Jahnava Nitai Das

If you look at the quotes the guest provided in the first page of this thread, you will notice in every case Narayana Maharaja tried to stress his own books as being equal to Srila Prabhupada's books. For example: In ISKCON the stress is always on reading Srila Prabhupada's books, whereas Narayana Maharaja seems to be first showing Prabhupada's books to get his own books read. If he just told people "Read my books" no one would listen, but if he first says "read Prabhupada's books, and also my books" then some people will go for it. If any other ISKCON guru were to stress their own books as being equal or superior to Srila Prabhupada's books people would laugh at them before throwing them out the door.

That's more or less what I meant. He is aware of some of the things Srila Prabhupada has taught, but he has not studied thoroughly everything Srila Prabhupada wrote.

I think if anyone not connected with these various sides were to look at the situation (without considering the people involved as pure devotees), the objective view would be that Narayana Maharaja has probably never read Prabhupada's books. I am not saying this as a criticism.

Srila Prabhupada used to read his own books. There is a letter he wrote to temple devotees saying, "Everyone should read these books, even I am reading these books" (paraphrashed). I don't have time to look up the letter right now, but maybe later I can post it.

It snows in the mountainous regions. Anything above Rishikesh will receive some snowfall in winter.

It pastes fine for me with control-V. Otherwise if your browser blocks "Control + V" then use "Shift + Insert".

Srila Prabhupada's statement: There are different meanings to the word rape, and the context should be understood by the usage. In no culture in the world is someone glorified by calling them a rapist. But this verse is the wife glorifying the husband, and Srila Prabhupada says "fame" here refers to "rape". Show me one culture in the world were calling someone a "sexual abuser" or "rapist" is the way you glorify someone. Your purposeful avoidance of the obvious fitting dictionary definition is due to your offensive view of Srila Prabhupada. Go post your offenses to Srila Prabhupada on your guru's forum, not here. Your only aim here is to show Srila Prabhupada as a person who thought that all women want to be raped. You want people to turn away from Srila Prabhupada's teachings based on your distorted interpretations of them. The fact that your mind chooses to identify 'rape" with sexual abuse instead of "to forcibly carry away" just reflects your own mind set. Srila Prabhupada's spiritual teachings are pure beyond your mundane interpretations. No one would suggest that all women just want to be raped, and by misrepresenting that Srila Prabhupada taught this you are doing the greatest disservice and offense to him. You clearly know that Prabhupada would never teach such a thing, but you still profess it just to insult Srila Prabhupada. Anyone who thinks they are fit to "forgive" Srila Prabhupada for his imagined mistakes and "ignorant" views is equal to a worm in stool, and that specifically refers to you Kulapavana. Nothing implied in my statement, you can take it literally. Srila Prabhupada pulled you from the sewage and made you a human being. He cleaned you up from your meat eating, intoxication and illicit sex and made you a civilized human. In response you want to spit on his face and portray him so that others will despise him. That's the same thing your guru Harikesh did as well. Now look at him.

Many times Srila Prabhupada's use of language differed from our common usage of words. Someone with a little intelligence can easily comprehend what Prabhupada is saying, but those who intentionally want to belittle Srila Prabhupada will be happy to stick with their misunderstandings. A clear example of Srila Prabhupada using a definition not commonly accepted is the following use of "nonvegetarian" in Caitanya Caritamrita: "Similarly, masura dhal and urad dhal are also considered nonvegetarian. These two dhals contain a great amount of protein, and food rich in protein is considered nonvegetarian." (CC Madhya 4.169) Now, people like Kulapavana want to explain that Prabhupada's statements all must be understood exactly according to their 2006 Webster's dictionary, but Srila Prabhupada's language usage didn't follow such conventions. In the example above, urad dhal is not nonvegetarian by any literal definition of the word, yet Srila Prabhupada chose to convey his meaning through this word - using it in the context of a forbidden food. Of course nonvegetarian literally means not coming from vegetation, so there is no way according to the English language that urad dhal can be nonvegetarian. But understanding Srila Prabhupada's unique use of words is not difficult for one who is sincerely trying to hear from him. Srila Prabhupada made a similar use of the word rape, taking an uncommon meaning for the word. If you do a search in google, and use their dictionary feature, the second meaning for rape is given as: "The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction." Guruvani has already explained that Kshatriyas were glorified in ancient times for their ability to carry off a woman from svayamvaras (an ancient form of marriage where the woman selects her husband from a large assembly of kings). The person would have to simultaneously fight against all the other kings and defeat them in battle while trying to carry off the bride. A sensible person would immediately understand that Srila Prabhupada was using the word rape in this context, but Kulapavana will insist that Prabhupada is saying all women like to be sexually abused by men. Kulapavana obviously thinks Srila Prabhupada was a nutcase. You really can't do a greater disservice to Srila Prabhupada than to twist his words. It is obvious that Kulapavana is struggling with his faith in Srila Prabhupada, and is looking for an easy exit by finding distasteful things in Srila Prabhupada's teachings, probably because of the fall of his previous living guru, Harikesh. I would be interested in knowing which of his present living gurus holds the same belief on this topic as he does, or whether this is just something he grew himself from his own fertile imagination. Srila Prabhupada's original statement is as follows: In reply Kulapavana states: In India even today it is not legally allowed for boys to associate with girls, or for boys to talk to girls in a secluded place (they will still be beaten in public in most villages, with police arresting the boy who was beaten). This is very common and happens throughout India, and often comes on the news when someone catches it on film. So what does Srila Prabhupada mean by "legally allowed"? Is he refering to some particular section of the criminal code? No, he is obviously refering to the unwritten accepted cultural rules of interaction. It is not legally allowed for a man to carry off a bride without the parents permission - even if the bride agrees to it. This is still the rule in India, where the parents will get full support from the police in pusuing a boy who has eloped with their daughter. Even today the boy will be arrested when caught. When Srila Prabhupada says, "Although rape is not legally allowed, it is a fact that a woman likes a man who is very expert at rape", only a dimwit will understand it to be refering to the modern definition of rape (sexual abuse). One such dimwit (Kulapavana) insists this is true, and even goes on to forgive Srila Prabhupada for his imperfections: Anyone who feels he is qualified to forgive Srila Prabhupada for his imagined "mistakes" is something like a worm in stool. Kulapavana tries to defend his insults to Srila Prabhupada as follows: First, I would offer that it is Kulapavana who does not know the definitions of rape, as pointed out earlier. The second definition given for "rape" is to "forcibly carry away", not to sexually abuse someone. It is only Kulapavana who insists Srila Prabhupada is refering to sexually abusing someone. Secondly, as has been shown in the example of "nonvegetarian", Srila Prabhupada often used uncommon or nonexistant meanings for words. These are easily understood by context and sincere study of Srila Prabhupada's books. Fools like Kulapavana who are very proud of their so-called academic qualifications are bewildered when confronting such statements by Srila Prabhupada. I shudder to think how Kulapavana must have really destroyed Srila Prabhupada's books while working on translating them in the past.

Dear friends and devotees, Jaya Sita Rama. Please accept my humble pranams. This month we have begun food distribution in a new village, Bagurai Leprosy Colony, located a few kilometers outside of Bhadrak, in Orissa. As the name implies, most of the children in the village have parents affected by leprosy. This makes it even harder for their families to earn money, and take care of the children properly. We are trying to provide a little help in the form of spiritual food, so that the children can at least receive a few nourishing meals. We provide a few photos below of the wonderful children from this village and the recent relief work. We have also included a 3 minute video clip at the following link: Click Here to Watch Video Yours in service, Jahnava Nitai Das, Bhaktivedanta Ashram & Bhaktivedanta International Charities http://www.foodrelief.org

The best thing is to lock them out by creating a spiritual atmosphere around you. The primary thing is to chant and read Bhagavad Gita As It Is. Just touching that book will causes the voices to go. Try it next time they come, pick up Bhagavad Gita and feel the effect on the voices. Recite verse 11:36 of Bhagavad Gita and call out "Keshava". Arjuna tells us there that the demons run when they hear the name of Keshava. Also learn to apply tilak (sacred markings) on 12 parts of your body to protect yourself. And try to stay very clean and rise early in the morning to stay in the mode of sattva (goodness).

Thank you for clarifying your view that Srila Prabhupada is an aparadhi. Thank you for clarifying your view that Srila Prabhupada is a liar and cheater. Why don't you clarify if Govinda Maharaj also thinks Srila Prabhupada is a liar, cheater and offender. It is clear what you have learned from your gurus. Again, it shows that your respect for Bhaktiswarup Damodar Maharaj is false, as I had pointed out before. You once said you considered him a pure devotee, along with one other ISKCON guru. Who was that again? If you really respected Bhaktiswarup Damodar Maharaj, you would have respect for his guru. Real respect, not the fake respect you show while calling his guru a liar, cheater and offender.

You are too dense to communicate with. I never said there are not various opinions. I said opinions do not make the reality. Neither my opinion nor your opinion adds or subtracts anything from an Acharya's position. Thus whether Prabhupada's god brothers accepted him or not as an acharya made no difference to him being an acharya. The fact that you couldn't comprehend the english means there is no point speaking, because either you can't hear or you can't comprehend. Your statements are just completely incoherent. You are trying to equate an upanayana samskara (receiving sacred thread for the three higher castes) with the bhagavat parampara diksha. Rather than taking Prabhupada's statement on this matter, you use your fertile imagination to imagine what might have occured when Parikshit was a child in the palace. "Well, maybe he could have been initiated into the sacred thread as a child." It is obvious you have no clue what so ever about our parampara. Please read Prabhupada's books more thoroughly. Maharaja Parikshit was the direct disciple of Sukadeva Goswami, and he was initiated by hearing the Bhagavatam. Go ask your living guru and his therapist wife and they can confirm that for you. Srila Prabhupada answers your speculations like this: "Maharaja Parikshit was such a maha-bhagavata devotee because he was initiated by a maha-bhagavata devotee, Shukadeva Gosvami." (Srimad Bhagavatam 1.18.16) Again, you contradict yourself in the same post. First you try to cite Parikshit supposedly receiving sacred thread as a child as being his real diksha, then you conclude that simply receiving the sacred thread is not the real diksha. The you say it is the spiritual knowledge that is the real diksha. You are confused and arguing for the sake of arguing. You are just a pretender who has no knowledge of anything you are speaking about. You tried to claim you knew that all of the sages hearing from Sukadeva Goswami had already been initiated: Go ahead and list all the sages who were in the assembly, tell us who each one was initiated by and when. You were a bluffer trying to pretend you had some spiritual knowledge, all to silence Theist. When you are properly initiated according to your belief system, then come back and speak and I will take you seriously. But while condemning all the rascals for not having a living guru, you simultaneously don't have a living guru, and you get all your knowledge from Amar Chitra Katha comic books. Srila Prabhupada often spoke about knowing a fool when he opens his mouth. It was clear as soon as you started this thread. You made up fake quotes from Prabhupada which he never said. Then you challenged: After making up a quote from Prabhupada, you then made the above claim that Srila Prabhupada "always" spoke about belonging to the unbroken chain of disciplic succession. It was shown that Srila Prabhupada mentioned this one time in his life, in 1951. So you don't even know what Srila Prabhupada teaches and what he didn't teach. Yes, you claim he "always spoke of this". Other nonsensical speculations you have presented in this thread: No, Srila Prabhupada never did that. You made that up and then put Prabhupada's name to make it look authoritative. Then you suggest Prabhupada would be a useless nobody if it wasn't for his few days of associating with Bhaktissidhanta Saraswati: Even if Srila Prabhupada had never seen his guru physically, he would still be a pure devotee of Lord Krishna. Then you made the absurd claim that you could trace the diksha line from Bhaktisiddhanta to Bhaktivinoda Thakur: Then you made another incoherrent statement about our parampara absolutely always being a physical connection... except for those numerous gaps: Then you again lied and said Prabhupada wanted to maintain the idea of an unbroken disciplic succession, which as had been shown, was only mentioned once by Srila Prabhupada in a letter from 1951: Then you again lied and said Prabhupada presented his parampara in a new and unique way: No, it was you who presented it in a new and unique way, not Srila Prabhupada. Then you tried to trace your parampara from Harikesh to Bipin Bihari: I can honestly say you don't have a clue about what you are talking, and are just stumbling around looking like a fool - all the while criticizing the other devotees here like Theist and Guruvani because they don't agree with you. Doens't Harikesh have a forum of his own for ex-disciples like you to talk and offend Srila Prabhupada?

To Guest: It is much more likely that the past "current Spiritual Gurus" who turned out to be child molestors and homosexuals had more to do with it. To Kulapavana: "Not falling down" is not the qualification of a spiritual master. There are thousands of people throughout the world who "do not fall down", but that doesn't make them the 33rd link in the parampara. So in answer, someone not falling down doesn't really tell you anything. On the other hand, someone falling down confirms that they were never a link in the parampara. I hope you can catch the distinction in this. One shows who is not a guru, the other shows nothing - other than the fact that they didn't fall down. It never identifies who is a guru. And if Harikesh had passed on "in good standing" you would still be fooled by him. Passing away in good standing proves nothing. The parampara isn't a matter of opinions "of their disciples". Either they are the link, or they are not the link. Our opinions of them have no bearing on their spiritual connection to Krishna. Opinion of validity is different from validity. You fail to comprehend basic philosophical points, so I don't think theist can really convince you of anything. It is a fact that Parikshit is a disciple of Sukadeva Goswami. He was initiated solely by hearing the Bhagavatam. You foolishly laugh at such an initiation saying no one else in the audience could have received the same initiation by the same process of hearing. It just displays your ignorance. Theist made a very intelligent point which flew right over your head, and you replied with sarcasm that displayed your ignorance of philosophy. And then you tried to pretend that you knew every sage in the audience who was listening to Sukadeva Goswami, and that you knew that each one had already been initiated, and you also knew who initiated each one. Are you sane or not? Why do you try to pretend so much, especially while ridiculing other devotees like Theist? Of course from the beginning you haven't displayed any aptitude for philosophical research. You continually put forward your own blind opinions with claims that they were "repeatedly" spoken by Srila Prabhupada, and then scoffed at all the rest of us fools. When it is pointed out that you had provided a fake quote, and you had then claimed it was spoken by Prabhupada, rather than get some sense and realize the mistake of your foolishness you just kept insulting people like Theist. When it was shown that Prabhupada never "repeatedly" said what you claimed he said, you didn't get the significance. It shows that you have no comprehension of Prabhupada's basic teachings, yet you want to scoff at people like Theist and belittle them. You pretend to have the perfect complete philosophical conclusion on the guru issue, yet you are not initiated by a bonafide guru. You speak volumes of the need to approach a LIVING guru and receive PERSONAL guidance from him. So show us by your actions. Go and approach your living guru and receive personal guidance from him. The fact is you are all talk. Your living guru ran off with a lady and is living in luxury off of the money he stole from his disciples. What personal guidance did you get from all of that? So rather than trying to laugh off people like Theist, you need to grow up and realize you don't have all the answers you pretend you have. And if you want to prove me wrong, then act on your philosophy and find the living guru you say you really need. Because until you find him, you will be a blind person by your own philosophy. You should really not speak until you get the "personal guidance" you claim is required to remove your misconceptions. The link in the parampara is not determined by the opinions of the public, nor by the opinion of Srila Prabhupada's godbrothers. Krishna remains Krishna regardless of what Kamsa thinks. And Srila Prabhupada remains the parampara acharya regardless of what blind people think. To Muralidhar: Yet you have serious doubts about the legitimacy of Srila Prabhupada, his guru, simply because someone posted one letter where he criticized his god brothers. What is the use of such weak or sentimental faith? You will glorify Bhaktiswarup Damodar Maharaj while questioning his own guru.

Chanting is enough. But for those who want more engagement of the mind and senses, they can engage in other types of worship, called puja. Puja usually involves having a deity of Krishna (or a picture of him), and then offering various items to him. The general items offered are food, flowers, water, incense, fire, cloth, and wind.

Hara indicates Revati when Rama refers to Balarama. Hara refers to Sita when Rama refers to Ramachandra. Hara refers to Radha when Rama refers to Krishna.

What you are essentially desiring is that this world should be Vaikuntha (a place of no suffering). That is the overall duty of the devotees, to some how try to get all the living entities to Vaikuntha so that they can be free from all suffering.

One aspect of knowledge, is direct spiritual experience of the Personality of Godhead, as opposed to a particular written philosophy. Different devotees will have different direct perceptions of the Lord, and based on that they will present a written philosophy. The actual knowledge is absolute, even though it appears different to different people. The reflection of that knowledge is their philosophy. The knowledge passed down in the disciplic succession is unbroken because it is the perception of the Supreme Lord. Though it may vary according to the devotee's relationship with the Lord, it still remains a perfect perception of the Lord. What is planted in the heart of the devotee at the time of initiation is that seed of transcendental knowledge, which will lead to direct experience of the Lord. As far as the phrase "unbroken chain of disciplic succession", I don't see anything particularly wrong with it as long as it isn't used as the "proof" for a physical chain of bodies. I only pointed out that it wasn't Srila Prabhupada's key phrase to show how many of the things we repeat in ISKCON didn't really come from him but from later preachers. I am sure I have used that particular phrase many times as well, but not in the context of an absolutely physical chain of bodies, with each guru performing a diksha ceremony with fire sacrifice, etc.

Dear Guest, First you made the distinction by asking him "you got harinam intiation from him or diksha initiation from him?", and then you attack him for going along with the distinction. What is your point in doing that? Please get a username before going on with such questions, so he can identify your posts and keep track of your incoherent thought patterns.

Actually Srila Prabhupada hasn't really used the phrase unbroken chain of disciplic succession, except for one solitary letter written in 1951 where he says: "Sages of India realized this by a perfect deductive process which descends on human consciousness by the transcendental unbroken chain of disciplic succession". Your claim that Srila Prabhupada "always spoke" of this is just a myth, one that you probably honestly believe. The phrase primarily originated from people like Satsvarupa, and there are over 20 or 30 uses of it in BTG from 1970 to 2000 (by Satsvarupa and others, not by Srila Prabhupada), plus countless uses in other books like ISKCON Communications Journal. There are zero places where Srila Prabhupada uses this phrase in his books, lectures, and conversations - and just the one single use in his above letter from 1951. This catch phrase is not really a "Prabhupada catch phrase", its a "Satsvarupa catch phrase". They have also inserted this phrase into "A Second Chance", a book not written by Srila Prabhupada, but created by his disciples from his teachings. The only quote you cite that actually uses this phrase, which you attribute to "(from the Dr. Frog Ph.D. talks)" is not spoken by Prabhupada at all. It doesn't exist in the folio. So again you have unintentionally quoted someone else and claimed it is Prabhupada speaking. In every other case Srila Prabhupada speaks of unbroken knowledge. Perhaps such simple distinctions you can't catch. You keep repeating that Srila Prabhupada says this, Srila Prabhupada says that. Many of these things that you think Srila Prabhupada said, he never did. You have learned from various ISKCON and non ISKCON sources, and you pass it on as Prabhupada said. Even then, an unbroken chain of disciplic succession in no way refers to physical bodies. It still refers to unbroken knowledge, and that is what Srila Prabhupada "always said". To confirm this, just have a look at the quotes you cited above - minus the one fake quote from Dr. Frog.

Or we could just follow Srila Prabhupada's instructions: "All questions will be clarified if you simply read our books very thoroughly and follow the simple process of devotional service as we have given it to chant regularly and rigidly observe the rules and regulations. This is our principle that the spiritual science becomes revealed to the devotee from within the heart according to the degree of his surrender to Krsna." - Letter to Ekayani, 25 july, 1970

I never spoke anything about what Krishna said, what Bhagavad Gita says or what other Acharya's say. Kulapavana made a claim that Srila Prabhupada said something which he didn't, and I have objected to that claim. I'm not interested in debating with you what Krishna said in Bhagavad Gita.

Srila Prabhupada did not present the parampara as a link of bodies, one to the next - you did. It is amazing how much speculation you are presenting in this thread and then claiming "Prabhupada said it" without offering a single evidence. For whatever reason no one has even cared to challenge these baseless claims you are making. This is what Srila Prabhupada actually teach about Parampara: "Regarding the disciplic succession coming from Arjuna, disciplic succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic conclusion." - Letter 31 October, 1969 "Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person." - Letter, 25th Jan. 1969 "It is not necessary always to be officially initiated, but if they participate in the group chanting of Hare Krsna Mantra and taking of Prasadam weekly or daily as it is possible, that will fulfill our mission." - Letter, 14th May 1970 Further, if you see under what context Srila Prabhupada speaks specifically about "parampara" it is always about Arjuna, the sun god, and the reception of Bhagavad Gita. In every instance he says, "we are receiving this Bhagavad Gita in parampara because we are receiving it from Lord Krishna through Arjuna." Of course this has very little connection to your idea of parampara, which involves the physical bodies of Bengalis from recent times. Srila Prabhupada was not a fool. He presented a disciplic succession (as was presented by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati), where some of the gurus never physically met their disciples. He knew fully well that it was not a physical succession. Yet you make the baseless claim that Prabhupada was presenting a physical chain of bodies. And the obvious reason is because he was initiated in the heart by Jagannatha Das Babaji. Just because he has been instructed by another pure devotee doesn't mean he must have been initiated by him. That is your speculation. Srila Prabhupada never suggested it was a "conceptual" parampara. You are hearing from mixed up sources. You should try hearing from Srila Prabhupada instead of all sorts of outside people. Srila Prabhupada never once mentioned the name of Bipin Bihari Goswami. He didn't even acknowledge his existence, and certainly didn't trace his guru parampara through him. Additionally it shows you are flip flopping between diksha line and siksha line, while arguing in favor of an absolute physical diksha line. As other devotees have pointed out, there is no diksha line from Bhaktivinoda Thakur to Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati. The diskha line only goes to Lalit Prasad. So I can guess who gave you this suggestion. There is absolutely no diksha line connection between Srila Prabhupada and Bipin Bihari Goswami. The parampara could never be traced by this method, nor has Srila Prabhupaa suggested such a thing. Now you have jumped to a siksha connection, not diksha. So it is clear you are confused about these things. No, the line he has given is an absolute siksha line where diksha sometimes happens to coincide with siksha. In your own sentence you defeat yourself by pointing out that your primary statement is false ("every case", but "not counting the gaps"). The fact that gaps are there is the proof it is not a case of direct linkage "in every case". No, Kulapavana wanted to maintain the idea of a physical unbroken succession, not Prabhupada. You keep pushing his name in front of your statements. Why do that? Just say it is your opinion and leave Prabhupada out of it. If Srila Prabhupada wanted to maintain the idea of a physical unbroken succession of bodies he wouldn't have presented a parampara with physical gaps.

It is a very common practice amongst Jains in India to fast till death while taking water. I have seen many times it comes in the newspaper that such and such person has been fasting for 90 days or 100 days. I haven't studied it in detail, but base it only on the newspaper reports that come regularly.

In a case like that, it could be that they are artificially extending the life of the body. But I don't want to be the one to decide any of that. Because there are miracle cases of people comming out of comas after 20 years, so it is really difficult to try to decide. Over all it is everyone's duty to try to protect others' lives, rather than end them. In that sense I would prefer to err on the side of protecting life, than on the side of removing life. I can imagine greedy relatives would misuse this opportunity to unplug the person from life support just to get an inheritance. In kali yuga it is difficult to have a decision based solely on the wellfare of the individual. The doctors will be happy if they live forever, as long as they pay their monthly bills. And the relatives will be waiting for the person to die to grab their money. There is also an uncommon Vedic system of fasting till death, which seems a little more sattvic in comparison to medically assisted suicide. When you fast till death, you usually live for months if you continue taking water. So it isn't just a matter of an abrupt rash decision to end everything. You have 3 or 4 months to meditate on what you are doing and to stop at any time. With a lethal injection, once you did it there's no turning back. It may have just been a passing depression, or a moment of insanity. Two weeks ago there was some guru in Bihar who was burried alive in "jiva samadhi". His disciples claimed he had ordered them to put him in samadhi while living, and they even filmed it with hundreds of villagers coming to worship him and pay respects as he was lowered into the pit and burried. The police wanted to exhume the body to see if he had been poisoned or forced into being burried, but the villagers were objecting saying the film showed he went along with it. I never found out what finally was decided.

These things are really impossible for any of us to know for certain. I would guess that under most circumstances where the person was just trying to avoid pain (where the body was not physically finished, as it usually is when being hooked up to life support), that their time for death had not yet come and they would dwell as ghosts. When you destroy your body prior to your alloted life finishing you are forced to wait as a ghost for your alloted time to finish. The only difference between shooting yourself in the head and taking a lethal injection is that one looks clean and painless. But both are suicide. One thing we can be certain of is that pain and suffering (karmic reaction) cannot be avoided simply by ending your body. The karmic reaction will still be there and will just pick up where you left off.