krist

that is the order i am reading them in now. i have all of them (SB&CC) in my posession but they collect dust on my shelf, but my geeta and others (20 odd books of the acharyas) get tattered and well read.

our traditions scriptures and books by our gurus and acharys are the only ones i can read, i litterly find others boring; totally boring. if its religious i can not read it without getting totally annoyed or bored out of my mind. i find it funny. it's almost comically that i feel so repulsed by mayavdis thoughs and works. i just wish i could find motion pictures, silly cartoons and common foods so boring. ah maya is so compelling that we all have some material ties to non-devotional life. false renucation is so desirable but i know better. oh move to a island and read and chant, NOT! if lord krishna wanted me to do that i would have been born into a indian family that woudl have helped me in that direction. ah the plight of an american. cable internet and non-devotional music, movies and tv oh my.......

i have felt this way for very long, but thankfully as a 2nd/3rd generation europeanamerican i was raised in a hindu/buddhist household, so i was never indoctrinated into the christian supremacy ideas. what amazes me is i always hear hindus say that "all are paths to god and all are equal", i usally say "if you say so but i heartly dissagree" they usally say "my parents or grandparents think like you." i just smile and say "well manmade religions are all the same they are not eturnal, but the vedas are eturnal and god given" they just stop talking after that. or say "i heard that before from so and so guru" what is the point of having a guru if you do not listen to him and learn?

http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/articledesc.asp?cid=307498 apparently not according to this writer, i tend to agree. Manu, one of the great ancient lawgivers of the Hindu tradition, states the following in his Manava-dharma-shastra: All those traditions and all those disreputable* systems of philosophy that are not based on the Veda produce no positive result after death; for they are declared to be founded on darkness. All those doctrines differing from the Veda that spring up and soon perish are ineffectual and misleading, because they are of modern date. (XII, 95) *Lacking respectability, as in character, behavior, or appearance.

in older mayavati hinduism books and of mayavati gurus they give this order of chanting from lowest to highest, loudly being lowest lest powerful to softer and finally mental chanting to be the highest most powerfull form of chanting. this is opposite of our tradition. personally i find that very strange that traditionally mental chanting to be the most powerful. as sankiratan is our way it would seem that louder is more pleasing to the lord and it fills the air with his most holy names for all to hear.

i have heard that you can chant metally and its the same as verbally chanting. i would like to know if anyone has thoughts on this topic. a few people say it is not proper but everything i know is that it makes no diffance how, just do it. every argument against it i notice only is srila prabhupada says this and that but i never seen him say anything against it. i would love to see referances to direct quotes that i can look up and see the proof for my self. i know he does perfer it to be said aloud, but for practial reasons i have difficulty in chanting outloud as my thoat gets very dry and horse and hurts after 5 minutes or less.