Murali_Mohan_das

Maybe like Buddha and Krishna, Christ could also be an incarnation of Vishnu?

Of course Christ is an incarnation of Vishnu. Every living entity is an incarnation of Vishnu. Vishnu resides in the heart of every living entity as Paramatma.

The question is, what *sort* of incarnation are we? Are we each *direct* expansions of the Lord, are are we infinitessimal particles of His jiva shakti?

That level of distinction can be made by the self-realized souls.

No, I didn't discuss this with Sruta. Feeling guilty?

I wouldn't want to get punched in the face. That's a different feeling than guilt--that's fear.

Try the name 'sunflower' and see how logical you and your team sound.

The word "awful" used to have a nearly opposite meaning to today's accepted meaning.

Aren't you being pedantic? What's the purpose of your sophistry?

Quite a collection of pseudos we have here.

 

Everything is one...according to this gentleman. Then you are a shaiva and a muslim. Can you accept that? Will your iskcon friends accept that?

Well maybe I will have to check it out .. as I understand it is the 3 part of the series that the children kill God ..

 

... just the premise alone, ie, that someone could even think of God in that "fictional" capacity .. it breaks my heart .. that is all

Well, which *aspect* of God did they kill? Lord Brahma has a finite lifespan. Sri Krishna left His body when He manifested on this planet. Lord Jesus exhibited dying (and resurrection) in His pastimes.

We need not be confused (even as our hearts break).

Since our government is strongly supporting Buddhism - they think that the false ego consisting of material elements is transmigrating as long one has material desires. As soon you free yourself from material hankerings you become "void" and reincarnation stopps.

Good explanation!! Sounds reasonable enough (from my meager understanding of the Buddhist perspective).

Thank you, HerServant. I don't see any impediments on the aspiring Christian's path towards Bhakti, that is, not any impediments that aren't also in the path of the aspiring Vaishnava.

You have never offended me (though I can be very offensive, no doubt). You are a model disciple of Christ.

All of God's peace and love to you as well!!!

I can accept, and even accept his comments that "Christianity" is incomplete. But within context of what Christian texts and thought he was presented with.

 

I would venture to say that His Holiness Sridhar Maharaj spent much more of his energy studying his own tradition, and sang the glories of that (Vaisnavism).

 

When approached about Christianity, he gave his honest perspective. AND I GREATLY respect Sridhar Maharaja.

 

After all, he says in Sri Guru and His Grace the "religion must be progressive" !!!

 

That includes you and me brother.

 

The worst thing for me is for me to be offensive to anyone that is sincere, particularly you prabhu.

 

Peace and love.

To the extent that He can be jealous and vengeful, the Old Testament God sounds more like Brahma than Vishnu, doesn't he?

"A rose by any other name..."

Well I can't disagree with you on that one. But, I think there is more to this movie than meets the eye. I didn't like it and I think there are some dark aspects to it ..

 

.. of course any book that is riddled with conspiracy theory has a dark edge to it .

 

.. maybe I didn't like it because it made me uncomfortable ... no .. that is not it .. I was fine with this movie until the "bloody end" .. I think there is definitely a connection to satanic ritualist stuff .. no thanks

I saw the movie as fun. I see Satan and Jesus as being brothers (like the Mormons, I suppose).

My mundane senses are gratified by conspiracy theories.

To enjoy the movie, however, requires quite a bit of suspension of disbelief, though. There were holes in the plot large enough to drive a truck through (why didn't Silas just shoot the guy in the head, and, if he *meant* to shoot him in the gut, what assurance was there that he'd be able to pass on what he knew? Just because a woman is buried on some sarcophagus, what *empiric* evidence is there that the woman must be Mary Magdalene?).

I can understand your uneasiness, though.

Despite your warnings, I saw the "Golden Compass" as well. I found it entertaining also. While it's certainly anti-Church, I didn't see it as being anti-spiritual, or atheistic.

Interesting stuff, Suchandra. I'd really like to read "Forbidden Archeology" some day.

In the meanwhile, I discuss things with meat-eaters. They bring up archeological evidence of meat-eating going way back. I point out that many vegetarian cultures cremate their dead and/or dismember the bodies and leave them for carrion-eaters--they don't bury them, hence, there isn't much of a fossil record to represent those cultures.

Also, archeologists seem to prefer working in deserts, where excavation isn't as difficult as in the jungle (not saying they avoid the jungle altogether). Also, it's a lot easier to be a vegetarian in a tropical climate than in the extreme climates of the far North.

It seems clear that, in Africa (and perhaps many other places on Earth) humans have contributed to a process of desertification by living in a disharmonious and unsustainable manner.

People are often puzzled about the realy old traditions of so many African tribes (Africa’s population was estimated at 868 million inhabitants in 2004). Like the Red Indians they're considered as close to nature and experienced in naturopathic treatment. However, when we examine how Africans treat the cow it becomes evident that their culture cannot be very advanced.

Many African tribes live as depending upon their cowherds, but do you find any vedic understanding of cow protection in their ancient tradition (Fossilized remains of the earliest ancestors to the human species, discovered in Ethiopia, have been assigned dates as long ago as 5.9 million years)? So far we see the typical symptoms of a godless civilization, huge parts like Egypt, whole North Africa turned into a desert and scarcity of rain in many other parts of Africa.

 

Maasai tending cows

 

"That’s a fact. So if you do not care for your father, then the result will be nature will reduce supply. Reduce supply. Nature will not allow to the demons to flourish. No. That is not allowed. Tān ahaṁ dviṣataḥ krūrān kṣipāmy ajasram andha-yoniṣu. The demons are always liable to be punished. Some big, big demons like Rāvaṇa, Hiraṇyakaśipu, the Lord personally comes to punish them. Otherwise, the ordinary demons, they are punished by the laws of nature. Krishna does not require to come to punish these petty demons. But when there is big, big demons like Rāvaṇa, like Hiraṇyakaśipu, like Kaṁsa, then Krishna, or Lord Rāmacandra, They come to punish them."

 

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.25.11

by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

Bombay, November 11, 1974

741111SB.BOM

So again my point, is that as Holy and Saintly as Srila Bhakti Vinod Thakur was, he should not be taken as authorative on Christianity, nor should Sridhar Maharaja

 

I know that is scary to a few folks on this forum, but neither claim to be Krsna (Omnicient) and therefore, neither are ALL knowing.

 

What can be said is that they can speak authoratively on Gaudiya Vaisnavism and the Holy Scriptures of the Vaisnavas.

 

Because Sridhar Maharaja didn't have a complete of Jesus and Christianity, does not make his comments incorrect, .. but prove his comments are also incomplete.

 

The fact that they are not omniscient all knowing, does not detract one bit from their sainthood

I don't see Srila Sridhar Maharaja as being omniscient (though the Lord may reveal anything He choses to/through him), but, at the same time, I seem to remember him studying at a college run by British subjects as did Srila Prabhupada.

While Srila Sridhar Maharaja might not have read all of the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, I also do not think all of his understanding of Christianity was obtained second or third-hand. He very well may have read the Bible.

Do you know, BhaktiK, Beggar, or anybody else?

Sriman Mahaprabhu said "achintya bedhabed"--simultaneously and inconceivably one and distinct. The oneness is real and eternal, and so is the distinction.

We can certainly "lose" ourself in the Lord, whether as "The Light" or as Shyamasundar. Sriman Mahaprabhu, in His later pastimes, was fully engrossed in His internal lila and became like a madman.

To the extent that the Lord chooses, we can be empowered by Him without limitations.

Very true - we can say the Waves belong to the Ocean, but does the Ocean belong to the waves? The converse is not true. Similarly, We belong to God, but God could never belong to us. We are but a part & parcel of the Almighty, but can never become Him.

 

However, Advaita preaches otherwise, personally, I am comfortable with the thought that I owe my being to God, but can never equal Him. Guess what is most important is one's belief system.

 

Though sometimes Advaita is sometimes misquoted among a lot of people, stating - We are equal to God, the Great Acharya, Adi Shankara Himself composed the Shatpadi Stotram on Maha Vishnu - This sloka contains the rasam of devotion and surrender.

 

Deeptha

But we all know it is an absurd offense to even theorectically imagine a Rupanuga acarya is imitating rasa lila, which in essence is what you are saying.

No, that's what *you're* saying.

I'm saying it's not our place to say what the acharya is doing or not doing.

We all imagined this:

Do you see any "I" in there? I sure don't. What makes you think I'm talking about myself?

I don't see it that way at all.

God is the only absolute truth. We can only know absolute truth to the extent that God reveals it to us. Otherwise, our experience of the absolute truth is purely subjective.

All that matters (to us as individuals) *is* what we believe in, where we place our faith.

If all of Jesus' miracles have "naturalistic" explanations, that doesn't make him any less special in my mind.

Sri Krishna held up Govardhan Hill with his pinkie. Srila Prabhupada blasted a hole in the mountain of false ego of the West. Srila Prabhupada's miracle is superior to Sri Krishna's in my mind.

Jesus' greatest miracle is the faith he inspired/inspires in so many faithful people.

I thought it was a very "dark" movie. It is an attack on theism and it is mayavadi for sure:

 

In the DaVinci code book it states, "Almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false,"

 

and in the movie it is watered down to: "What if the world discovers the greatest story ever told is a lie?"

 

It leads to an absurd—and damaging—conclusion. In the movie, Robert ultimately tells Sophie, "What matters is what you believe (is truth)" .

 

That is, it advocates the message of subjective non absolute Truth. It is impersonalist.

 

It does not proclaim that only the Personal God is the source of Truth, He is Absolute and the Truth can only be realized in personal relationship with Him.

 

 

Da Vinci Code is mayavadi philosophy.

 

Narada said: You have not actually broadcast the sublime and spotless glories of the Personality of Godhead. That philosophy which does not satisfy the transcendental senses of the Lord is considered worthless. - SB 1.5.8

Oh really? I wonder why, did anyone else encounter this problem?

I just checked the first link, and got a "file not found" error. It seems like the links have been broken since you first posted them.

I have the three files to which you originally linked. You could upload them to a free site like eSnips.com and post fresh links. If you don't have the facility to do that, I could create a folder on my own eSnips account as I did for Mahaksa Prabhu's recordings.

BTW I tried to read your statements to two Prabhupada disciples and after several words they both refused to hear the rest of your comments.

Sruta's going to kick my butt, isn't he?

I guess I'd better start worshiping at the Catholic Church instead.

I'm not talking about me imagining I'm Sri Krishna. I'm talking about you imagining Sri Guru is *not* as good as Sri Krishna.

If it's an offense to say that Srila Prabhupada could have transgressed any arbitrary moral standards and still remained a pure empowered incarnation of Nityananda Prabhu, then let me happily accept the fruit of my offensive thought.

No perhaps about it. The Lord does enjoy the actions of His pure devotees because everything they do is offered with LOVE to Him.Yes He enjoys their offerings.

 

But this gets PERVERTED when one thinks the Lord is enjoying the movement of his penis inside some female disciple while having intercourse and thinking he is Krsna and the woman is some gopi. Why in God's name would Krsna be attracted to participate in that scenario?

 

It boggles the mind.

 

And add further to the offense he uses Srila Prabhupada's name into the example.

You posted the same quote twice, Beggar, so I'd say my thinking didn't change at all between the first and the second quote.

Have I *ever* presented myself as a follower of anybody or anything??? If you think I have, you're imagining things. Rather, I've said the Srila Gurudev has mercifully granted me his shelter. To which extent I avail myself of his shelter and follow his instructions and which extent I follow the suicidal impulses of my own mind is strictly a question of my free will.

How am I judging *anybody* by saying that no one is qualified to judge the acharya?

A thief sees everyone else as a thief.

You would have to show how your position has changed from the time you wrote,

 

Until the time you wrote BTW I tried to read your statements to two Prabhupada disciples and after several words they both refused to hear the rest of your comments. From my perspective both statements are interestingly interrelated. Again if you wish to write such things on Audarya in the name of free thought then please do not represent yourself as an orthodox follower of the Sri Caitanya Saraswat Math International and please refrain from judging others from that perspective because you are not holding yourself accountable to that standard. You can't just assume diametrically oppossed positions at your whim. Actually the free thinker Murali Mohan is despite his rasabhasa, a less pernicious threat than a judgemental junior member of the local...., well you know what!

However, an entirely separate issue is whether any of the more controversial sahajiya practices are actually useful in the practice of Krsna consciousness. In my opinion, if they are practiced with the proper aspiration, they may actually have some value.

I keep thinking of the bhajan by Bhaktivinoda Thakur which indulekha didi posted, in which the Thakur was seeing his entire family as being the prasad of the Lord. Surely, that is proper vision.

To sum this up I am asserting that Murali Mohan is continuing to promote the possiblity of the acarya having sex with a disciple as a form of raganuga bhajan and is trying to disguise it through presenting it in a slightly different manner.

I'm doing no such thing. I'm saying it's wrong for us to *judge* the acharya, whatever our imperfect senses suggest to us he/she may be doing.

As a child, I greatly enjoyed reading the books (novels, perhaps) of "Lobsang Rampa", with their mentions of the Akashic Records.

They were fun (if not spiritually illuminating), whether or not their author had ever actually been to Tibet.

There's a tale in Gospel of Mark, and Luke of how several demons had possessed a man, and Jesus drives them out. However, he allows the demons to possess a herd of pigs, who then go mad and jump off a cliff. I've always found this particular tale has bothered me.

Sri Krishna Himself killed plenty of demons who had possessed/taken the form of animals.

Great thread, all.

He walks amongst us even now!

I finally got to watch "The DaVinci Code" last night. It was beautiful and inspirational.