Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

nitaipoddar

Members
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About nitaipoddar

  • Rank
    Visitor

Converted

  • Location
    Alachua Florida
  • Interests
    Vedic Astrology, Art, Literature, Tao Te Ching
  • Occupation
    Student - English Major
  1. A few responses to the above engagements: A reader stated that it is safe to assume something does not exist if you cannot prove its existence. This is a very common misconception. Logic favors the existence of god. Let me explain why it is infinitely safer to assume something exists rather than deny its existence: First, understand how infinitely vast the universe is. When one says something does NOT exist anywhere in this universe, he is almost *certainly* wrong. Conversely, if one assumes that somewhere in the universe, something exists, then he is almost certainly right. The universe is just that vast. Remember the tale of the frog in the well who denied the existence of an ocean, because he was surrounded by stone. Secondly, let me use a historical example: 700 years ago, in the western world, it was "assumed" the world was flat. No one had yet proven it was round, so people just naturally assumed it was flat. It is far better to engage something intellectually than to deny its existence. Chances are, it exists. Someone also noted that atheists are addicted to being an atheists. Atheism is a psychological defense. Most atheists are people who have been somehow emotionally hurt by some aspect of religion, and therefore shield themselves by denying the existence of god.
  2. I'd like to share with you what I believe to be a simple, logical impossibility of the idea of Atheism. Most atheists forget this concept, but it is very simple to understand. Behold: There are three types of people: Theists Agnostics Atheists Theists believe in a God. Agnostics either are unsure of the existence of God, or do not care, or insist that we can never know. Atheists, however, deny the existence of any god anywhere in the Universe. This is my definition of atheism. To deny the existence of the Judeochristian god is not atheism *by this definition*. Now that I have the definitions in place, watch how the logic cannot work: An atheist will deny the existence of god anywhere in the universe, where universe is defined as Everything. Suppose I asked you the following: "Prove to me that no pink giraffes exist anywhere in the city of New York" Can it be done? Absolutely not. In order to prove to me that no pink giraffes exist anywhere in New York would require an awareness of EVERYTHING in New York, over every square inch, at ALL TIMES. So, using my example, one would have to have *omnipotence* over the city of New York in order to prove to me that no pink giraffes exist there. Now do you see the problem? I have only limited this to the city of New York. What if I asked you to prove to me that no god exists anywhere in the entire universe? It would simply not be possible. In order to prove this to me, one would need to have an omnipotent awareness of *everything* in the universe. And this is why the atheist's claims are just logically impossible. It's very simple. I wish more people would look at it /images/graemlins/smile.gif
  3. I bow down humbly before these points. I find them appealing, and enlightening, as a neophyte and a wandering youth of nineteen years of age. I commend you for your bravery in sharing this in such volatile forums. I understand you have recieved much undue criticism from others, and for this I apologize on their behalf. What you have stated above is beautiful in every way, and has made my evening complete. For this I am in your debt. Brother, please continue posting, and pay no mind to the nay-sayers. Your message reaches the ears of those who wish to hear it the most, and these people silently show gratitude.
  4. Forgive me, but I am quite disturbed by the level of hatred you have displayed towards a fellow human being, Maadhav, be he a muslim or not. Twice disturbing is your justification of hatred and violence by considering it as Krishna's message. Even more disturbing is this seperation you create between Krishna and Chaitanya. We are a thousand times fortunate to have the mercy of Shri Chaitanya in the kali yuga. But most disturbing of all is that you seem to have the foothold over this forum. What you speak is irrational, because you insist that every muslim is inherantly evil, and that the only dharma we have as human beings is to kick the muslims out of Bharat, or the whole world. This is not the mode of goodness, but rather the mode of ignorance and passion. This kind of fervent bloodlust is destructive to the placidity of the mind and destructive to one's dharma. The muslims are not, as you said, a cancer. The muslims are not, as you said, a snake. What I see from you is fanatacism, and fanaticism in a discussion only creates argument. Please, make the effort to open your eyes and realize that all our brothers and sisters as human beings deserve to be embraced, even the muslims, and when I say muslims, I do NOT mean the violent fanatics who murder in the name of God and wield AK-47s. I mean the millions and millions of other muslims who live in our world, share our air, live and die under the same sky, and whom we as humans call our brothers and sisters, and who are at heart good people, even if they do call themselves muslims. Understand that there is a world of people out there, and in this world of people there are millions upon millions of muslims who denounce the violence of the mullas and denounce the terrorism and denounce the barbaric acts commited by some fanatic muslims. Understand this, and then we will continue the discussion.
  5. I deeply regret choosing to defend myself like this, but I shall. I hope we can keep this a healthy discussion, and not an argument: Maadhav: "no. if it were so, krishna would never have said to arjun to fight. " My reply: I have two responses. First, Arjun's fighting of his brethren does not show that Krishna places retribution above compassion and forgiveness. Arjun is fulfilling his duty as a Ksatriya, and a participant in Krishna's "lila", and is thus forgiven for the sins of killing his family members. Secondly, Kali Yuga and Dvapara Yuga are two different ages. In this age of Kali, compassion, devotion, humility, tolerance, and chanting of the maha mantra are considered higher virtues than fighting evil through force of arms. Maadhav: "why not you go in iraq and conquer the terrorits with your compassion? was krishna a fool when he created four varnas including kshatriyas? did he create kshatriyas as dummies?" My response: I have not yet learned the degree of compassion that Haridas Thakur displayed. I could not hope to even match his compassion in a hundred lifetimes. I can only respect his example, and try and follow it, be it against Iraqi terrorists, or in every day life. This is his true message. Krishna is not a fool for creating the four varnas. Please remember, however, that the varnas are in essence material and mundane. Sudra, Vaisya, Ksatriya, Brahmana--these are all titles. Our true quality is measured by our compassion towards other living beings, not just our adherance to varna-dharma. Members of every varna, of every religion, of EVERY race may practice compassion, and each act of compassion makes the world a better place. This is why compassion is superior to varna-dharma. Maadhav: yes, not to Hks, and therefore you do not know what the Hindus have suffered from invader islam for centuries. still you want to advise to hindus to love islam My reply: Yes, I do advise everyone, hindu christian HK, everyone, to love one another, muslim or not. As Gandhiji said, "we must be the change we wish to see in the world." Counter-violence towards Muslims is absolutely no way to bring peace and light into the world. Violence, anger, hatred: all these things cloud the judgement, and bring darkness and chaos, not peace and not light. Maadhav: oh, so now haridas is to muslims as jesus was to jews. My reply: If you mean Jesus was compassionate, forgiving and loving to the jews, then yes. Maadhav: now note this: no muslim or mulla ever remembers who haridas was and what his compassion was. muslims have killed may such haridas after this haridas. all Hks and haridasas are kafirs to muslims, and they will kill kafirs. My reply: I can't expect any muslim or mulla to remember who haridas was. It is not a history widely propagated in the muslim circle, but it can be, with our effort. It is, after all, a beautiful story. And yes, I understand the violence between the muslims and hindus, and how many saintly personalities have been slain by their hand. Aurangzeb himself violated so many of our temples. But we cannot add to the bloodshed. So many great personalities we look up to have professed nonviolence, again and again: From haridas thakura to shri nityananda prabhu (remember the tale of jagai and madai) to Jesus Christ to Gandhiji himself. To go against their teachings is destructive. Maadhav: they cannot (foolishly), as long as they do not know the history of islam and what they ahve done to the vedic people and their devabhoomi. and why do Hks love muslims more than hindus who also worship krishna My reply: I ask forgiveness for stating this, but if I do not, someone else may do so rudely. Revenge seems to be the only thing on your mind, sir. It does not matter to me how violent the history between Muslims and Hindus has been. I, personally, cannot add to the violence, and refuse to. I understand sins and crimes have been committed in the past, and I mourn the loss, but it is destructive to add to the violence and unrest with more violence and more anger. Maadhav: no, not at all if you cannot love an invader in your house who throws you out, throws your krishna altar out, and rapes your mother and daughter in front of your eyes. if however you love such an invader, then say so please My reply: First of all, one does not have to be muslim to commit such crimes, or christian, jewish, buddhist, or hindu. Secondly, the idea that all muslims are so brutal and violent is a dangerous falsehood. It is unfortunate that the muslim religion has such a violent history, and it is unfortunate that so many muslims are so violent, but it does not mean every muslim everywhere is violent, and it is certainly no excuse to denounce all muslims. What kind of compassion is that?
  6. Best to be thankful to be exposed to scriptures. It is a gift to have the vedas recited.
  7. This is a truly beautiful exerpt from a gifted author and a very deep book. I thank you for posting it here.
  8. Hare Krishna All glories to Shrila Prabhupada Thank you for sharing this with us. Whatever connotations of hindu vs. muslim, or ksatriya vs barbarian we may conclude from the story of Nama Acarya Haridas Thakura, we should at least be grateful that someone has eloquently recited the story to us. I humbly suggest we first understand Shrila Haridas Thakura's example, and humble ourselves infront of such incredible compassion and tolerance. Shri Krishna's Sudarshan Chakra has the power to destroy worlds. The very notion that his pure devotee would, through his compassion, halt the chakra from leaving his finger is something to deeply consider. Let us then draw the conclusion that compassion is the strongest of forces, even though it is supple and quiet. Forgiveness is the greatest of strengths, and tolerance the highest of austerities. As for the idea of strength in unity, I ask you this: If Haridas Thakur's strength of heart and compassion halted Shri Hari's Sudarshan Chakra itself, what is the use of send ksatriyas to deal with the muslim executioners? I dislike sounding didactic, but I feel it is appropriate to point out the following. Whatever hatred or bitterness we may feel towards whatever muslim (I do not at all share any such bitterness. I never judge someone by their religion) we should still realize that no muslim has *ever* wronged us or hurt us as terribly as they had to Shri Haridas Thakur. He has forgiven them, and not only that, but prayed to Shri Hari on their behalf. Not only that, but he willingly died (or went into samadhi) because the executioners were being inconvenieced by his fortitude! Now, with all this in mind, how can any of us even begin to show any hate towards the Muslims? I ask you now, is that not an absolute disregard for Nama Acarya Haridas Thakura's example? Is it not disrespectful and shameful to continue to hate muslims despite the pain Haridas Thakura endured? Once more, I challenge no one, and only offer my thoughts for quiet consideration. Hare Krishna
  9. I apologize for the belated response. I am deeply thankful and humbled by your words. I will continue to offer what small input I can add to the growing discussion. However, after reviewing this thread, I implore the readers and writers to consider politeness in responding. Discussions without courtesy become arguments, and the intrinsic anonymity of the internet makes it easy for one to argue, instead of discuss. Hare Krishna.
  10. ...I see. I am afraid I cannot further pursue this debate, for to do so would cause me to risk accidentally disrespecting you or another reader. I can see your point of view, and I understand it, academically. I must admit I do not have enough knowledge or wisdom to properly debate this topic, but I am honored to have the chance to offer my voice. Still, to the original poster of this thread, I give the following humble and naive advice: Remember compassion.
  11. First, Madhav, you are a senior poster and my elder, and hence I respect your opinion. However, I feel I must rectify a few things, and clarify my point of view, in order to bring my idea to light. (either you are saying this out of total ignorance of islam and what it has done to hindus for 1000 years) I understand the bloody and violent struggle between hindus and muslims. However, conversion to Islam does not mean the boy is going to become violent towards hindus. Furthermore, it is unfair to say that every muslim is violent towards hindus. I personally have quite a few muslim friends, and they are my friends because I respect their souls, and because I do not discriminate based on such material identities such as denomination. (or you are a muslim but in disguise of an HK) No, sir. I do not practice the teachings of the Qu'ran. I admit I am but an ignorant neophyte and rather poor excuse for a scholar, and am attempting to find some measure of peace and enlightenment in the necterean verses of the Gita. (Islam does not) Islam, sir, is not the Lord. Islam is an organization. (Difficult or not, every effort needs to be made to get him on the right dharma) In the Gita, Shri Krishna says "He for whom no one is put into misery is very dear to me." When Shri Krishna preaches tolerance, softness and compassion, how can we as part and parcel of the divine lord go against this? (Like in a wrong way?) Sir, we exist to take birth again and again until we ourselves understand the right dharma, and find our own path to Vaikuntha. Sir, to live in this material world is to live in the 'wrong way'. And, furthermore, I am not saying we should be complacent to this boy. But I *am* saying it would be wise for his family to be by his side, and gently guide him, the same way a blind man is gently guided across a busy road. With compassion. (he needs to uderstand who loves him more, who sacrificed for him more; the mullas or his parents? so he needs to listen to those who love him and cared him most.) How do we learn to speak? To breathe? To walk? These are things we learn through time. Time teaches the greatest lessons. The family should give the boy time and support, and be by his side, and he will eventually realize that their love for him is strong and pure. (yes, you took a good turn and became an HK, he did not. he took a wrong turn.) He is a child. A child cannot be beaten for taking a wrong turn. A child will constantly take wrong turns until through trial, error, and attachment to his parents, he will return. A mother may tell her child "fire burns you" but the child will touch the fire to find out for himself. When the fire burns the child, he will run back and cling to his mother. Thus, Shri Krishna instructs us with the teachings of the Gita, but as we are his children, we touch the fire anyway. But our supersoul, the faith in our souls, can guide us back to the lotus feet of shri hari. (when one goes on wrong way, the laws of karma will make him suffer, and it could make others suffer as well, like his parents are already suffering.) Then why add to the suffering? I quote the very same verse from the gita. "He for whom no one is put into misery is very dear to me" (krishna says in gita what is true nature of our souls. koran does not say it) Indeed. Let the boy find out by his own volition. And let the family be by his side, and offer him love and guidance, as always. (the duty is to make people krishna conscious. that is what prabhupada did. what you are advising here is not an efffort in that directuon.) I cannot compare myself to Shrila Prabhupada, and I will never be able to. However, what I am advising is compassion and understanding. Srila Prabhupada was the most compassionate of souls. To scream and pressure a child is not compassion. It will only confuse and hurt him. It is not the path to enlightenment. (sure, but to a point. beyond that point i do not recomemd supporting one who follows an asuric ideology) Is there ever a point where the mother stops loving her son? How is that possible? No, love does not mean complacency. Love means steady, gentle, nurturing support. It is the same love that Krishna shows to us, and it is such a love we are to show to our children. To threaten to denounce a child is asuric. (bhishma and kauravas were arjun's own family blood. still arjun killed them. hinduism does not give importance to blood relation. importance is given to dharma.) Arjun's slaying of the Kauravas was all part of Krishna's great play. Everyone's earthly dharma is different, but every soul on earth has one dharma: To seek shelter at the lotus feet of Shri Krishna, and to chant the holy name. There is no "dharma" in denouncing a child. (he demonstrated that he really does not know what hindism is and what islam is; or that he does not know what is good or bad. when one accpets a wrong ideology, one can harm others any time, we just do not know when.) How can a nineteen year old boy understand this? It is not an easy thing to understand and accept. Teachings are not transferred through a beating stick. Once the parents and son decide to sit down and communicate maturely, then teaching can be done. (islam does not care for it. history of islam proves it.) You continually say Islam. I am not judging this boy by his denomination. There have been Hindus that have committed terrible sins and Muslims who have done wonderful piety. (yes, he has freedom like duryodhan had. arjuns have their own freedom how to handle asuric ideology followers) Please, do not compare the boy to Duryodhan. That is not at all fair. At heart, sir, we are all sinners, and we all need proper guidance. (if that is so, then the hippies had no reason to become HKs) This makes no sense. Srila prabhupada's message is for every heart and soul. (are you willing to become a muslim? if not, then why encourage others to follow islam?) When did I say follow Islam? When did I say follow any particular religion? I merely said support, love, and care for the child. That is all.
  12. The lord loves all his sons and daughters equally, and I implore you to do the same. Please, do not make this difficult on the boy. I too am nineteen years old, and it is natural and common to become introspective like this. To have such pressure on him, such as threats of disownment, will hurt him more. Life is a journey. The laws of karma and reincarnation exist to help us grow, advance and become better people, and to understand the true nature of our souls, and our duty as eternal children of the lord. Please, just support him and be with him. He is your own blood, and part of your family. Does his denomination really make him a worse person? Compassion and understanding are the two greatest virtues of the human soul. Support the boy, and offer him guidance. It is his decision whether to accept the guidance or not, as his life is his own journey. Please remember. Under the smiling gaze of Shri Hari, all are equal, and all His children are loved by Him. Your nephew is good enough for the Lord, and so he should be good enough for you. I humbly ask you to forgive my didactic tone. I only hope to help -Nityanandaram Das Poddar, Florida
×
×
  • Create New...