sporkubus

"in my opinion, and in the opinion of gaudya vaishnava sampradaya, god can be boh things at the same level of transcendence.. satcitananda individual and omnipervasive brahman" I've heard of this idea and I'm intrigued by it. Got any sources that i should check out for more info? Thanks!

"do u mean that iam fighting for names? if so ur wrong......i delieve in one God Brahman....but my preference amoung the trinity is Shiva....thats it...." The post above this one explains what I meant pretty well. Reality is just one thing, but we split it up and measure it as a result of Maya, and we value certain things above others and see some things a certain way (such as God) because of our humanity. We as humans are not on the same level as Brahman, so we can only understand Him in human terms... when we do this, it doesn't matter what we come up with, because God is far and above our understanding. If Shiva represents for you, all the things God could be, then He is God, plain and simple, and no need to argue because we accept that Brahman is beyond comprehension at this stage of our journey.

"However hard you try nobody can misrepresent this verse, unless your a complete fool with no understanding of Gita." I guess ISKON is just another variation of the Judeo-Christian, proselytizing, close-minded religions... if I am to go by your statements, it is even more close-minded than Islam.

"It is unfortunate that so called learnt people fight on names and make arguemtns and counter arguemnts making reference to scriptures." Truth is One, but sages call it by different names.

"18.66 Surrender unto Him." Krishna is not speaking literally. There are two ways of speaking of Brahman: as a concept and as a person. The personal Brahman is merely a constructed convenience.

I said they COMPILED them after /images/graemlins/wink.gif I mean the Bible was not compiled till after the Gospels were written.

"o krisna, player of the flute , surely u are not greater than radha , those who are in distress may pray to you but when you are distressed it is radha u call upon with your flute." I really like this. Cool point! And, after all, Rama never would have been able to fulfill his destiny had it not been for Sita... and Sita was certainly the "bigger man" (if you'll excuse the expression) by humbly accepting her death when Rama could not prevent it. Women may often play a "passive" role in Hinduism, but they are certainly no weaker or less important than men in reality.

Then please, since we are not devotees, stop trying to explain these things to us and stop gracing us with your holy presence.

When Krishna says this, I assume that since he talks about himself almost exclusively as Brahman throughout the Gita, he is actually referring to devotees of Brahman, or, in simpler language, those who devote their lives to oneness with Brahman.

I was just pointing out that this is not a TRANSLATION, it is an interpretation. Thus, it is not "Bhagavad Gita As It Is" but "Bhagavad Gita as Prabhupada Wants It To Be."

I just downloaded this and skimmed through to some of my favorite passages... how is this "As It Is?" He interprets the life out of it, and takes a lot of liberty with his interpretations. Supersoul? What the heck? It sounds like this guy came up with a philosophy, and then dissected the Gita and sold this off as a "commentary" when actually basically every commentary part is dedicated to "explaining away" the things that might interfere with his philosophy. And how the hell is THIS a translation? sarva-bhüta-sthitam-situated in everyone’s heart; yaù-he who; mäm-unto Me; bhajati-serves in devotional service; ekatvam-oneness; ästhitaù-thus situated; sarvathä-in all respects; vartamänaù-being situated; api-in spite of; saù-he; yogé-transcendentalist; mayi-unto Me; vartate-remains. TRANSLATION The yogé who knows that I and the Supersoul within all creatures are one worships Me and remains always in Me in all circumstances. I didn't see Krishna say Supersoul anywhere... sorry, don't trust this guy as far as I can throw him.

that in the Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna says of the wise man: "he is established in being with me, and worships me devoutly IN ALL THINGS." So why should we only worship Brahman as Krishna?

you are not a Hindu... these things are just labels. But I see the arguments you guys having as being silly, and the way you're arguing as being negative and unhelpful to all... "If you merge that means void. Are you an idoit?" How is this helpful? Is this really a step on the path you've chosen?

I was just playing when I said Krishna died and therefore Shiva is better, I was just poking fun at his logic.

But in the end, Krishna died, and Shiva continues to live immortally. Doesn't that say something about Shiva's status versus Krishna's status? In the Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna says that he is not actually in his real form here. But then, he says that we should worship him. Is he saying we should worship him as the human Krishna, the deva Vishnu, or the transcendent principle he has just outlined before saying we should worship only him?

to come to a Hindu forum and see arguments over semantics like this are occuring in a tradition that I thought was relatively pure of such empty stupidity.

how to express it in words. I guess it's just an understanding that comes through experience and contemplation. I would never ask someone else to believe in something they could not accept and for which I had no concrete evidence, but at the same time I know these things without doubt to be true, so I can't give them up for myself.

Seems to me, Kali is destruction when it is most painful, the destruction of desires that bring wholesome and pleasing results within our limited perspective, but things that are nonetheless barriers to achieving moksha; Durga is the destruction of painful and unpleasant things, which is why she is depicted as much more pleasing to the eye.

I'm not a Hindu but I've been studying Hinduism for a while now... it is absolutely an amazing tradition, and I'm learning new things about myself and the world around me every time I read another line of scripture or another saint's golden words.

is a plus but not necessary. I am not a vegetarian, I acknowledge that I could be with some work, but I am paying attention to other areas of my life right now. If someone chooses to not eat meat in their life, that's their business. Being vegetarian is obviously not a prerequisite to having a good rebirth or achieving moksha. Hey, Arjuna was able to slaughter his family with the blessings of God without doing damage to his karma because it was his dharma. A person cannot repair all aspects of their life and make their life perfect: if this is necessary, then none of us shall ever reach enlightenment. Krishna prescribes different paths in the Bhagavad-Gita for realizing Brahman, but it would be impossible for one person to do them all. Does that mean that person is bad?

if they happened or not? The wisdom contained in these scriptures is too great to be tossed aside because the stories never happened. I think the sages just came up with these stories to make a point. If you analyze them enough, you come up with more than if you just read them at face value. The happenings in our tiny little meaningless universe are less important than a candle's flame against the brilliance of the sun, compared to the light of Brahman. "For instance, I could tell a story, completely fictional, and yet in that story I could tell of a real astronomical event. What merit does astronomical evidence really have aside from being able to determine when the story was written?" This reminds me of the Christian Bible. Christians point out that there are too many parallels between the Old Testament prophecies and the events that surrounded Jesus' birth. What they don't understand is that these events were most likely added in by the gospel authors TO MAKE A POINT. Even Catholicism accepts that stories like that of the Three Wise Men and the Star of Bethlehem are probably metaphorical. It is especially suspicious that the Gospel writer who was most knowledgeable about Hebrew writings and prophecy is the only one who mentions these phenomena. Also, the Old Testament was compiled by Christians after the Gospels were written, so they got to pick and choose prophecies that fit the story of Jesus, and toss away those that didn't.

Hi, I'm new here. I'll introduce myself later sometime, but for now I just wanted to state my opinion on this while the topic is still active. The first thing you should remember is not to feel like a bad person for having homosexual desires. A homosexual desire is no more "impure" or "sinful" than a heterosexual desire. People think somehow that it is more possible to achieve moksha or good karma while having straight sex than it is while having gay sex. The fact is, they are both attachments and in the grand scheme of things, they are both negative. However, it is up to you to decide what you want to achieve in this lifetime and to do what you feel is your duty. In my opinion there are a lot of good ways to live as a homosexual without remaining celibate (though this is always an option). You should do the best you can and never give in to over-indulgent desires or lustful behavior. Be monogamous, have a mutually satisfying relationship, and continue to consider spiritual matters. I think it is odd that you would pray to God to have your desires removed. Homosexuality is a desire just like any other, and the scriptures prescribe a multitude of ways to control your desires. I don't beleive it's possible to remove a desire completely, but it is possible to be unmoved by desire. According to the Bhagavad-Gita, "Desire flows into the mind of the seer/But he is never disturbed." Do the best you can, don't hate yourself, and continue to stride toward Brahman without shame.