOVE AND DEVOTION for God, whatever the intracacies of philosophy. I would ask you to see this unity in diversity.

 

One who ascribes to any of these different teachings will be a hindu?

 

Hey, why not? "Hindu", as Avinash alluded to, is just a label for the body. If it makes you happy, good for you, use it. Spirituality is universal to everyone.

 

Can you please give a brief example of how significant these difference can go up to?

 

Some will say God has a form/name, some will say not. Some will say everybody is God, others will be disgusted by this thought and say God is above us. Very different, as you can see. However none of them will say "Hate God", "Hate people" etc. All realise the importance of Love.

 

For example, can one be a hindu and not worship any idols? can one be a hindu and not believe in reincarnation?

 

This is a popular misconception encouraged by those who know nothing about Hinduism and try to write text books about it. Hindus are not Idol worshippers in the sense that the Ten Commandments forbid (OTHER POSTERS - if you have a quiff with this start off a different thread please!). Why we use Murtis ("Idols") is a whole different story. But essentially yes, there are many Hindus who do not use Murtis in their regular practice. There are also some Hindus (but not many) who don't believe in reincarnation. Are they gonna burn in hell for this? No, i don't think so. The most important thing is LOVE GOD. That is the essence of Hinduism. It is the essence of almost every religion on this planet (at least in their original states).

G.

 

I am completely new to the study of Hinduism. I would appreciate, if someone would kindly enlighten me on what are the essential beliefs ascribing to which, a person becomes a Hindu.

Serious answers only, please.

Thanks.

That's a tough one! - mostly because there are so many schools of thought in the Hindu religion. In fact one might go as far as to say that Hinduism is not by itself a religion but a collection of religions. The only commonality is that all of these sects get their ideas from the Vedas, which are a HUGE repository of knowledge. The scripture is written in Sanskrit, which is pretty much a dead language now, rather like Aramaic, which means there are always disputes about meanings etc.

This forum is mostly made up on Vaisnavas, a sect that will predominantly preach Bhakti yoga (devotion to God, God being Visnu/Krnsa/Rama). If you want to know more about Hinduism on a wider scale you might be interested in other schools of thought (google things like "Dvaita and Advaita", "Shaivism", "Vaishnava"). I hope you have alot of time on your hands because it will be impossible to learn everything in one lifetime

Hope this helps.... do you have any specific questions? Perhaps we can be of more help that way.

 

The underlying problem is hindus not being satisfied and strong enough in their watered down versions of hinduism, theyll convert to anything that seems better its natural. Tackling the symptoms is pointless, the root is teach real kc thats satisfying and not watered down, clear concise and practical

i absolutely whole-heartedly agree with that! Hindus need a strong foundation.

 

Its always easy to comment by being at the safer end , doesnt it?

yep. well, its a good job i made my suggestions in light of a knowledgeable position then isn't it?

 

 

I dont know whether you are with some indian origin. If not then there is no point in discussing this with you.

I am, so please do engage.

 

 

I understand that whole muslim community cant be blamed for something thats happened cos of few people, but then I have experienced personally, how these people are utterly biased with us . They don have slightest respect to our religion . In whatever way they show respect, ultimately they follow thie misintepreted Quran , which says idle worshippers are demons. I guess you too worship krishna like me, and according to them I and you both are demons. And demons have got no right to live so kill them, this is what the so called holy Quran says.......

I understand. I have also seen/felt the horrible side of this. But Krsna gives me the will to smile in the face of it

 

 

P.S:How can a person living in the luxury of England can ever know the pain of Kashmiri Pandits who have been driven /massacred from their own land

Are we not humans over here in England? We might not have pakistan next door, but we did have northern ireland. Do i need to be in Kashmir to understand their plight? Probably. Do i need to be in Kashmir to understand and think logically about the situation from the point of view of a spiritual aspirant. No.

 

 

If you ask me...

haha - your post made me smile, thank you (even tho i don't agree with anything you said). Vijay, if you had it your way there would be no one left in India. That's the way Kaliyuga is - face it. Prabhupada knew he couldn't do what Parasurama did (i.e. kill the evil-doers) because that would not only be counter to his philosophy and soft heart, it would also elimate the entire population! He thought cleverly - convert the demons into angels. That does not mean religious conversion - it meant conversion to supreme Bhakti for God. What a beautiful, God-inspired plan! See the difference?

This initial anger is temporary - like 9/11 many americans and many people all over the world felt very angry. The immediate response was war and more hatred. And what did it beget? I dare you to watch 30 mins of News tv and all you will see is the consequence of hatred and intolerance.

So, you see, you must try to get over that initial hatred. You will see that more hatred - fighting fire with fire - does not work. As one who has knowledge of Veda and Vedanta one should strive to set an example.

 

We cant tolerate acts of our "nice" muslim brothers any longer. Action should be taken to drive muslims out of india so that india will remain holy and peaceful.

Hare Krishna

Om Namo Venkatesha

 

Then she said "I am Britney Spears, the singer" And he replies "I am Narasimha Bhattar, the priest".

 

 

 

That is just hilarious! can just picture it - type of thing i would expect in a mel brooks comedy!

Just need some clarification on the names of places where Krsna was as a young boy:

 

is Vraj (Brij?) the same as Vrindavan?

is Gokula the same as Vraj (Brij?)?

where is Govardhan in relation to these places?

where is Mathura in relation to these places?

 

Thanks all!

 

he Vedantist sees the fossil record as proof of the evolution of the soul. That is, the soul transmigrates through 8,000,000 species of life forms before attaining one of the 400,000 human forms available. These forms are clearly defined; and there are not billions of intermediary mutant forms (one-eyed cyclops, three-legged deers, etc.). While mutants may appear depending on their karma, it is not necessary that strings of successive mutations are required to leap to the next species in the DNA configuration. The soul simply leaps to the next species, much like the set of prime numbers leaps, passing so many non-primes, up to the next viable DNA configuration.

 

 

 

I don't see what evolution has to do with migration of soul amongst the species.

 

 

So natural selection and survival of the fittest hypothesis are meaningless conjecture.

 

 

 

Due to my last comment, i don't see how this conclusion can be made.

 

 

If one were to speculate about the Vedic transmigration of the soul, one might realize that the desires and state of being at death dictate the soul's next form. The little bacteria may be attached to his warm cozy petri dish but really wishes he could tolerate that antibiotic garbage the lab assistant just dumped on him. As he dies he does indeed get a new body to match his desires: in the same petri dish but a body capable of existing in the antibiotic poison.

 

 

Yes, this is ok - but it does not exclude the existance of evolution.

 

Sorry, guest, i'm lacking the capacity to unerstand your reasoning - probably because i'm hungry /images/graemlins/smile.gif anyway, i'll have to leave it at that because i don't have internet access. So, folks, have a very merry Christmas and happy new year to all!!

 

these numbers aren't quite right. There's actually just less than a trillion (1,000,000,000,000) cells in the body, most of which are actually clones (i.e. they have identical proteins because they're all cloned from the original embryo). I haven't read the article you posted but yes - the odds are sometimes stupifying.

 

 

Based on the little dish, we are to assume that each of an entire species became inept at survival and that only the offspring would survive whose DNA had flip-flopped enough due to quantum flux chance in such a way as to produce a different creature that actually had the ability to survive the environment in which the parent could not. Yes, very romantic and exciting, but can I really accept it?

 

I can't, of course; firstly because I am a Vedantist, and secondly because it just doesn't sit well. You might say the species changed because of the antibiotic - yet I would ask why is there antibiotic there? Your honor, I didn't kill her, the bullet killed her.

 

The 'why' is just not within the domain of science. Isvara parama Krsna. Science clearly defines itself to be outside the domain of causality. It is time we made real men of science - of complete science.

 

(i'm replying to Don Muntean's post, but also this is in reply to guest poster who started the thread)

 

no i think he is saying that the distress/happiness that one may get from being critisized or complemented is just temporary. It's actually quite clever and mature - the type of attitude i would expect from a Vaishnava, in fact.

 

And wow, may i say i am truly surprised there is an entire thread here dedicated to denigrating a contributor to this forum. Yes, FORUM - a place where people discuss stuff. No where in the code of conduct does it say "Vaishanavas only". If he wants to speak, let him speak. Sometimes people can be insulting but i don't think 11_7 has said anything that should provoke such a reaction.

 

Why? They claim that evolutionism is scientifically proven. While the basic structure may be proven

 

 

 

which basic structure do you speak of? The basic structure of evolution is selection and survival of the fittest, but you have dismissed these in your next statement:

 

They suggest 'natural selection' or 'survival of the fittest' with nothing to back it but poetry and rhetoric

 

 

 

Not true. If you will with me to a lab i can show you evolution in a day. I can put bacteria on a petri dish and watch them grow. Then i can subject them to a selection pressure, e.g. an antibiotic. Most will die but some will survive because of mutation (survival of the fittest). By the end of the day the dish is well on the way to being full again, despite the presence of antibiotic.

 

Everyone must understand that just becasue sometimes it is referred to as "evolution theory" doesn't mean it is just a theory, it does indeed have some basis in fact (though, perhaps not ALL fact).

 

 

Call a theory a theory and leave it at that. The kids are being deluded into believing that the world is simply an accident, a long string of accidents with no purpose or meaning. The scientists will have their reward in their empty purposeless futile lives culminating in death forever.

 

 

 

i don't understand why ID and evolution are mutually exclusive. There can be an intelligent designer. a supreme controller, where evolution is merely the controllers' mechanism. I agree with you on one point in that these kids should be taught ID as well as evolution and see how they can go hand-in-hand.

 

Mayavadis Goal is to become God, by merging into His exsistance. [brahmajyoti]. Their Goal is this. It is a material desire. Mayavadis say everything is God, they mean we are also 'that'.

When devotees of Vishnu say this they mean 'everything is spiritual-God's energy'. This is the difference.

 

 

 

i know, i understand that. My original question was that if mayavadis say "everything is God", how does that make them atheists? Atheists don't believe in God. But obviously mayavadis believe in God because they're saying everying is God.

 

ayavadis claim everything is God, which is why they are athiests.

 

 

 

this is still a contridction for me - i don't see where this implication logically comes from, except that Prabhupad said it alot.

but that doesn't really explain it.

 

Which basically says There is No God. If you say you are God means God doesn't exsist.

 

 

 

can anyone explain it? if a mayavadi says absolutely everything is God (i.e. God is omnipresent) then how can that mean atheism? How can one conclude that there is no God? It sounds like something out of ancient Greek philosophy.

 

To those that have some knowledge of biology, I would be greatfull if you could help me with this situation.

IF you were presented with this question, what would you make of it.

 

Is the biological classification of life forms (taxonomy) acceptable to you as Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, & Species or do you prefer 'kind' as the best way to classify life?

 

Thanks

das

 

 

 

From a bio perspective the KPCOFGS taxonomy system is of course far superior to just labelling things as "kind". When you use such generic terms there is no buffer for ontological distinction, which leads to ambiguity and mis-knowledge, which is of course counter to science..... have i misunderstood your question???

tho some may argue you cannot apply it to anyone but Krsna or Visnu.

hi.

 

 

I give the material scientists their due. In one sense I am awed by their ability to use mathematical calculations and very sophisticated engineering prowess to pull off these endeavors. Now that doesn't mean they or the Govt. won't also lie aout their failures. We the common laymen are easy to fool. Like children really.

 

 

 

I don't think we should take the angle of "we are small/ignorant/children, how can we know if we're being lied to". We all have a God-given intelligence - we should use it. In the case that some people are refuting man's endevours to the moon, for example, we have to look at facts - everything points to the fact that it was done (ok, the first moon-landing seemed a little dodgy though).

 

Krsna is the intelligence of the intelligence so any success they have is due to Krishna and is further caused to appreciate Him.

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

 

It is their foolish waste of time and energy that we object to. Live's misspent in trying to expand the reach of the hopelessly inadequate material senses.

 

 

Not all objections are based on this, but point taken.

 

 

We also oppose and challenge them consistently on any atheistic conclusions they come to and their efforts to try to infect the innocent citizens of earth with.

 

 

Yes, this is important.

i'm afraid 1 + 1 always = 2 !!!

 

when (literally) thousands of independant scientists and academic bodies agree on calculations and confirm astro-events, including man-made ones like probes, it's difficult to believe that they're all part of some big conspiracy. In fact, it's pretty much impossible to keep a secret like that, don't you think?

 

The fact is that your phone, the internet you're on, your tv etc. just wouldn't work if there wasn't a satellite in orbit - the physics and maths adds up perfectly. There is too much hard evidence to prove that it all really is out there.

 

I've met devotees that have trouble with this also - how can the SB be so "wrong"? We can talk about symbology or matter-of-factness until the cows come home, but one has to be willing to accept the evidence "As it is", just as you would the Gita "As it is".