Yesu_Bhaktan

Hare Krishna

But Prabhupada is not a name exactly it is a title. If you say Srila Prabhupada to one of Bhaktisiddhanta's diciples they will think of Bhaktisiddhanta.

But more to what I was meaning. Say you know some devotee whose name Mukunda das. You see him often and just call him Mukunda, but you are not calling Mukunda the supreme Lord, you are calling Mukunda the devotee. That doesn't mean the name Mukunda in that moment is no longer a name for the Supreme Personality.

Now when a shaktya-vesa avatar who is fully one with Krishna in loving service has a name like Krishna das and you call him as Krishna leaving off the das but referring to Him you are in reality not just referring to him because he and the Supreme Lord are one.

All I am saying is that oneness and difference with the Supreme Lord is also present in the name Yeshua.

Now you say the name Jesus is just a derivitive of the name Yeshua so it's not the same. If that were true it would also be true for the name Christ which you say is the same.

Do you see what I mean?

Try the title of your last post. Yeshua is wherefrom the name Jesus is derived.

Run out of Oslo Norway Forum 18 has an email rs list you can join.

One person's religious freedom is every person's religious freedom.

How to protest this? I haven't used the provided link so maybe it is there.

Krishna has unlimited names is my point. You can say Christ came from Krsna as Prabhupada has also said that. But on what basis can you say Yeshua is not a name of God when clearly it is?

What an elegant way to store those ingredients! What a beautiful arrangement! This is God! He is not just practical. Everything He does is full of beauty and elegance.

 

 

Yes, if He were just practical most everything could be created in black and white, squares and straight lines.

Couple days ago I was refilling this hummingbird feeder I keep outside my window. As I was putting it up a hummer came by. He smelled the sugar water and couldn't wait. He was just inches away and had the most amazingly beautiful colors on his head and neck. And they changed dramatically with every angle as he moved. Brilliant blues to deep reds with so many shades in between all so beautiful.

I thought, why? The evolutionist would try to find some purpose for each color that worked towards the survival of the species. Yawn...how dry....how dreary...how dead.

The theist sees something beautiful in nature and it reminds him of the beauty of the Lord's ways. In this way scripture is also designed into nature. Not just the mechanics of how things function. Krishna is the Supreme Revealer of Himself as well as the Supreme Artist and Supreme Engineer.

So to the artist we can point out one angle which is more atractive to their mind, to the engineer another and the philospher yet another. Same with cultures in different time place and circumstances.

It is just angle adjustments not changes.

Translators of the Hebrew texts into English have really done a miservice by translating the name of God, Jehovah as "Lord" over 5,000 times. Where it says Lord in the English Bible it should say Jehovah.

Things get lost in time due to mistranslations and in this case what gets lost is the name of God, Jehovah.

God is like refering to the King by saying King. Or the president by saying president. It has a sense of distance to it, almost impersonal.

Other names get watered down and their original intent gets lost like the name Jesus. Yes we know who it refers to but what is lost is the fact that Christ' name, Yeshua, actually means Jehovah saves.

WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE FATHER? YAHWEH

WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE SON? YAHWEH HASHUA

 

 

Note: The shortened form of the name "YAHWEH HASHUA" is "Yeshua" which literally means "Jehovah Saves."

 

 

A good example: My Son's name is Nathaniel but we always call him Nathan for short. So likewise, the proper name for Yeshua is "Yahweh Hashua" but they always called his name "Yeshua" for short.

 

 

The point is that Yeshua or now Jesus actually is the Supreme Lords name similar to Mukunda. So by asking Christians to chant the name of Yeshua or Jesus we are asking them to chant Krishna or Vishnu's name at the same time as they chant as the shaktya-vesa avatar Jesus' name.

One and different. This is Vaisnavism. To ignore the Father's name in the equation as Supreme is incomplete.

Jai Yeshua! Jai Krishna!

Third, in the long term, our initial beliefs (correct or not) are quite unimportant, yet - and that MUST be stressed - the gurus in any bonafide sampradaya must preach along the line of sampradaya siddhanta, and not use the "end justifies the means" approach to change the tradition to get followers. if that was true, why bother with trying to honestly present our tradition at all? If you do not present ALL the things truthfully, why should we trust your truthfullness when it comes to KRISHNA?

 

 

True there is no need to lie to present Krsna consciousness but still one should be discriminating in that presentation.

For instance we were talking about the lotus flower from Vishnu to Brahma. When we speak of the creation story according to Bhagvatam which way do we present that?

We can just say it straight out that a gigantic lotus flower grew from the navel of Vishnu and Brahma woke up on it and learned to create again from the Lord.

Or we could say that the from the Supreme Lord's form the souls from the past creation along with their material desires were brought forth from Vishnu and the Lord taught Brahma how to redesign the cosmic manifestation in a way that would accomodate their past desires and activities.

I believe the first way might leave the hearer thinking he just heard an old myth and the second would lead to him to ask more questions.

This is an old thread and the thread starter already realized his mistake and humblily offered an apolopy and an explanation.

Along with the mind's tricks I believe there must have been some bad association along the way to confuse his mind.

Careful who we hear from.

Looks like even that was too much credit in favor of Darwin. I can accept a certain amount of adaptation but that is about it.

Such a strange myth have they forced on the people for the last couple hundred years or whatever. And they insist ID is the myth.

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm

Darwin Under the Microscope

Michael J. Behe

Michael J. Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, is the author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution."

BETHLEHEM, PA Pope John Paul II's statement last week that evolution is "more than just a theory" is old news to a Roman Catholic scientist like myself.

I grew up in a Catholic family and have always believed in God. But beginning in parochial school I was taught that He could use natural processes to produce life. Contrary to conventional wisdom, religion has made room for science for a long time. But as biology uncovers startling complexity in life, the question becomes, can science make room for religion?

In his statement, the Pope was careful to point out that it is better to talk about "theories of evolution" rather than a single theory. The distinction is crucial. Indeed, until I completed my doctoral studies in biochemistry, I believed that Darwin's mechanism -- random mutation paired with natural selection -- was the correct explanation for the diversity of life. Yet I now find that theory incomplete.

In fact, the complex design of the cell has provoked me to stake out a distinctly minority view among scientists on the question of what caused evolution. I believe that Darwin's mechanism for evolution doesn't explain much of what is seen under a microscope. Cells are simply too complex to have evolved randomly; intelligence was required to produce them.

I want to be explicit about what I am, and am not, questioning. The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -- the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species.

That's where Darwin's mechanism comes in. "Evolution" also sometimes implies that random mutation and natural selection powered the changes in life. The idea is that just by chance an animal was born that was slightly faster or stronger than its siblings. Its descendants inherited the change and eventually won the contest of survival over the descendants of other members of the species. Over time, repetition of the process resulted in great changes -- and, indeed, wholly different animals.

That's the theory. A practical difficulty, however, is that one can't test the theory from fossils. To really test the theory, one has to observe contemporary change in the wild, in the laboratory or at least reconstruct a detailed pathway that might have led to a certain adaptation.

Darwinian theory successfully accounts for a variety of modern changes. Scientists have shown that the average beak size of Galapagos finches changed in response to altered weather patterns. Likewise, the ratio of dark- to light-colored moths in England shifted when pollution made light-colored moths more visible to predators. Mutant bacteria survive when they become resistant to antibiotics. These are all clear examples of natural selection in action. But these examples involve only one or a few mutations, and the mutant organism is not much different from its ancestor. Yet to account for all of life, a series of mutations would have to produce very different types of creatures. That has not yet been demonstrated.

Darwin's theory encounters its greatest difficulties when it comes to explaining the development of the cell. Many cellular systems are what I term "irreducibly complex." That means the system needs several components before it can work properly. An everyday example of irreducible complexity is a mousetrap, built of several pieces (platform, hammer, spring and so on). Such a system probably cannot be put together in a Darwinian manner, gradually improving its function. You can't catch a mouse with just the platform and then catch a few more by adding the spring. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.

An example of an irreducibly complex cellular system is the bacterial flagellum: a rotary propeller, powered by a flow of acid, that bacteria use to swim. The flagellum requires a number of parts before it works -- a rotor, stator and motor. Furthermore, genetic studies have shown that about 40 different kinds of proteins are needed to produce a working flagellum.

The intracellular transport system is also quite complex. Plant and animal cells are divided into many discrete compartments; supplies, including enzymes and proteins, have to be shipped between these compartments. Some supplies are packaged into molecular trucks, and each truck has a key that will fit only the lock of its particular cellular destination. Other proteins act as loading docks, opening the truck and letting the contents into the destination compartment.

Many other examples could be cited. The bottom line is that the cell -- the very basis of life -- is staggeringly complex. But doesn't science already have answers, or partial answers, for how these systems originated? No. As James Shapiro, a biochemist at the University of Chicago, wrote, "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

A few scientists have suggested non-Darwinian theories to account for the cell, but I don't find them persuasive. Instead, I think that the complex systems were designed -- purposely arranged by an intelligent agent.

Whenever we see interactive systems (such as a mousetrap) in the everyday world, we assume that they are the products of intelligent activity. We should extend the reasoning to cellular systems. We know of no other mechanism, including Darwin's, which produces such complexity. Only intelligence does.

Of course, I could be proved wrong. If someone demonstrated that, say, a type of bacteria without a flagellum could gradually produce such a system, or produce any new, comparably complex structure, my idea would be neatly disproved. But I don't expect that to happen.

Intelligent design may mean that the ultimate explanation for life is beyond scientific explanation. That assessment is premature. But even if it is true, I would not be troubled. I don't want the best scientific explanation for the origins of life; I want the correct explanation.

Pope John Paul spoke of "theories of evolution." Right now it looks as if one of those theories involves intelligent design.

Remain an atheist if that is your desire.

Hare Krishna

Trying to make believe we have established a most intimate

relationship with Krishna before we have bothered to become self-realized even.

All that is accomlished is to become a cross dresser.

How to clue you in. The fact the Krishna form the original form is only engaged in rasa with His devotees is not in dispute and never has been. Are you crazy people maybe? Why do you persist?

We have also learned that Krishna has unlimited expansions and those expansions are responsible for not only the material world but Vaikuntha as well.

In case you haven't noticed the educational system has become dominated by atheists on planet earth. What to speak of becoming conscious of Vraja rasa people are having the door closed to them to learn of the Supreme Being in any capacity. If that doesn't bother you then fine but why keep up with this one point that is not even in question?

SHEESH

Krishna doesn't directly involve himself in the process of creation.

 

 

Right, He just blows the flute. Krishna doesn't kill demons either. And He doesn't emanate universes from His pores while lying on the causal ocean, Maha-vishnu does. Oh yeah Maha-Vishnu is His expansion.

This has gotten kind of silly don't you think?

I'll bow out first.

Hare Krishna

So by life you mean biological life which is spirit acting upon matter. Well thats fine. But the molecular evolutionists claim that life comes about from a random combination of molecules.

It is nice to hear you oppose that view.

In fact there are many statements in the Upanishads and Vedic literature speaking about how life can arise spontaneously from material nature.

 

 

We must be using the word life differently. We must be very specific here. I would agree that the life particle(atma) can manifest anywhere in material nature. But the atma comes from Krishna. Matter cannot give rise to life. Something lacking awareness cannot produce something that has awareness.

Science, and psuedo science such as "intelligent design", will never be able to reveal the living God, Sri Krishna.

 

 

Interesting that you call the endeavors of the atheistic camp of science "science" and those that give credit to God psudeo science.

As said before no scientific endeavor can reveal Go just as no philophical or religious approach can reveal God. The Lord reveals Himself.

He can reveal Himself as He chooses through modern science. Through ID we can see that He is willing to give a peek into His existence by revealing there is a Supreme Intelligence Who has desinged the universe and the way it works.

Can you imagine waking up to that and finding yourself all alone?

I assume you are the same nameless being (or non-being sorry as you might prefer that) wrote this about Brahma being the creator.

According to the Dhammapada, when Sakhyamuni Buddha met the creator Brahma he said to him that Brahma is under an illusion, since he sees himself as a creator. Buddha said, you are impelled to act by other feelings and forces, and those forces are controlling you. You are a creator, but you are not God.

 

 

So he acknowledges Brahma as the creator in referrence to the variegateness of this universe which is what is under discussion.

As far as his being impelled to act by other forces and feelings that is certainly where the theist would abandon Buddhism.

As I said above:

"Buddhist still accept intelligent design as being behind the cosmic manifestation. Yet they don't accept that intelligence as belonging to an eternal God.

So at one level the Buddhists and theists are united, both against the random chance nonsense that is presently being taught. At some point soon after that we part company..."

Unless you think Brahma did not creat with the use of intelligence your attempt to merge Buddhism with Darwinism fails.

Simply put, a number of factors working together cause things to come into existence. That is, there is no single cause but multiple causes that cause things to arise in the world. Thus, Buddha's teaching is perfectly in accord with neo-Darwinism which says life has arisen through the combination of various chemicals, heat, gases etc.

 

 

Multiple causes with no origin huh? Beyond Brahma you mean right? According to you Buddha told Brahma that forces and feelings were controlling him. Are you now saying gases and chemicals are controlling Brahma? If Brahma is not responsible for the "combination of various chemicals, heat, gases etc." then what is Brahma creator of for Buddha to call him the creator?

Thanks Pankraja, that wasn't the one but that was a nice verse and purport for an explanation of this process.

Yes that is what I thought. There is a certain sanskrit name for the combined subtle bodies in the that lotus stem. I can't remember or find it.

Now we are given a nice visual to grasp on to. The lotus stem and flower. But how literal do we take that? Is it like the chakras on subtle body that are described as lotus's. We have all seen those charts. Or does that just give us the gist of the situation. I don't think the chakras are all perfectly formed lotuses. I've read descriptions of their being swirling "energy" vortexs that roughly take on the shape of flower petals.

So my point is we must be careful if we challenge someone on the basis of having a different metaphor to descibe the same process. They may just have a different angle of vision on the same process.

The Hebrews for example. I wouldn't expect them to know what a lotus flower looks like. I don't think they have them anyway. Anyway they seem to be describing the same process of Brahma re-populating the universe in a more elementary way to their readers in their creation story.

So help me understand something. I have several questions.

What is the lotus that grows from Garbodhakasayi Vishnu to become Brahma's place of birth and seat of meditation composed off?

As I understand it;

Brahma could see the lotus stem but even after searching throuh it he could not find it's source, the transcendental Lord Vishnu, so I am thinking it must be material in composition.

In-between creations the conditioned souls lie dormant along with their subtle forms of material desires. At the next creation they are reawakened and given positions(re-positioned) in the cosmic manifestatation according to those desire bodies.

Is it that the lotus stem of Brahma is composed of the subtle bodies of the jivas awakening from their state of suspended animation?

I believe I read as musch in one of the earlier cantos to SB but can't find it now.

Help please.

Buddhist still accept intelligent design as being behind the cosmic manifestation. Yet they don't accept that intelligence as belonging to an eternal God.

So at one level the Buddhists and theists are united, both against the random chance nonsense that is presently being taught. At some point soon after that we part company.

But let us make best use of the unity and get the education system to open up and not turn this into a debate for against each others teachings.

Personally I would like to see the whole public school monopoly broken up in the name of freedom of thought.