tackleberry

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.

Interestingly for me, the word rascal and fool sounded as sweet as nectar when coming from his lips.

 

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?

Maybe because, among the fools and rascals I'm matchless.

Can't argue with that.

Prabhupāda: Hm. He was rascal speculator. He took the idea from the Vedic literature, and he wanted to take the credit himself, and the different hodgepodge theory, this is… Britishers took the idea from Vedic literature and presented in British way. Britisher wanted that, “We are the monopolizers of all scientists, all big men.” Sir Isaac Newton, then the, who is that, Darwin, big politicians, Gladstone, everything big—British. They wanted it. “British means all big men. Therefore we must rule over the world.” All Lords, Sirs, and this and that… They wanted to prove, “The only big men of the universe, they take birth in England, and therefore we should rule over the world.” [url="http://causelessmercy.com/t/t/770623rc.vrn.htm"]

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.

You clearly haven't studied Mahayana Buddhism in depth,

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.

Chanakya Pandit: When milk which is pure product is given to a snake, it makes its venom more powerful. Similarly when pure knowledge is given to a person who has liking for Vice, allergical reactions are created.

 

When he said part of Truth, he was subjected to so much of cruelty and you are asking me the effect of saying the whole Truth.

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.

Actually, not all Buddhists believe in anatta in the literal sense. Most Mahayana Buddhists think that there just isn't a 'seperate Self', and that we're all united in one Self. Mahayana Buddhists also don't shun dependence. They depend heavily on the mercy of the Bodhisattvas and often pray for their mercy.

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.

perhaps representing Love for the total of existence shares a constant intent to seed 'good'

 

much more to learn than just what one sect suggests as final

 

and to lighten it up yet remain politically correct there's more than one way to peal the husk from corn.

You and Bhakta Jan make a good couple.

This is from Metta Meditation:

 

 

This is from Srila Sridhar Maharaj's devotional (bhakti) Bhagavad Gita:

 

Our minds can be our best friend also, if it becomes convinced to surrender to Krsna by reading real bhakti literature. Metta meditation devotees believe that we are our own best friend for they have no real information

about the supreme personality of godhead, Sri Krsna.

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).

Best to put shvu on your ignore list! Also report him to the admin 5 for bad posts.

 

Pray for him that Krsna may take away his burning hatred and envy of the Vaisnavas.

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.

Not in meditation state..My eyes were open, this green light started/appeared as fillament of bulb and and glowed for one mintue and disappeared..

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.

Pls enlighten me with your knowledge, I live in USA, and I do listen all vedas as well as durga sapthasathi everyday. Recently I saw a bright green light started as a filament of bulb and glowed for one minute and disappeared when I was in all my senses. Can any body has the same experience, what is it ? pls share

Eyes open or closed? Was this very, very light green?

I can ascertain that a couple of Mahatmas born in Kali Yuga are definitely not scoundrels. One of them is the Ninth Avatara Adi Shankara & the other is Swami Ramdev.

 

Just curious. How can you be so sure?

 

SB 11.5.14

TRANSLATION

 

Those sinful persons who are ignorant of actual religious principles, yet consider themselves to be completely pious, without compunction commit violence against innocent animals who are fully trusting in them. In their next lives, such sinful persons will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed in this world.

 

 

Yet somehow Christianity and these Christians are to be considered Vaishnavism and Vaishnavas??? Bogus! Totally bogus!

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?

there are some beings and places which are even more frightening...

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?

certain ghosts may appear in any form they like. When you see a ghost riding a horse, it is actually just one entity.

But what are these ghosts anyway? Are all of them people who've died prematurely?

SB 5.26.12:

Punishment in the hell called Mahäraurava is compulsory for a person who maintains his own body by hurting others. In this hell, ruru animals known as kravyäda torment him and eat his flesh.

 

 

 

PURPORT

 

The animalistic person who lives simply in the bodily concept of life is not excused. He is put into the hell known as Mahäraurava and attacked by ruru animals known as kravyädas.

SB 5.26.17:

By the arrangement of the Supreme Lord, low-grade living beings like bugs and mosquitoes suck the blood of human beings and other animals. Such insignificant creatures are unaware that their bites are painful to the human being. However, first-class human beings—brähmaëas, kñatriyas and vaiçyas—are developed in consciousness, and therefore they know how painful it is to be killed. A human being endowed with knowledge certainly commits sin if he kills or torments insignificant creatures, who have no discrimination. The Supreme Lord punishes such a man by putting him into the hell known as Andhaküpa, where he is attacked by all the birds and beasts, reptiles, mosquitoes, lice, worms, flies, and any other creatures he tormented during his life. They attack him from all sides, robbing him of the pleasure of sleep. Unable to rest, he constantly wanders about in the darkness. Thus in Andhaküpa his suffering is just like that of a creature in the lower species.

 

 

 

PURPORT

 

From this very instructive verse we learn that lower animals, created by the laws of nature to disturb the human being, are not subjected to punishment. Because the human being has developed consciousness, however, he cannot do anything against the principles of varëäçrama-dharma without being condemned. Kåñëa states in Bhagavad-gétä (4.13), cätur-varëyaà mayä såñöaà guëa-karma-vibhägaçaù: “According to the three modes of material nature and the work ascribed to them, the four divisions of human society were created by Me.” Thus all men should be divided into four classes—brähmaëas, kñatriyas, vaiçyas and çüdras—and they should act according to their ordained regulations. They cannot deviate from their prescribed rules and regulations. One of these states that they should never trouble any animal, even those that disturb human beings. Although a tiger is not sinful if he attacks another animal and eats its flesh, if a man with developed consciousness does so, he must be punished. In other words, a human being who does not use his developed consciousness but instead acts like an animal surely undergoes punishment in many different hells.

Are these things for real? Sounds frightening.

Yes

 

 

 

The concepts of anatman, Shunyata, Vegetarianism, Ahimsa all can be traced back to Vedas

Then please show some vedic verses, where these words occur.

All pseudo-reasoning is a dodge against substantive argument. You attack the author because you cannot refute the author's argument. It's done all the time. Especially on this forum where the lack of substantive evidence is endemic (sentimental/political).

It's not nice to fight with your guru.

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.

Than your ignorant of either Advaita or Buddhism.

 

How so? Advaita came AFTER Buddhism, FYI.

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.

Dreams are effected by conditions of material body and mind. But not vise a versa.

 

 

If someone really wants you to belive something, that is manifested forms of material world are illusion because they are asat (appeard once they dissapear then). But the are not illusion because someone calls them a product of individual consciousness influenced by avidya.

Makes no sense at all, even from a vaishnava perspective.

The rope that he sees is real and if he thinks it's a snake he is just in ignorance. Restricted sensor system leads such person to invalid conclusion. Does that mean that neither snakes exist nor ropes?! Moreover if the pain and the fear are the same mind experience why do we distinguish them?!

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.

so what esle do you expect if you on a Hindu forum would assert that animal killing & meat eating is sanctioned in Vedas & whatever is practised at Kalighat temple is Vedic in nature ?

?

Where did he say that? This topic is about buddha avatara, isn't it?

Advaita does not say fire and pain are illusory. This ia typical nonsense post from a Hare Krishna. Another Hare Krishna made a similar nonsense post that according to advaita I am you and you are me.

 

I am not an advaita supporter...but this level of ignorance on the subject is hard to believe.

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.