tackleberry

I know that there was intense battle between Bhima and Karna. both were terribly wounded from the shower of arrows. after a long struggle, Karna defeated Bhima and spared his life, owing a promise to Kunti.

 

why didn't B.R. chopra show the scene like this...it was very different from the story....i hear B.R. chopra researched a lot and made Mahabharat based on Original story of Mahabharat

How was it shown in the series?

i feel ike whats the point to being born to this world............alot of people would say the point of being born of this world is to become god counsiese. but everything is just so repetative u wake up u go to work everyday u come home do it all over again, then u get married and have a bunch of kids then u die of old age. u work ur whole life so all u could do is retire and die. what the point of all this, its repetative boring abd not worth it at all. whatsd the point?

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.

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?

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.

 

In short, the world is not an illusion to anyone - Advaitin or Dvaitin. The daily life & mindset of a staunch Advaitin is no different than the daily life of a staunch Dvaitin.

 

Cheers

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.

Thanks for all your replys. It was the case that this person was very bent on pointing out the major flaw that the moon is one of the stars and is among the stars. I personally don't know how to address this issue,

 

 

"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.

Quote:

<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-right: 3ex; padding-left: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0">Originally Posted by Kulapavana

Many people are afraid of the dark, even if nothing bad ever happened to them in the dark. That is something like the fear of the unknown.

</td></tr></tbody></table>

I do not agree, but . . . I'm reminded:

 

On the first day in kindergarten, when I was 5 years old, a classmate was escorted by her mum to the classroom --the mother then turned to leave --the little girl went berserk, running back and forth from the door to the teacher's desk and back again all the while screaming at the top of her voice, even jumping up on the desk and the door. Like a wild monkey, I thought at the time.

 

That little girl certainly knew nothing of what she SHOULD fear (On her first day in kindergarten) --but she knew certainly that she would be left without the presense of her mother.

This she knew, and thus she screamed.

Did she further consider that her mum was abandoning her without returning?

 

She had presumptions of the consequences that prompted her behavior --that may have been due to experiences I was not privy to; or she may have been too imaginative; or too demanding --in any case I do not think that the child was screaming for her mum to return because of the 'logic' of worst-case scenarios of her destiny.

This is the first time you've responded like a normal, level-headed guy. Congratulations!

This cheater in the dress of guru isn't an empowered acarya and there by he can not make policy that comes directly from Krsna. He must stay in line with his Guru, he is not guru himself. Never was and no amount of dummy followers will change that.

 

RCB

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.

Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-right: 3ex; padding-left: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0">Originally Posted by Sonic Yogi

Well, Srila Prabhupada also recognized Jesus and Mohammad.

Neither one of them had any Vedic parampara.

Now, why he recognized them two and none of the Indians without proper parampara is certainly curious.

</td></tr></tbody></table>

 

I think there was more to it... IMO Srila Prabhupada wanted to transform Gaudiya Vaishnavism into a major religion like Christianity or Islam.

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.

Iskcon devotees criticize the old system of Gaudiya parivars, yet the system they created is far more prone to cheating and abuse. Completely unqualified people were often given sannyasa initiation, only to fall down and create a huge mess all around them. Why did they take sannyas? purely out of desire for fame, profit and distinction. How on earth is that different from the most abusive cases of caste brahmanas? And the gurus by decree, appointment, or group vote - how is that better than being raised in a brahminical family, groomed for their social role from early childhood?

 

 

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.

Well, Srila Prabhupada also recognized Jesus and Mohammad.

Neither one of them had any Vedic parampara.

 

Now, why he recognized them two and none of the Indians without proper parampara is certainly curious.

 

All I am saying is that the books of Srila Prabhupada spoke to me in a way that I don't need any proof that he is in the parampara.

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.

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?

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.

I detest the idea of 'end justifies the means' - it is Talmudic, not Vedic.

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?

If we descended from Apes, then why are there still apes around?

If apes evolved into humans then there shouldn't be any apes left.

 

After reading this post, I now understand why people are beginning to doubt evolution.

But the real point has nothing to do with whether it is ridiculous or not.

 

The point is that homosexual unions are not a feature of Vedic culture, and a "guru" claiming (even implicitly) to represent "Vedic culture" has no rationale to publicly recognize or encourage such unions.

There must've been a lot of gay people in ancient India. What happened to them? Did vedic societies tolerate them, or were they punished?

Does this mean you won't be sending me your money anytime soon? I do accept check if that makes it convenient.

 

Why are you drawing distinctions between us when we are all ONE?

Could it be that advaitins mean oneness in the sense of mathematical equality? We don't say rice=rice or wheat=wheat, but if they both weigh 3 kg, we equate rice and wheat on the basis of a common factor, weight in this case. Does it not follow that only distinct entities can be equated on a common factor? So wouldn't the advaitin argue that Brahman and Jiva are one in this way, and not in the rice=rice sense? Just speculating, like to hear your thoughts on this.

Islamic terrorism, whatever that is, cannot exist without active state support. So blame the state, not the puppets.

Excellent move by the US president. It goes on to show that unlike religious fanatics, he's progressive and liberal in his approach., and these are the leaders the world needs at this stage. The right to abortion is a right that every woman MUST enjoy. Denying this right is sexist.

 

If we assume that the sun and the moon are one, that might make stargazing simpler and more palatable for simple minded persons who cannot conceive of multiple heavenly objects in the sky. However, merely assuming they are the same does not make it so, and simplicity does not prove correctness.

.

Just playing the devil's advocate here.

What if the advaitin argues that all these so-called dissimilar objects are essentially atoms, and hence there's no real distinction? Diamond and graphite are distinct in forms and attributes, but that's only an illusion, because as carbon atoms, they're one and the same.

Wouldn't the advaitin argue along a similar basis that all material forms, even if perceived with the senses, are ultimately illusory, and the substratum (Brahman) alone is real?

I questioned, very politely, what you hold to be inviolable, so I'm a "psuedo-Vaisnava mental speculator".

 

You're no better than the Christians.

You made a statement alleging Madhva was influenced by Christians. Raghu and Kaiser asked for evidence. So far, you haven't provided any and, instead, you've started accusing people who demand evidence. Don't you realize how ridiculous you sound?

 

Everything I have read and understood makes it clear (to me) that the ultimate truth cannot have a Homo Sapiens, North Indian, 5 foot, 8 inches dhoti wearing, male form.

Where in the Vaishnava literature do you find such descriptions of God? Can you please point to some references?

You seem quite determined to blaspheme Prabhupada. But spiritual evolution is a vedic idea whether you know it or not. If you don't see anything demonic about saying life comes from matter you don't understand the first thing about Vedanta.

Materialism is demonic - it is atheistic.

Not only Prabhupada, but many mayavadis say the same thing. Am I trying to blaspheme all of them? If you claim evolution is a vedic idea, then please provide some evidence from the veda. And please enlighten us as to why it's demonic to conclude that life comes from matter.

Maybe, this goswami is more like Jesus, he's so exalted a devotee that he doesn't need to utter Krishna's name. Why make an issue out of a non-issue, it's such a trivial matter at any rate.

I hardly see hatred in calling a spade a spade. Since evolution is originally a Vedic idea, then passing it as one's own is a sort of rascaldom, especially when it is mixed with the demonic philosophy that life came from matter.

Whoever thinks evolution is a vedic idea is seriously deluded. And I don't see anything demonic about asserting that life came from matter. One may or may not agree with it, but to call it demonic is quite silly, isn't it?