Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About tackleberry

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. How was it shown in the series?
  2. There's no point at all, just like a dream has no purpose or meaning. It just is; that's all. But, because most people can't accept this, they invent gods and related fairy tales.
  3. Terrorism is just a scare tactic invented by the ruling class to keep people trapped in fear and paranoia. As long as their minds are diverted from important issues (like education and health care) to terrorism, they can be manipulated easily. This is what governments the world over do. War on terror is just an excuse to kill people and control their resources and labor, nothing more. Is it any wonder that this war on terror has killed more people than actual terror itself?
  4. Can't believe a simple question is being answered with needless metaphysical stuff. Krishna was a man who supposedly lived 5000 years ago, and he died like any other human being. He was cremated, and his wives also jumped into the pyre, as was the custom in ancient India.
  5. I find this hard to accept. The sunrise is always unreal, even though we perceive it every day. So why can't we conclude that the world also is unreal, even though we perceive it? In any case, my problem is with the reflection theory, which is common to both dvaita and advaita. Why does dvaita believe that the reflection is real, when that would be a contradiction in terms? If the reflection were real, it wouldn't be a reflection. Hence, advaitins argue that the reflection is always false.
  6. "Among the stars" is different from "one of the stars." In the former, it could simply mean that the moon exists along with the stars, nothing more. There's no case of identity. To give a mundane instance, if I say you're among aliens, it doesn't mean you're one of the aliens. The distinction between you and the aliens is maintained.
  7. This is the first time you've responded like a normal, level-headed guy. Congratulations!
  8. What's the proof that Prabhupad was an empowered acharya? Since he deviated from tradition, you ought to assume that he too was a cheater.
  9. I don't see the connection between the two, praising Jesus/Mohammed and the desire to make Vaishnavism a major religion. It's more logical to assume that he was trying to appeal to a western audience. Which is why, you'll never find any Hindu or Iskcon guru praising Moses, for instance (because Jews being a tiny population aren't the right target audience). It's always Je/Mo/Buddha, because all these three religions have a good number of followers, and so it's better to deceive them through flattery.
  10. Perhaps, there's a lesson in all of this: we shouldn't try to be smarter than Krishna. Prabupada made this mistake, and Iskcon is paying the price now.
  11. SP recognized Jesus and Mohammed, because he didn't have a choice. He was trying to appeal to a western audience, so he couldn't dare antagonize them, it was a clever political move, if I may say so. Of course, he didn't recognize Indians and he called people like Vivekananda/Sai Baba/others 'rascals' simply because the Vivekananda fan club (or Sai or the rest) wasn't big enough to make an impact at any rate.
  12. Both dvaita and advaita believe that the world is only a reflection of Brahman. But dvaita says the reflection is real, and therefore the jivas (being reflections/pratibimbas) are as real as Brahman. Advaita claims that the reflection can never be the real thing (or why do we call it a reflection?), and so everything, except Brahman, is an illusion. What you see in the mirror is an appearance, an illusion, not the 'real' you. This is their argument. Which is true?
  13. Let's face facts. It's obvious that Raghu is right, and that hurts iskconites. But I do understand why Prabupada did what he did, that is, making brahmanas out of non-brahmanas. It's to attract more westerners into his fold. Let's leave it at that, and not make excuses.
  14. Just curious. Didn't Krisha himself advocate adharmic means to achieve a dharmic end? Doesn't this show that it's only the end that matters, and if the end is dharmic, then the means wouldn't matter that much?
  15. After reading this post, I now understand why people are beginning to doubt evolution.
  • Create New...