Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tackleberry

  1. Why is it so important to mention Krishna's name? Jesus never did, but he's considered vaishnava. So I don't see what the problem is.
  2. Let's say for the sake of argument, Sai Baba calls Prabhupada a rascal. To Sai devotees, that would be nectar flowing from their guru's lips. But how would it make you feel? Can't argue with that.
  3. Considering the hateful, bigoted speech above, is it any wonder that religious people aren't taken seriously? Calling someone 'rascal' is hardly the way to convince people...but then again, religion and tolerance don't go together.
  4. I have, which is why I am asking you to provide some references where the word 'atman' is used in the same way the hindus use it. Without anatta, there's no Buddhism, and that includes mahayana.
  5. As he was subject to cruelty in any case, he might've spoken the whole truth rather than the partial truth, right? Even the word 'Krishna' at the very end could've prevented a lot of confusion amongst us.
  6. All Buddhists believe in anatta in the literal sense, or they wouldn't be buddhists. It's the central principle in their religion, kinda like there's no vaishnavism without Vishnu. And they view everything else, including bodhisatvas, as a means to an end, unlike theists who view their god as the means as well as the end. Hence, buddhists claim their so-called dependence exists so long as ignorance exists, and not further. Vaishnavas, on the other hand, depend on Vishnu for all time, and this creates fear and a slavish mentality; or so the buddhists claim.
  7. You and Bhakta Jan make a good couple.
  8. Buddhists feel peace isn't possible in a state of fear, and therefore view dependence on other entities (like Krishna) as active causes of fear. This is why they shun dependence, even the dependence on the so-called self (they believe in no-self, anatta).
  9. Funny:P because CBrahma has put you on ignore, and so he wouldn't be able to take your advice. Hope you appreciate the irony, though.
  10. In that case, you might've seen an aura around a certain object. Were you (aimlessly) staring away at some object, without even knowing about it? What was the color of the object? Depending on the object's color, the aura varies. In your case, the object must've been red, because you saw a green aura. Anyway, green is a good color, it represents healing. Are you doing some kind of pranic/reiki healing and such? This could also be one of the reasons. Try to see if all this helps.
  11. Eyes open or closed? Was this very, very light green?
  12. Just curious. How can you be so sure?
  13. Could it be possible they're doing it, not due to lack of compassion, but on account of ignorance? I mean, killing (after knowing the consequences) is one thing, but what of people who're GENUINELY convinced they're obeying god by doing such acts?
  14. Such as...? Are they described in bhagavatam? Most people say these things are not to be taken literally. Is that so, because they don't seem compatible with a merciful god?
  15. But what are these ghosts anyway? Are all of them people who've died prematurely?
  16. Are these things for real? Sounds frightening.
  17. Then please show some vedic verses, where these words occur.
  18. It's a good thing, in a sense. Atheists are far better than religious fundamentalists, who are often irrational. Sometimes, their fanaticism is so frightening that we need atheists to keep them in check once in a while.
  19. How so? Advaita came AFTER Buddhism, FYI.
  20. Too much digression here... To answer the original question, though, we can consider (advaita) vedanta to be a form of Buddhism. That would be more appropriate.
  21. Makes no sense at all, even from a vaishnava perspective.
  22. Rope is real and the snake unreal. So the advaitin will reason that the substratum, namely Formless Brahman, is real, and forms, including Krishna, are unreal. As to equating pain and fear, no advaitin will say the forms are the same, because they believe that the forms are illusory; hence, the locus of both (formless existence) must be the same. This is their idea of identity, not some kind of mathematical equality like pain=fear or whatever.
  23. ? Where did he say that? This topic is about buddha avatara, isn't it?
  24. I am not an advaitin either, but for the sake of argument...even if the fire is considered unreal, there is still no reason to believe that an unreal thing cannot cause reactions. Otherwise, it'd be impossible to explain as to how an unreal dream (because dream, by definition, is unreal) could cause reactions. Nor can we consider the dream to be real, because that would be a contradiction in terms. So advaita considers such *worldly realities* to be vyavahArika satya-s, which become totally false on waking up, similar to how a dream (which appears totally real, note the word 'appears') becomes false on waking up. Not that I am convinced by this argument, but at least there is some logic to advaita, and it isn't as absurd as most 'pseudo-vaishnava-s' and HKs would have us believe.
  • Create New...