Ganeshprasad

Jai Ganesh Re But still, I am so convinced that all are children of One God, that I cannot generalize.) for this there is no doubt what choice do we have? protect what we have and love all Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh om namo Shivaya atanu Unlike you I do not have any intention of lowering the infinite Lords. Siva and Visnu are same. One manifests while coming and another manifests while going that is great Sri Bhagvat 4.1-28Atri Muni desiring a son like him called upon the Bhagvan thinking of him only. But although he is far beyond the mental speculation of man, all three of you have come here. kindly let me know how you have come, I am greatly bewildered about this.4.1-30 the three devas told Atri Muni, Dear brahmana you are perfect in your determination, and therefore as you have desired so it will happen, it will not happen otherwise. We are all the same person upon whom you were meditating, and therefore we have all come to you. Vishupuran say this 5.33-46 yo harih sa siva saksad yah sivah sa svayam harih ye tayor bhedam ati sthan narak aya bhave narah. Whoever is lord hari, he himself is lord shiva indeed any human being mistake both the lords to be different,he/she surely goes to hell yatha siva mayo vishnuh Sivasya hrdyam Visnur Visnoz ca hrdayam Sivah(Skanda puran) Just as Lord Vishnu is pervaded by Lord Shiva, Similarly, in Shivas heart Vishnu resides and Vishnus heart is abode of Shiva. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re (..probably you are joking... everyone must be tolerant, but we are speaking of something else. I do not advocate intolerance. Not really, you accused us hindus of irreligious simply because we tolorate different pratices that exit in vedic Hindu dharma. RE (..this is the discussion.. you are saying that some philosophies must be reunited under the same denomination. I do not agree and i am giving explanations. And you are joking with the fact if intolerance that has nothing to do with our discussion) I have never said any where that the philosophies must be united, but you delibrately fail to see in a family when we come together is out of love of each other and don’t ask me to look for common princple. Re Dharma is in acharan (action) (..if this action respects the principles of dharma) There is no if and buts here. Re (..again the fact that truthfullness means different things for any school) Just be truthful Re (..tapasya means coherence.. where's the principle on wich all (so called) hindu schools are coherently agree?) Tapasya means austirity tolorance is one of the virtue, remain pure in heart and in our action, have mercy these are the fudamental principles one must abide on the path of self realization. Re (..these principles are in every religion and in some atheist philosophies, and they are relatively marginal in comparison with the concept of the existence and god..) good so if everyone follows then we would have very peaceful existance, the cloud of ignorance will disappear what you call marginal, try put in to pratice,you might find the meaning of tapasya RE god and brahman are nondifferent (..inside hinduism many thinks that they're different, many thinks also that brahman is the only reality and god is maya.... so your principle is not commonly accepted.) So there is brahman, parmatma and bhagvan realization it does not bother me, and do not forget, to realize this concept we all have to follow this four princples which you so flippantly call marginal Re do not try and class the many opinions of the creator as irreligious (..again you are joking.. we are not speaking of my judgement about a path or another, i am only saying that they are not compatible) You are making a statement and I reply to it and you call me joker? Where have I said all prctices are compatiable with each other? In the eyes of the lord these are all worships he accepts. Re You are calling the hindus irreligious (..hindu people? why? i am saying that every hindu group consider the other group different and sometimes opposite, so adharmic and irreligious. So wanting to unite for some materialist pride purpose what it is conceptually incompatible is a sin) I will have to ignore your opinion, we are not adharmic, we strive to be noble, we live by our dharma, most of us do not belong to any group and we are free to choose if we want. Ultimatley we are all individual and resposiable for our own actions. People know us as hindu, I would not mind if they call us vedic, it means same to us Re (we are speaking of beliefs... or which beliefs make one a hindu..) Anyone path coming from vedas, more importantly living by the laws of scriptures. Re You are misrepresenting the advaita; I have never known anyone calling a Bhakta adharmic. (..we are not speaking of behaving in a bad manner or being fanatical and so on.. if someone follows a dharma, he necessarily thinks that opposite conceptions are adharmic. But again, no problem, if someone thinks that also opposite dharmas can be reunited under the same name, he cannot surely being reunite with the ones who do not agree on this kind of lack of discrimination.) You do not understand the meaning of dharma, dharma of fire is heat of ice is cold this does not make them adharmic. Dharma of humans is in behaviour Re (.. Please understand that the discussion is on classification, grouping, identification.. not on the need to be tolerant each other) May be you care to read the title of this thread, you will find the tolorance is very important. Re (..hinduism is a concept, not a car or a food.. so if you are not bogged in concepts, how can you speak of it?) Hinduism is a way of life we live by it. RE You can’t even respect us and call us irreligious. (..you are searching an easy way to win a debate.. no one is calling you irreligious.. if you enjoy to discuss in this way do it, if you want to exchange ideas better if you do not joke like that) I have no desire to win a debate, only reason I entered this debate is to ask you why you call us hindus irreligious? Now you have changed your mind. I have no reason to joke. Re (..the context is that you consider the member of a particular religion all guilty or potentially guilty.. and it is adharmic, yamaraja judges one by one and karma ultimately is personal.) No that was not the context, but I am not arguing, again I do not doubt the yamaraja. But I do not prescribe to your passive stand, if a personal karma is encroaching your freedom you have to protect yourself. Re (you are attempting to justify the fact that you want to punish peoples who has not done anything bad, but they are guilty to belong to some religion) I have no such desire, but I have a concern about their intentions. Re Spreading is what the Muslims and Christians do indiscriminatly. (..so why are you spreading hinduism?) Am I? I am in a hindu forum Krishna says inquire and learn and then speak to someone who wants to know ..who says the opposite? Spreading was your choice of word I said what I said in relation to above Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh atanu like maadhav i too read your post with interest. since i see lord Shiva and lord Krishna as same, it brings me joy when you sing glories of lord Shiva. by the way may i ask you what part of India you come from? Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh RE (..again, there's no question of tolerance..) Of course for you, it is quite obvious from your post you don’t see the need for tolerance, every other view seems to bother you except your own. Re (Classifications are made by common features. By common features you identify kinds of vehicles (airplanes, cars, bycicles), foods (fried, boiled, salty, sweet and so on).. so we are discussing if among the schools that someone says that they belong to hinduism there's some common important feature to put them in the same denomination, cathegory, group, federation, type and so on.) You are simply going round in circle discussing what you want to discuss. You pull the sentence out of context and change the point of discussion RE (..you must have a common opinion of these common principles.. for example satya means "truth". Vaishnavas say that absolute truth is krsna and brahman is subordinate, advaitins says that absolute truth is brahman and the form of krsna is a material body. Wich satya is the one who can reunite these two opposite positions?) Dharma is in acharan (action) follow the path of truthfullness, perform tapsya, tolorance is one of the virtue, remain pure in heart and in our action, have mercy these are the fudamental principles one must abide on the path of self realization. Since the knowledge about the absolute is unlimited, god and brahman are nondifferent and the realization of the supreme is unlimited therefor the concept of the lord are also many, do not try and class the many opinions of the creator as irreligious RE (..who wants to punish whom?) You are calling the hindus irreligious. Re (..no paths of bhagavad gita is about denying the personal aspect of sri krsna, If anyone thinks the opposite, no problem, it is not our discussion, If one thinks that bhagavad gita teachs the surrender to krsna, if another thinks that bhagavad gita is not spoken by krsna but by someone else.. they are both free, but they are not in the same dharma) No problem, so what if someone is a karma margi a bhakta or a gaynani Re (..so why buddist are buddist and not hindu? and knowing that all religions come from vedas, why muslims or christians or hebrew are not hindu? if you make discriminations you have to make them in the right way. Everything is hindu? i do not think so.. so find the common principles and features) We say Buddhist is a branch of Hindu, Christians and others have their own books and worship and we respect that, but they are anti Vedic we do not judge their worship but their actions. Re (..the different schools do not think like that.. when there's opposition they think that other's opinion are concoctions, not variety.. see the example of who's krsna for vaishnavas and advaitins. They think that the other one is absolutely wrong, adharmic) You are misrepresenting the advaita; I have never known anyone calling a Bhakta adharmic. You are making this up as you go along. Re (..what i call or believe it is not in discussion.. we are speaking if there's common principles between, for example, mayavadis and vaishnavas to put them under the same flag.. i do not think so, and the real followers of these two schools do not think so) Ha, you make opposite statements and suddenly it is not under discussion. You find it difficult to understand what we Hindu accept without any problem the different concept of god derived from same scriptures. Respect and tolerance escapes you. We like to live by the Dharma and not get bogged down in concept only. You can’t even respect us and call us irreligious. Vedas says quite clearly by protecting the Dharma, the Dharma will protect you, it is you who is bringing a new twist to this meaning and calling it adhrma (..it is your opinion that i am twisting, it is my opinion that you are twisting... i have given explanation and you are saying it dogmatically) I have only stated what vedas says. Prove me wrong. Re (..my liking is not in discussion.. my opinion is that there's no union, that some union is based on nothing, that the majority who now wants to unite they are doing it to increase kali yuga, war, problems, fanaticism and so on.. or they are ingenuosly following who wants it) Your liking is same as your opinion and as such have no meaning to us. Re (..a rapist has to be punished and children has to be protected.. what this has to do with religion? protect your child from the rapist and that's all) Please try and read in which context the statements are made Here read Your statement (..if someone promotes this idea with violence and illegality the police has the duty to punish him. Other considerations are useless) My answer If a rapist is about you will be failing in your duty if you do not try and protect your child. Are you going to wait for police to do the job? Same way we should not let the outsiders to rape the Vedic land Re (..if you concoct some fantastic undiscriminated union we soon will have complete adharma in a no more vedic land) Your accusation is completely unfounded, you are insulting Hindus here. Re (spread the dharma and the adharma will automatically go away) Better to live by the Dharma and die by it, be an example for others in our actions. Spreading is what the Muslims and Christians do indiscriminatly. Krishna says inquire and learn and then speak to someone who wants to know Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re (... With my best tolerance i do not find any common way) Have a look at the meaning in dictionary. There is no need for tolerance when one is in agreement. Re (.so if there's not a common principle, on wich basis the union is done if not on compromises?) you will not understand the (Vedic) family bond it is not always based on common opinion. Dharma is based on 4 common principles, satya,tap,pavitrata and daya and no hindu will deny these. No court of law will punish anyone for having a different belief. People are judged by their actions. Lord Shree Krishna speaks of many paths in Bhagvat Gita, you can deny if you like that is your choice. Re (..you have to demonstrate that all the "rainbow" of hinduism comes from only one white light (=concept) One supreme lord gave us the Vedas, the same lord gave us Buddha, and the sankracharya revived the Vedas All different concept is derived from the same scripture. Re (..beauty is also an objective reality.. if you are not a mayavadi. And there's nothing bad in being a mayavadi, but where's the need to unite with people who consider that "all is maya" is not true?) Be coherent in your argument if there is nothing bad in being a mayavadi why call them irreligious? ((Vedas says quite clearly by protecting the Dharma, the Dharma will protect you)) Re (..so let us follow it.. the scriptures where we learn the dharma do not talk about any hinduism and any need to unite opposite beliefs in a non existent one) Stick to the point this is what you said and my answer to that followed; Q (.to protect dharma you have to respect the varnashrama dharma, if you twist it to fight some adharma, you have two adharmas fighting each other. Whoever wins is a disgrace) A To protect Dharma is every ones duty physically intellectually or otherwise. Vedas says quite clearly by protecting the Dharma, the Dharma will protect you, it is you who is bringing a new twist to this meaning and calling it adhrma. In the end truth always triumphs, and it’s never a disgrace But now you change the point of discussion Weather you like it or not we will talk of Hindu Dharma, and we do not need to unite when it is already united. Re (..if someone promotes this idea with violence and illegality the police has the duty to punish him. Other considerations are useless) If a rapist is about you will be failing in your duty if you do not try and protect your child. Re (..the thing that i do not understand is what do you care for.. a non hindu is converted in a non hindu.. what's to care? ) With your kind of attitude we soon will have Islam majority in Vedic land. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re They are brought up to believe in god from a very early stage in their life. (.wich god, or wich common concept of god?) Read my statement again and answer if you must to the point i made. No need to pull sentences out of context. And if you contemplate on the question you have asked you might find the answer, using tolerance as a key. Re .(i simply ask where's a real conceptual unity. For me there's not, so decide which school has the real sanatana dharma and you will see that the other ones are so different that the union is impossible if not corrupting the principle) None, but the point is missed on you, no one here is asking anyone to drop their concept or compromise their principles. No one has monopoly on sanatan dharma, concept will remain a concept until you realize it. Re ((You are prepared to condemn anyone who holds different view then yours.)) (.so do not condemn who see that there's no unity) You are welcome to your views, but do not be surprised at response you may get. Re (.we are speaking of philosophy, dharma, religion.. and we have to judge according these cathegories.) No prabhu you were talking of irreligious and said I judge people by their action and not their beliefs Re (Everyone in many moments of the practical life judges obviously by actions, if i take a taxi or i get some fruit i have no interest if the taxi driver or the fruit shopkeeper is religious, not religious, hindu, christian,advaitin, shivaist and so on. So i do not understand why are you making such objection) So one minute it is obvious the next it is of no interest to you? No one judges anyone by their belief, I may believe philosophically I am perfect, but then go out and steal I get judge for my action. Re (.so your concept of unity is "being all of us hypochrites and not really following our religions better to unite indiscriminately"?) Who is asking you to do this? Follow your path 100%, but do not think yours is better then others, have tolerance for others, judge not on what they think but on what they do. Unity is not in forcing people to accept what you perceive to be right but in respect of others beliefs Re .(i see diversity, opposition and not union.. ) I see diversity, tolerance respect etc and no amount of your opposition will break this family. Re (.hindu unity is a doctrine who teachs that doctrines have to compromise to be reunited in one... hinduism) Read better, you will find you are wrong. Bg 9.15 Others, who engage in sacrifice by the cultivation of knowledge, worship the Supreme Lord as the one without a second, as diverse in many, and in the universal form (.i agree,) No you don’t, you change your direction like the wind. Re ( but many of the schools that you want to reunite in hinduism do not agree on what's said in this verse. They say that the lord is not supreme but it is second to brahman, and that universal form is a material manifestation of brahman.. so it is not my fault) I do not need to unite anyone, who choose what path is not an issue with me, just as rainbow is beautiful with all it colors or just a white light passing through a prism, fact is they all exist, beauty is in the eye of a beholder, I do not impose my choice on anyone. Re (.to protect dharma you have to respect the varnashrama dharma, if you twist it to fight some adharma, you have two adharmas fighting each other. Whoever wins is a disgrace) To protect Dharma is every ones duty physically intellectually or otherwise. Vedas says quite clearly by protecting the Dharma, the Dharma will protect you, it is you who is bringing a new twist to this meaning and calling it adhrma. In the end truth always triumphs, and it’s never a disgrace Re .(so let us not imitate them) Get real there is nothing worth imitating ((All the kings had rajya guru to guide them in the affairs of the kingdom.)) Re (.so let us follow the gurus in real sanatana dharma and abandon impersonalism and mayavadism.. in this way we will have real saint king) Stick to the point prabhu, it was your claim “cant mix religion and politics” concept of god is not the issue. Re (.people do not live thousand years... max 85... 90... 95... 100... punish the guilty, not the people or the religion of the guilty) But the memory do for a long time, guilty do not escape justice, their aim has not change they want to get rid of all other religion and establish Islam, and only way they know is by force and deception. Re (.who "convert" to another religion is already not following the previous one.. so where's the loss) it is quite obvious you do not care but we do. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Hare Krishna anand prabhu i applaud your sincerity Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh RE (hindu unity itself is irreligion.. advaita, dvaita, gaudyas and mayavadi follow opposite conceptions on the fundamental doctrines of their beliefs) If I may try and illustrate this, In a family of several members the parents instill good qualities in them like truthfulness, amhinsa cleanliness tolerance and also to be responsible for their karma etc. They are brought up to believe in god from a very early stage in their life. As they grow older most of the family members go their separate ways but still united as a family Good quality they had learnt from their childhood is still there but now they have added experience in their life. Some of them have same concept of the supreme but different ways to approach; others have developed different concepts. They all get drawn together united in the understanding they all come from same family, they share their experience their knowledge. No one is forced to accept anything. But according to you such a union of the family is irreligious Your definition of irreligious is astounding. Ever heard of freedom to choose or not to choose? You are prepared to condemn anyone who holds different view then yours. I would like to judge, that is if I have to, is by their actions and not by his or hers belief. What value is of my belief, how ever correct, if my actions are in opposite direction? Re (any of them, accepting to be unite with others under a common spiritual/religious denomination, goes against his doctrine, his conception of sanatana dharma) Unity in diversity has been there before, it is now and will always be there, it is a pity you can not see this. No ones doctrine is compromised by our unity. RE (and, if anyone says that vedas or gita admit all the various forms of worship called today hinduism, it is not a conciliation but another different theory and belief, because the remaining schools do not accept this) Well you are free to ignore what Lord Krishna says Bg 9.15 Others, who engage in sacrifice by the cultivation of knowledge, worship the Supreme Lord as the one without a second, as diverse in many, and in the universal form Re (another adharmic thing of what is called hindu union today is the fact that it is commonly centered on race fighting with the addiction of some attempts to twist the varnashrama principle in calling everyone to fight against muslim ) To protect the dharma is adharmic then I am afraid you will have to rewrite the vedas. Re (very ofte neohindu fanaticism promotes also theocracy, that is adharmic and it is the same thing that muslim are doing.. mixing politic with religion) I do not know what you mean here, but I would like to say the Muslims are neither politically correct nor peaceful in their practice of Islam. As for mixing politic with religion? How can you separate this? Ever heard of rajrishis? All the kings had rajya guru to guide them in the affairs of the kingdom. Hindus are waking up from thousand years of suffering from nonvedic people, no one accept Hindus could be so magnanimous in wanting to appease the aggressor. Only thing we get back is more insult in form of conversion. We so much speak against it, and get labeled as fanatics. In contrast look at the reaction to 9-11 Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh RE (so do not follow the example of those (the muslims) who are united on irreligion... if you do that where's the difference? what's the advantage if an adharmi is gone and another adharmi comes?) Can you give an example where a Hindu unity is based on irreeligion? Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh RE (If you dissagree with all this, then clearly you follow a different school of thought and you should engage your thoughts there and not here. We dont want to argue whose school of thought is right but this forum is based on Chaitanya's School thought. ) Where does it say anywhere that this forum is based on chaitanya's school of thought? Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh tomorrow sunday the 30th, is Nirjala Bhim ekadasi. can someone please post story behind Bhima ekadasi with source, i have heard few different version. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh ((Devotion to the absolute is most important, and some people express that by being non violent.)) Re (--actually most people!!) Shivam. ((Act of killing however justified can not be glorified but must be treated in a somber way.)) Re (--of course.. i did it) that is very much appreciated. brahmati, paramatameti, bhagavan. sabka malik ek Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram Patitpavan Sita Ram Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re ( ---let us say that external actions are not important in absolute.. it is the devotion that there's behind that is important) Our external actions are by which people will judge us. Devotion to the absolute is most important, and some people express that by being non violent. RE (---so it is not possible to desire brahman and simultaneously despise krsna) That is my opinion. I have not read anywhere in Gita Krishna despising brahman worship. RE ( ---i do not understand the sense of this cathalization.. i know only that spiritual consciousness comes from spirit and not from matter) Consciousness is a symptom of soul; the matter is inert who said consciousness comes from matter? The soul who is apparently suffering inquires to know why? Four types of virtuous ones worship or seek Me, O Arjuna. They are: the distressed, the seeker of Self-knowledge, the seeker of wealth, and the wise one who knows the Supreme. (7.16) RE (---interference means that i am not in charge then i interfere in a process that has nothing to do with me) You have lost me here. Re (---i have no attachement and taste with killing, i have refused to make the militar service in my country, but the arjuna's killing is devotional service exactly like archana or distributing prasadam, making bhajan and so on. And it is a real killing.. and it is devotional service because it is done for krsna.) I am not questioning your non-violent attitude and certainly not questioning Arjuns devotion to Krishna or his actions. Act of killing however justified can not be glorified but must be treated in a somber way. There is also a real danger of people imitating or kill in the name of religion. If I can remember rightly lord Krishna Asked Pandavas to offer prayer to lord Shiva in atonement of Killing after the war. Balaram also was very unhappy with Bhim for killing Duyordhan against the rule of combat Re (---so the fault is of the misinformation, not of the principle) Yes Re (---and what would be that sin if not the one of having not followed the instruction of krsna as spiritual master? not following the spiritual master is a great aparadha and it is egoism, because we follow our ego instead of the will of the guru. But he followed the eternal duty (sanatana dharma) of all living being to serve krsna) I have not questioned the instruction of Krishna or the spiritual master. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re (--it is secondary (in absolute).. as we have seen there's who kills at krsna's service) Non violence is no secondary quality it is high on the list in many places in Bhagvat Gita To defend and protect is a ksatriya Dharma; killing is secondary option in fact a last resort. Re ( --of course, we can say also that we get purity for krsna's mercy) Krishna’s mercy is always there, that does not mean we do not aspire to be pure in our thought and actions. Re ( --who worship me.. not who worship brahman against me...) Of-course if Brahman and Krishna are two different entity then your statement is correct. Re (--reincarnation or not, consciousness and realization does not come from suffering) Consciousness is always there, suffering is a catalyst in realizing who is suffering. Lord Krishna says there are four types of man who worship me and one of them is (arthi) who is suffering (7.16) Re (--you are playing with words.. there's not a moment when krsna is not conscious of his energies and active, nothing works separately from krsna) I do not like to play with words, sorry if I come across like that. Not even a blade of grass moves without his sanction, but everything is purnam and working under his control. There is difference between control and interfering and I am not suggesting he can’t interfere. Re ( --the root of the arjuna killing is devotional service.. i am not responsible if anyone wants to speculate, we are in a specialistic forum and we can say things without ever making premises or having fear that someone does not understand properly. So in kuruksetra war there's millions of killed warriors and arjuna is personally responsible of millions of these deaths) I beg to differ, your apparent attitude on killing is callous if someone visiting the forum, and there are many guests who do, will read your statement as stated therefor you are directly responsible for what you write. ((people kill in the name of religion, chop the head off and chant god is great where is bhakti in it?)) Re (--do you know anyone who now in this world is really killing for serving krsna? i do not know.. maybe someone believes it, but belief is not reality) Such belief spring from misinformation or lack of it. Re (--no.. he's compassionate because he's killing. A devotee has all the qualities, among these qualities there's compassion.. He is compassionate because he has accepted the instruction to put his karma and guna at krsna's service, so he's a devotee, so he's compassionate. And serving krsna he's serving all the living beings, this is compassion. If he decided not to kill and go to perform ascetics and jagnas he was not compassionate at all but materialist, krsna aparadhi and egoist.) He is indeed a great personality; he is Krishna’s Sakha. Of-course he does what Krishna says, beside he is Ksatriya that was his duty to fight. Krishna never said if you do not fight you will be my apradhi and egoist, but he said you would incur sin for not following your ksatriya duty. jaya sri krsna, jaya sri bhagavad gita

Jai Ganesh Re (--of course, but non violence is secondary and purity is to be pure devotees of sri krsna bhagavan) The Supreme Lord said: Fearlessness, purity of heart, perseverance in the yoga of knowledge, charity, sense restraint, sacrifice, study of the scriptures, austerity, honesty; (16.01) Nonviolence, truthfulness, absence of anger, renunciation, equanimity, abstaining from malicious talk, compassion for all creatures, freedom from greed, gentleness, modesty, absence of fickleness; (16.02) Splendor, forgiveness, fortitude, cleanliness, absence of malice, and absence of pride; these are the qualities of those endowed with divine virtues, O Arjuna. (16.03) Nothing secondary about nonviolence, purity is a virtue, we have to work at it, simply calling ourself a bhakta does not bring this quality. RE (---i am not offensive if i follow something innocently. If, starting by complete materialism, i feel ot i learn that there's an energy who is beyond the universe it is a great advancement. but if i am given the correct information that beyond this energy there's an energetic.. god... krishna.. and i stick obstinately on the idea that the ultimate reality is the impersonal energy and that the personal aspect is only a propedeutic stage.. it is most offensive and, surely, does not brings to any spiritual realization) this is your opinion, Lord Krishna has not said that those who worship me as impersonal brahman are offensive, if you find anywhere please let me know, on the contrary he has said yat sankhyaih prapyate sthanam tad yogair api gamyate ekam sankhyam ca yogam ca yah pasyati sa pasyati ((And when the soul sees the futility of taking birth again and again, finally has brahm jignasya)) Re (---this is a christian concept... spiritual consciousness comes from knowing god, not from suffering or having been subjected to material energy) How does this make christian concept? they dont beleive in reincarnation. brahm jignasya is to know who am i where am i coming from? Re (--god is ever in control, ever conscious of his energies and how they are working) that is why he has no need to interfere, every thing is working perfactly. Re (--arjuna is CIT.. completely conscious... he's not senseless) I never said he was senseless. Re (---evrything if made engaging our karma and guna at the service of sri krishna under the guidance of an authentic spiritual master and chanting hare krishna is bhakti... have this bin ladin these features?) You miss my point, making a statement like Arjun kills, can be misrepresented, better to say he protects. people kill in the name of religion, chop the head off and chant god is great where is bhakti in it? Re Arjun is very compassionate. (--no doubt... even when he's killing) my point is he is compassionate, but not because he is killing. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re (where's the problem?) Cult; Oxford dictionary. a system of religious devotion directed towards a particular figure or object. →a relatively small religious group regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members. I do not have to listen to this rubish. if we start looking for faults, we will find it every where. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re (--yes.. god is responsible.. if they are sincere and non offensive they will make progress and krsna will take care directly) Quality of sincerity , non offensive. Non violence purity are important in execution of Dharma, Krisha has given us different paths to follow, of which bhakti is the best, that is not to say those who choose other way to approach him/her are offensive. Re ( --if you use the free will to offence....) Exercising free will to accept or reject can not be deemed as an offence otherwise what is the value of free will. Offend is to break a law then you pay for it RE (--if we blaspheme krsna we are expressing the desire to negate him and forget him.. so he fulfills our desire and leaves us in a world where this is very easy to do.. this world) And when the soul sees the futility of taking birth again and again, finally has brahm jignasya Gayani see krishna as all prevading brahman, yogi see him as parmatma bhakta see him as Bhagvan Bg.9.15 jnana-yajnena capy anye yajanto mam upasate ekatvena prthaktvena bahudha visvato-mukham Re (--karma are the laws and krsna is the one who gives and sustains these laws.. so he, directly or indirectly... "interferes") Yes the laws are given by the lord, I have not argued otherwise and it works perfectly, generally he does not interfere only in major event might he change the course. Re ( --arjuna kills a lot) Killing senselessly is a big offense You make it sound as if killing is a form of bhakti, bin laden will be very happy with you. Here is what Lord Krishna says Those having the qualities of heroism, vigor, firmness, dexterity, not fleeing from battle, charity, and administrative skills are called Kshatriyas, the protectors. (18.43) Their duty is to protect the Dharma and in doing so they express their Bhakti. Arjun is very compassionate. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re (--there's no injustice.. karma is an exact science. One has exactly what he deserves) I have no problem with this statement, so Let Lord Buddha and Sankracharya take care of their followers, or atleast they are responsible for them. Re (--desire is not a bad word.. desire to be independent by krsna bounds us in the material world, to desire krsna brings us back to him... offence is a bad desire) Free will is not an offence Re (--krsna is not offended, he's detached, but he, through karma law or directly punish us to teach to us.... and he's in control of everything, if anyone dies it is krsna that's killing) i have no doubt the lord is in control but he is very kind he fulfills our desires, he does not interfere, laws of karma takes care of our actions Re (--basic pillar... the fact that buddhist respect ahimsa do not make them authorities in religion only for this.. advaitins are infinitely more advanced, then dvaitin, then acynthia beda abeda) Basic pillar but importent. Re (--if i am non violent but negating krsna divinity and existence, i am more asura than one doing sincerely some practice towards bhakti and killing one millions people a day.) if you are doing bhakti you will not be killing. Re (Of course more often religious people are also peaceful, but it is not the most important feature. Arjuna is the most perfect devotee in his cathegory, and he express his devotion in killing million people. Arjuna is infinitely much better than a buddhist.) Arjun was perfoming his Ksatriya dharma he was fighting against Adharma, he does not take pride in killing Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re (It must be known that Krishna Consciousness is THE universal truth and not some religion, sect, or cult like hinduism, islam or christianity. Jai Sri Krishna and keep at it brotha! -Amit) By all means sing the glories of your sampraday but to call hinduism a cult is pure and simple arrogant and ignorance. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh RE (----if one innocently think like that.. he makes a progress. If one, informed of the real nature of the absolute, negates it.............) Spiritual life is very serious matter, if the followers of any denomination follows Dharma given by these personalities then the fault lies with them and not the followers. Absolute is described in many ways. Bhagvan Shree Krishna describes this in Gita let alone other Vedic literatures. Re ( ---simply i do not understand... this subject was useful for our discussion.. that you cannot reach krsna if you do not want expressely and specifically krsna) And my point was the various paths that people follow in Vedic tradition knows this fact that we are not this body, so where is the question of being killed. Re (--sura means saint... asura means non saint... that's it) Thank you. Re ( ----yes.. we take the karma of the offence, not krsna. And the karma of the offence is to be again forgetful of him and to remain in the material world.. this is the result of the offence.) Substitute the word offence with desires and you will get a better picture. Nor does the Supreme Spirit assume anyone's sinful or pious activities. Embodied beings, however, are bewildered because of the ignorance which covers their real knowledge. Bg.5.15 Re (---yes.. and this ignorance makes us remain in the material world... this is the sin, the result of the offence) My point for above sloka was to demonstrate that Krishna is not offended by our actions, he does not kill us. Re ( ----ahimsa is not a great realization (in comparison..) Ahimsa is one of the four pillars of the Vedic dharma. Re (one can be a complete materialist and non violent for non religious reasons) There are a lot of inconstancies in your statement in one instance you claim all of us are demons even though I pointed out that Krishna says there are two types of human creations. And now you are saying even a non-religious person can be non-violent, have you known any materialist demon to be non-violent? Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re (till then read the barbaric and bloody history of islam from its birth to now and how islam spreads) Too gruesome to contemplate maadhavji Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh RE (..the progress is not for the offensive ones.. ) Make your mind up prabhu, if you can not mean what you write why right this; (....simply there's different levels.... better than complete materialist is buddhism, who at least follows the ahimsa principle. better than buddhism there's advaita.. who at least recognize that everything is spiritual..... then there's further progress) Who is killing what? What is actually dying? RE(..it is clear that the death applies only to material bodies... why are you asking?) Very simple anyone who is seriously on spiritual path knows this fact that he is not this body and you keep on talking of death and Krishna killing. RE (..and also who, even if believing that he's not the body, negates deliberately the divinity of krsna and the existence of a personal god.) Who is deliberately negates Krishna, if they are then the blame lies, not the followers but the one who gave us that concept of god. Re (And ultimately all of us are A-SURAS... if we were SURAS we were in vaikunta) this is another subject altogether, in any case free will can not be termed as Suras or Asuras. Re (..if one deliberately negates the supremacy of the personal god, and the divinity of krsna he's offensive... because he offends krsna.) Lord Krishna can not be offended. Offence is in your eyes only, he has never said anywhere offensive about brahman realization nor has he said anything about Lord Buddha Nor does the Supreme Spirit assume anyone's sinful or pious activities. Embodied beings, however, are bewildered because of the ignorance which covers their real knowledge. Bg.5.15 Re (If one, innocently, being in complete materialist state, accepts ahimsa and that we are spirit he makes great advancement) if you are in complete materialist state there is no chance of you accepting ahimsa and only sprit they accept is the one you get in the pubs. Yes if a great personality like Buddha or Sankracharya comes then they convince the genral public Re (...buddha's followers are not following buddha.. they're following the nichilism taught by buddha and consider him one of the realized entities, not a special one, or their deity or goal. So they do not go to buddha.) What ever it seems you know better then, all those followers either they are folloing Lord Buddha or his teachings and I also know that they chant Buddham saranam gachyami. Re Get things in perspective prabhu lord says there are two types of humans (..the divine ones only apparently belong to this world and only apparently are common humans. They do not come here by karma, but they come from vaikunta to save us... and they recognize krsna, the supreme personality of godhead.) Get real, you are trying to give a complete new meaning to what Krishna is saying in Gita about two types of humans, I suggest you go and read Gita again O Arjuna, My Prakriti (or the material nature) is the womb wherein I place the seed (of spirit or Purusha) from which all beings are born. (14.03) Whatever forms are produced in all different wombs, O Arjuna, the great Prakriti is their (body-giving) mother, and the Purusha is the (seed or life-giving) father. (14.04) Sattva or goodness, Rajas or activity, and Tamas or inertia; these three Gunas (or states) of mind (or Prakriti) bind the imperishable soul to the body, O Arjuna. (14.05) Of these, Sattva, being calm, is illuminating and ethical. It fetters the embodied being, the Jeevaatma or Purusha, by attachment to happiness and knowledge, O Arjuna. (14.06) O Arjuna, know that Rajas is characterized by intense (selfish) activity and is born of desire and attachment. It binds the Jeeva by attachment to the fruits of work. (14.07) Know, O Arjuna, that Tamas, the deluder of Jeeva, is born of inertia. It binds by ignorance, laziness, and (excessive) sleep. (14.08) O son of Prtha, in this world there are two kinds of created beings. One is called the divine and the other demoniac. I have already explained to you at length the divine qualities. Now hear from Me of the demoniac. (16.6) Re (Even krsna or siva walks in this planet, but, simultaneously, they do not leave the spiritual dimension, they are not subjected to the matter) We are in complete agreement here. Re Krishna is kind he fulfills our desires, he does not kill us. (...if our desire is to remain in this world.. he kills us and we take another birth here (krsna is the master, the creator and sustainer of the karma law.. if we die, who kills us if not krsna?) I stand by what I said, only change that takes place is the material body We are forced to vacate this body because in due course of time it can not fulfil our desires there for Krishna who is sooo kind makes other arrangement for the soul Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re (....simply there's different levels.... better than complete materialist is buddhism, who at least follows the ahimsa principle. better than buddhism there's advaita.. who at least recognize that everything is spiritual..... then there's further progress) Wow, now they are not offensive, that is very good! They also progress further, nice also. Re (...to liberate him from that sin.... but he has to be a very great demon, not a little one like us) So why make a statement he kills anyone who do not accept him as supreme? Re (...he kills great, very big demons) Yes because they are disturbance to society, and the lord takes different forms to kill them, it is also a sport for the lord. Re (.... the little demons are killed automatically by material energy.) Who is killing what? What is actually dying? Demons are those who thinks they are this body, they think there is no other life beyond, so let me grab everything and enjoy This is temporary material world full of misery, Gautam Buddha recognized this, renounced the world and meditated and got enlightened and many people follow him, sankracharya reestablished the Vedas neither of them teaches us that we are this body. If people follow them how can you call them demons? Or offensive? Buddhists say budham saranam gachyami. Now Lord Buddha is eternal if his followers do not go to him where would they go? RE Advaita realization, oneness in brahman is possible... but we follow after some time... and maya takes control of us) Have a look what you said earlier “who at least recognize that everything is spiritual..... then there's further progress” Re (...if we are fallen in this world, it is because we wanted to forget god... so we all are demons (= a-sura... not saint) and miscreants) There are two types of human beings in this world: the divine, and the demonic. The divine has been described at length, now hear from Me about the demonic, O Arjuna. (16.06) Get things in perspective prabhu lord says there are two types of humans Re (...by maya.. material energy.. we do not recognize his supremacy, we remain in the material world... and krsna kills us ) Just as the Atma acquires a childhood body, a youth body, and an old age body during this life, similarly Atma acquires another body after death. The wise are not deluded by this. O Arjuna, how can a person who knows that the Atma is indestructible, eternal, unborn, and imperishable, kill anyone or cause anyone to be killed? (2.21) Krishna is kind he fulfills our desires, he does not kill us. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re ( So they are apparently offensive.. for a good purpose) Your statement is contradictory, if good cause is for them to follow god in one form or the other how then it become offensive? If you deceive someone and then condemn him or her for getting deceived where is the logic in that? Re (--if killing exist as activity, it cannot come from everything else but god. And because god is most mercyful, to be killed by god is another way to receive the mercy) Are we talking of killing ability of the lord? You stated krishna will kill anyone who do not accept him as supreme. And I ask why? You also agreed god gives oneness in your other posts, now you have changed your stand and say he will kill anyone who do not accept him as supreme. Re (--yes, we would have to be killed... if we will be still here when kalki avatara will come we surely will have some problem with his sword) Yes for those who are miscreants who are demons , but why anyone who may be good but does not know who god is? He does not kill anyone without a reason. Re (---of course... to be liberated it requires to be a big devotee or a big demon.. not a little one like we are now) I said liberation after being killed by the lord. Now you are saying he only kills big demon… Before that you said anyone who does not accept him as supreme. Tell us which one do you mean? "Bg 9.15 Others, who engage in sacrifice by the cultivation of knowledge, worship the Supreme Lord as the one without a second, as diverse in many, and in the universal form The Blessed Lord said: O sinless Arjuna, I have already explained that there are two classes of men who realize the Self. Some are inclined to understand Him by empirical, philosophical speculation, and others are inclined to know Him by devotional work. (3.3) Jai Shree Krishna