Gaea

 

So next if someone else comes along claiming to be Sri Krishna himself, we should not jump the gun but stop to actually examine if he is Sri Krishna?

 

 

No where have i allied myself to this belief that he is Radha. I was only talking about love and devotion.

 

If he did really love Krsna, he wouldn't be acting like this!

 

 

i don't like to define Love - very shakey ground. Different people express devotion/love in different ways. There might be some sense of perversion here, that is the initial feeling because we don't see this very often in our society, but let's not right him completely off.

 

Chimps on genome comparison are found to have similar genetic makeup as man (99.2%)

 

 

 

Just for your info, this stat is so badly misused that i ahve to say something every time i see it. It usually ranges from 90% - 99% depending on the way you do the maths. Homology studies are very dubious since there are only 4 nucleotide bases to discriminate from and the fact that a single base change can mean the difference between life/death/physical form etc., a simple number becomes pretty meaningless (see homologies between some plant and bacterial genomes vs. human genomes, for example).

 

Anyway, back to the topic - you're right, cultural background definately defines (at least to some extent) a sense of right and wrong. However, my intuition tells me that there is an innate sense of right and wrong also, perhaps some might define that as instinct?

comprehensive version can be found here:

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/

 

ok

 

Krishna had to save Arjuna on many, many occasions even before the war began. Not so in Bhima's case.

 

 

 

That's not completely true. For example, Bhima could never have defeated Jarasandh if Krsna hadn't have told him how.

the power of discrimination? then again, there's no way anyone could test this.

i'm not an expert i must admit, but since Arjuna isn't around to ask directly i must use my own intelligence.

 

 

his is what happens when people start reading Govinda Lilamrta before they have ASSIMILATED Bahagavad-gita.

 

 

never heard of Govinda Lilamrta, but from doing a rough trnslation: "nectar of past-times of Govinda"? Sounds alot like Srimad Bhagvatam

 

 

For one who has studied Bhagavad-gita the question of Krishna or duty would never arise. Just ask Arjuna

 

 

 

I tried studying BG. Too hard. Loving Krsna, TRYING to be a devotee - definately more fun /images/graemlins/smile.gif ... hence my original query.

So here's one i find difficult to get a grip of..... aside from the fact that he is man /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

He obviously loves Krsna very very much, but at the cost of neglecting his DUTY to family and State. So what to choose - Krsna or Duty??

I'm currently reading K.Subramaniam's version - it's not a verse for verse translation but it;s very nice.... haven't got to the war yet so don't know about whether there are any refs for Arjuna defeats.

to hear things are going well there /images/graemlins/smile.gif

The final source of information on the Leelas and Truth of Krsna can be found in the Srimad Bhagvatham. Anything could have happened to anyone around Him - all we have is this poetic story of the cowherd boy. So many events must have happened that are not in the SB. So there's little point in speculation, since we only have that source of information.

 

Reality or myth, let me tell you something - the ultimate message is one of Love. Once you have this Love, all doubt is cleared, rest assured.

If you treat revelation as torch thru which you can wade thrpough the dark blindly, i think revelation can be dangerous. God's message as given in scripture is appropriate for time and place and particular peoples, hence different scripture for unlike minded folk.

 

Personally i think experience is far more superior... yes, more superior than BG, SB etc also, but not to put these scriptures down... I know i always say the following, but i think it is so so powerful: what scripture did the gopis know? They probably couldn't even read and i would venture to guess that they cared little for scipture because their hearts, minds and souls were immersed with Krsna and Krsna alone.

http://www.patmedia.net/marklevinson/cool/cool_illusion.html

 

ok so this isn't exactly spiritual but the point is that the optical illusion proves how imperfect our senses can be. Hence scientific observation?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110500769.html

 

I found this nice as there is a growing collective amimosity/hatred towards Islam - the man who donated his son/brother's (?) organs to an Israeli signifies there is still hope!

 

Not many, in fact, not one. Prahlad was able to think of God even in times of crisis. We can't think of Him at all, because our minds are filled with worldly things.

 

 

True, to an extent. So according to logic in your words, remove worldly things and let Krishna shine in your mind and heart.

 

 

To live in the world and yet keep consciousness on Krishna is possible only for the greatest souls

 

 

True, because if you can do this BY DEFINITION you are a great soul.

 

 

We have no chance.

 

 

With an attitude and outlook like that, you're right - you have no chance.

 

 

We ought to be humble and admit that.

 

 

Be humble, yes. Be negative and defeatist, no. I admit i don't love and serve Krsna the same way as Prahlad Maharaj, etc. but that doesn't mean i shouldn't aspire towards that. Otherwise, where is your inspiration? Where is your goal? Many people i know have set their personal goal to LOVE LOVE LOVE and they are a long way on that path. They are aspiring. They ackowledge they are not as great (yet) as some of the aforementioned personalities, but that doesn't deter them because they WANT to love more - so much desire for love and service for Krsna, no defeatism at all.

 

 

Most people who say sanyas isn't necessary aren't mahajans like Prahlad who live in the world and yet think of Krishan all the time.

 

 

That's an over-generalisation. As far as I know, Prahlad never took Sanyaas. Afterall, if everyone agreed that we must all take Sanyaas, wouldn't that mean the end of the human race?? - sorry, tongue-in-cheek comment.

 

 

they are prolly hypocrites who rationalize their affinity for worldliness and aversion for renunciation.

 

 

Again, an over-generalisation - not all feel/think like this. I can think of many great devotees that i know personally that have not taken Sanyaas but love and serve Krsna to such a great extent. Does Krsna care whther they want to renunciate or not? I don't think so... in my opinion.

 

quote

 

 

 

jndas is correct, but that does not mean it isn't the same day as Krsna defeating Narakasura.

 

when is the Bhagavad-Gita written?

 

 

more than 5000 years ago by Sage Vyaas. (this was when Krsna & co were actually here, walking and talking)

 

 

What is it's Historical Context?

 

 

Read the Mahabharata, which will give you a precise historical context of both the Gita and the Bhagavatham.

 

 

How are women percieved in the Bhagavad-Gita?

 

 

You said you read it in one of your previous posts - you must have seen that it is not about gender - it's about YOU (the soul) and your relationship with God.

 

 

I read it but what's the importance of it?

 

 

In the Gita, Krsna likens the science that He is describing to a resavoire compared to a well of the Vedas. It is of supreme importance because Krsna is telling us what our relatioship with God is, what devotion is, what service is- the ultimate, final Truth.

 

? ... and what/where/who?

i don't think this school is such a bad idea... i mean, i understand your views, Vijay, but i don;t think there's anything wrong in the kids saying "we are Hindu and they are not" so long as they are also taught to think "they are lovers of God as we are" too. Afterall, Muslim, Hindu or Christian, the underlying message is always love, love, love. At least, i hope it is.

 

i am also happy that Hindus are beginning to show some face. Muslims, Christians, Buddhists and Jews all have a definate face in Britain but Hindus don't seem to gel together like they, except perhaps on festival days. But you are right, as soon as there is a feeling of separationism and non-integration (and that is KEY) then there is precedent for worry.

there is a saying in India - i don't know it in Hindi - but the basic gist of it is that when you light a diva (candle with ghee) the surrounding parts around the flame get blackened and sooted, though the flame itself is pure. Same as churning of the ocean in the bhagvatam - before the devas could get the nectar of immortality, the churning yeilded horrible poisons, which Shiva drank.

 

It's funny that you should post this actually - i remember when i got more interested in spirituality also - i had dreams that would make me wake up in a sweat - disturbing visions and thoughts that didn't let me sleep, some that made me feel very guilty since it was my own mind generating them. But it eventually passed. I wouldn't give it too much thought if i was you - carry on doing what you're doing because you're on the right path. Even if you carry on having these dreams for the rest of your days, would you give up the Name and Form and Pastimes of the Lord? I don't think many would!

 

Hope all goes well for you.

 

G.

doesn't the "eternally separated" part get negated if they reunited?

 

n honest scientist will admit his limitations but so many of them are ego driven...

 

 

That's exactly it - an ego that tells you you know everything... If you were red specs, everything in the world looks red. if you were yellow specs, everything in the world looks yellow. In the same way, scientists don't want to see God and only the material manifestation therefore that's what they see with their so-called "objective" mind.

 

Your example of Yuri Gorin is apt - anything and everything that backs up their own theory and belief is made "bigger". The same goes for evidence against theory - i see it all the time, e.g. evidence that goes against human evolution is neatly put away but anything that corroborates their version of events is publicised. This is the history of science. And it's happening right now more than before.

 

Theist, my original post was the way we approach these people (i.e. the words we use, as well as the subject) - i fear "intelligent design", tho within their own discipline, has now a stigma attached to it and so it's difficult to get a serious discussion with these guys about it. It's so hard to get these people to listen! Even while i'l typing it;s frustrating me!!!

 

OK, calm down.... breath /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

G.

Hi Theist

 

I finally got myself a login name instead of signing all my posts "G"... other guests are posting and multiple guests can cause confusion.

 

 

The limitations of the atheistic theories must be pointed out or everyone will remain a "potential devotee" forever. Intelligent design must be a begininng posititon in Krsna consciousness.

 

 

 

I agree. But method is very important.

 

 

Where do you find bashing G?

 

 

 

Perhaps i should first define what i mean by bashing though - anything that attempts negate the science and scientific methods by using logic/language that is totally ok by a KC stand-point (and therefore is true) but from an atheistic point of view sounds like what is really is, ie religious (exactly what they are not attracted to). I don't mean any disrespect here by the way - It's just that i've come across this alot, coming from a scientific background to a spiritual "awakening" (tho it actully hasn't quite happened yet!!). Trying to prove scientists wrong by spiritual tactics, e.g. scripture, is like an englishman trying to explain the intracacies of quantum mechanics to a japanese pauper - the spiritualist will rarely get through to a spiritual pauper unless they start talking the same language.

 

So, with that defined, here's what i find a little bashing:

 

 

The problem with "modern" science today is that the scientist has imperfect senses. How can they really prove anything? In the day time you can not see the stars in the sky, but at night you can see them. A small child who has never seen stars in the sky may argue in the day time, "there are no stars in the sky", but an older person with experience and knowledge will tell the child that you can only see them at night. Human eyes have imperfect vision.

 

And what is the guarantee that the instruments which they’re using, they are also perfect?

 

Therefore it should be concluded that the so-called scientists, astronomers, they are all imperfect, and they are passing off the scientists as learned. So you can challenge them, "What is the guarantee that your knowledge is perfect?

 

...conditioned soul...

 

 

 

I don't know if i've explained myself properly here, but i just get the feeling that if religion is to reach out to the scientific masses then the spritualists must bring themselves down to a language that is understood by scientists - and then upliftment can begin. Talking from a higher platform will just push scientists away because (1) they have huge egos and (2) they care little for God and God-like things (even if you are talking from a truthful standpoint).

 

Do you feel this way also?

 

G.