Gaea

The meanings of the SB are often way beyond me... in fact all the time! All i know is - i gotta love and serve more

what would you give to have been a fly on the wall during that conversation???

i'm not learned in these things so much, but can you explain - if Krsna is the source of Visnu and Visnu tattva is eternal woudn;t that mean that Visnu is bornless? Therefore how can Krsna be the origin of the Visnu-tattva forms? ...having typed that i just thought to myself, what the hell does it matter anyway???? LOVE LOVE LOVE.

You'll find there are many similarities with european and other asian dieties when compared to the Vedic ones - what probably happened was that the Vedic religion spread, but perhaps got a little skewed. So, for eg, relatively recently you see Helios (Greek God of Sun) who has very similar aspects to Surya Narayana (Vedic Sun God) and Zeus who has some similar aspects to Indra (e.g. the vajra weapon). Other than that, there are numerous examples of how the Vedic people came in contact with so-called Yakshas - these seem to be "local gods" - gods that the local people of the time were worshipping. These were not the same demigods as that of the Vedas.

When a novelist writes his piece, there are bits that are factual and bits that are artistic so why is it so difficult to accept? OK, so we have accepted that SB is 100% correct. Does that mean Vyas did no have the right to write allegorically? Your q regarding how to know which bits are "wrong" and "right" - well that's why we need an expert to walk us thru it and even if there are bits that are wrong, or "nothing to do with religion" - what does it matter? Vyas does not waste words - it is there for a purpose, for which we might not ever understand - maybe someone somewhere at some point achieved some enlightenment just because of this word here or that word there - yes, Krsna CAN be that merciful. my view is not to be the man that is over-awed by the delicate wooden chest when it is packed with nice shiny diamonds.

it's not as black or white as that - there may be some things that are allegorical and others that are indeed fact. But again, the essence as Theist pointed out is the important thing.

When a great poet or playwrite like Shakespeare writes a sentence, we humans make so much of big deal about what the meaning is, what the metaphore is about, etc. etc.... so when GOD speaks the scriptures, how many layers of meaning are there? So it is quite possible that these things are not meant literally but have hidden meanings - thats why you need a spiritual master to guide you thru it. Still not convinced? OK i've seen this Rahu story before but the thought that popped into my head was that if the people of the time (thousands of years ago?) were told by a learned Sage that there is a gigantic hunk of rock circling the Earth and that it gets in the way of an enormous ball of fire that continues to burn for billions of years - what do you think those people would have done? The story would have been so unbelievable! So the explanantion was for the time, place and circumstance. And yet there can still be hidden meanings. And even you are still not convinced... like JNDas says, it's your sadhana that really counts here. For me, i don't care whther its allegorical, literal, old, young or written by little green men - the main thing is that one should develop Love and Devotion for God. Everything else will come naturally. So don't worry & don't doubt, Guestji, just keep smilin

i hope you don't mind, but i work at a hospital so asked a doc about it and she said it would be very strange if this lasted for up to year (even tho to be sure she would have to see it for real) - so in my opinion it certainly wouldnt be a physiochemical effect because by now it would have changed. Anyway, if you think it is important then persue it. Otherwise just keep smilin

Ragudas, I haven't delved that deeply into scripture but I know the answers to these questions can be found succintly in the Srimad Bhagvatham. Prabhupada's commentries explain these things - perhaps someone can direct you to the right verses here? As far as i know, all forms of Visnu are Visnu-tattva, which means they are not on the same level as Brahma - they are eternal. Different people have different opinions, even with the same translations of the verses. I am also confused with this stuff but i've put it to rest for now - just gonna try to develope love first, understanding of intracacies later.

you're right about the doubts some people might express if you post a pic... i understand... but boy am i curious !!! good luck to you, Avinash... i hope you find someone who can explain its significance (perhaps yourself?)

I don't see anything in that article that discredits my previous comment. In fact it only reinforces it.

that's a superficially very simple question to answer but in actuality is very difficult there are so many layers to this that i can think of, none of which matter really coz Love is the key, but anyway i suppose we should make a start somewhere...... means that Krsna is Bhagavan: Supreme: no one is above Him Personality: He is a personal being - i.e. He has form and name.

very easy to blame God in times of distress... the fact is that it is He who is CONSTANTLY there waiting for us to listen to Him and see Him and love Him. We just refuse to do it tho...

funny tho - i wonder if the people of the time accepted Him as an incarnation? If He was here right now in today's world He would definately be outcast be the general public, press and modern clergy of all faiths just as Christ was... and then suddenly in retrospect we repent for not having seen the truth. Anyway, that's off the point of thread - just stray thoughts. Thanks for the verse

i hear you on the philosophical issue, but regardless of that it is the good naturedness of the devotee here that stops him/her - compassion and ahimsa are lovely things.

it's a difficult decision for the spiritually inclined. But practicality has to win... do the cockroaches pose a health threat to you? most of the time they do so the answer to me is grim but necessary...

fasting in general is just giving something up - it is usually grains but various belief systems have different variations.

I'm trying. BG 17.2: The Supreme Lord said, according to the modes of nature acquired by the embodied soul, one's faith can be of three kinds--goodness, passion or ignorance. Now hear about these. Hence the guna is ACQUIRED - not part of the soul. Of course the soul is eternal - if it aquires something it means that it got it at some point in time. Therefore it is not eternal, i.e. part of the material creation. I think they do but hey, you know more sanskrit than me. Just bacause tato means afterwards, taking the sentence as a whole along with Prabhupada's commentary i cannot see how one can conclude that a soul is eternally damned to hell or eternall tagged with a guna. Surely if this was the case, Krsna would have said so explcitly? Actually I can apply your advice of connecting the chapters of BG up see: BG 14,5:Material nature consists of the three modes--goodness, passion and ignorance. When the living entity comes in contact with nature, he becomes conditioned by these modes. And so, by simple logic, when he is outside of nature he is not conditioned by the gunas. No i don't know what the words mean - but there's no need to have an attitude about it. I think you will find you have made it your problem by arguing your point on this thread - that's the whole point of the forum. So please, enlighten me. And you get this from the one or two verses you pointed out? I don't buy it yet. Convince me. When has swabhava been equated to the quality of the soul?

Again i have to say - prove it. Krsna is not saying anything about swabhava here so i cannot accept your argument readily - apologies, i may be missing something. Firstly, we cannot deride Prabhupada's commentary as just sentimental - even though I have not accepted Him or His mission personally I have to say that He has not ever wasted a single word in these commentaries. We have to take each word seriously. Secondly, your argument of tato is weak - I can just as easily say that Krsna is talking about persons who, birth after birth, do not accept Him - that does not mean eternity - it means a long time (birth after birth). Where is there any concept of eternal hell or Tamasic souls? Again, there are many verses we can point to say that the soul is part and parcel of Krsna - so are parts of Krsna Tamasic also (even though He says He is absolutely beyond the Gunas, which are part of NATURE) And that is another point - the Gunas are translated as modes of material nature - how then does this extend to the soul, which is beyond material creation?

Attaining repeated birth amongst the species of demoniac life, such persons can never approach Me. Gradually they sink down to the most abominable type of existence. That just means that so long as a person revels in demoniac activity he/she can never reach Godhead and they continue to shrink down. That does not mean eternal hell, as Prabhpada alludes to in his purport for this verse: The placing of the asuras, the demons, in the lowest status of life is simply another feature of His mercy. Sometimes the asuras are killed by the Supreme Lord, but this killing is also good for them, for in Vedic literature we find that anyone who is killed by the Supreme Lord becomes liberated. There are instances in history of many asuras--Ravana, Kamsa, Hiranyakasipu--to whom the Lord appeared in various incarnations just to kill them. Therefore God's mercy is shown to the asuras if they are fortunate enough to be killed by Him.

I don't want to contradict you without knowing all the facts so i'm gonna ask... prove it. Where in the Vedas or in the writings of learned souls has this been confirmed?

Hindus, or i think you're more specifically talking about Vaishanavas believe they will be saved by loving God and having faith. I truly hope they don't think its simply 16 rounds a day. Also, losing fear of bad karma is a good thing but only if you're placing it all at the feet of God. Basically the lesson is this: Love God with all your heart and soul. Do your duty and leave the result to Him. If Prabhupada has managed to teach this to at least one person, be he in the west or india, then some civislisation has been brought to the world.

i thought the three modes of material nature cannot touch the soul. and i thought there was no such thing as an eternal hell?? what happened to everyone coming back to Krsna?

That is actually a lovely way of seeing it - thank you.

it's true that bhakti is the end-goal. But i think the operative words in the previous post was "finally reach" - meaning even if one is an atheist, Advaitin etc. that person will just move up the rung of the ladder until eventually he/she gets there from a future life of bhakti. These labels are just labels of the body in my opinion - in one body you may well be an Advaitin, in the next a Vaishnava. What really counts isn;t the nitty gritty of your beleif system but your Love for God.