anadi

by the power of intimidation, threat, inspiring fear, and much more...antichrist, hell and satan were nice tools in the Paulus's sect, who overtook the power through King Constanine! Pious fraud was a common technique employed by early Christian writers to make a point. Their intention was to convert anyone and everyone by any means available. One of the more persuasive methods was to write a text and falsely tell others that it was written in first person. For example, the four canonized gospel tales were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, who were illiterate fisherman. That has been a well known fact for about 200 years. And to this day, no one knows who the gospel stories were written by, the mat. These texts are perfect examples of pious fraud. Pious fraud is the foundation of the deception known as Christianity and it continues to this day. By the fourth century it became necessary for the Church to decide which of the many Gospels then in circulation were to be accepted as authentic?! The question came up in the Council of Nicea. Fortunately the testimonies of two eye-witnesses have been preserved, so there can be little doubt as to the method used in the selection of the Gospels. There were 318 Bishops present in this Council, and one of the two eye-witnesses, Sabinus, Bishop of Heraclea, left a description of their mental capacities. "With the exception of the Emperor (Constantine)" he said, "and Eusebius Pamphilus, these Bishops were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing." About forty Gospels were submitted to these Bishops. As they differed widely in their contents, the decision was difficult. At last it was determined to resort to "miraculous intervention." The method used was known as the Sortes Sanctorum, or "the holy casting of lots for purposes of divination." Its use in the Council of Nicea was described by another eye-witness, Pappus, in his Synodicon to that Council. He says: Having promiscuously put all the books referred to the Council for determination under a communion table in a church, they (the Bishops) besought the Lord that the inspired writings might get upon the table, while the spurious ones remained underneath. And it happened accordingly. When the Bishops returned to the Council room on the following morning, the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were resting on the communion table. Their presence in the New Testament is due to the art of divination, for practicing which the Church subsequently condemned men and women as sorcerers, enchanters and witches, and burned them by the thousands. After the death of Constantine, his policy was continued by his two sons. Every indulgence was shown to the illegal behavior of the Christians, every doubt explained to the disadvantage of the pagans, and the further demolition of the pagan temples was celebrated as one of the auspicious events of their reign. Having perceived the efficacy of Christian baptism in the case of their own father, they determined to force baptism upon even the unwilling. As Gibbon says: The rites of baptism were conferred on women and children, who, for that purpose, had been torn from the arms of their friends and parents. The mouths of the communicants were held open by a wooden engine, while the consecrated bread was forced down their throats. (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.)

nindasi yajña-vidher ahaha Sruti-jAtaˆ sadaya-hRdaya! darSita-paSu-ghAtam keSava! dhRta-buddha-Sarira! jaya jagadiSa! hare (9) O KeSava! O You who assume the form of Buddha! O JagadiSa! O You who dispel atheism! O Hare! All glories to You because Your heart is so full of compassion. Therefore You advocate non-violence as the supreme religious principle. Aho! You decry the Srutis which prescribe the performance of sacrifices that inflict pain upon animals. This is the nineth Sloka of the song Dasa Avatara Stotram where the most famous poet Sri Jayadeva is describing Buddha as one of the dasa Avatara. Mahaprabhu (Sri Krishna Caitanya) was delighted to hear the songs of Jayadeva Gosvami and his wonderful Gita-Govinda. I think even in iskcon there is a picture with the dasa Avatara where Lord Buddha is also present.

The Amarakosha speaks of two Buddhas Amara Simha was the author of many books on Buddhism. By coincidence all these books came into the possession of Sri Shankaracarya, who subsquently preserved only the Amarakosha and burnt all the others. The following versese about Buddha are found in the Amarakosha: Sarvajnah sugaro buddho dharmarajas tathagatah Samanta bhadro bhagavan marajil lokajij jinah Sadabhijno dasabalo dvayavadi vinayakah Munindra srighanah sasta munih All knowing, transcendental Buddha, kin g of righteoousness, He who has come, beneficient, all encompassing Lord, conqueror of the god of Love Mara, conqueror of words, He who controls his senses, protector of the six enemies, possessor of the ten powers, speaker of monism foremos leader, Lord of the ascetics, emobodiment od splendoour and teacher of the ascetics. The above verse contains eighteen names of Visnu Avatara Buddha including the name Sugato, and the verse below contains the seven aliases of Sakya Simha Buddha without any mention of Sugato. Sakyamunis tu yah sa sakyadimhah sarvarthasiddha sauddhodanis ca sah Gautamas carkabandhus ca maya devi sutas ca sah Teacher of the Sakyas, lion of the Sakyas axxomplisher of all goals, son of Suddhodana, of Gautama’s line, friend of the entrapped ones, the son of Mayadevi. In the first verse are eighteen names addressing the original Visnu avatar Lord Buddha. In the second verse there are seven names biginning with Sakya-nunistu to Mayadevi-Sutasca, which refer to Sakya Simha Buddha. In the commentary on Amarakosa by the leaarned Sri Raghunatha Cakravarti, he also divided the verses into two sections. To the eighteen names of Vishnu Avatara Buddha he writes the words “astadas buddha”, which clearly refers only the the Visnu avatara. Next on his commentry for the seven aliases of Sakya Smha he writes “ete sapta sakya bangsabatirneh buddha muni bishete” meaning: the next seven names starting form Sakya munistu who was born into the Sakya dynasty. Besides the Amarakosa, there are otherefamous Buddhist texts like Prajna-Paramita Sutra, Astasahastrika Prajna-Paramita Sutra, Sata sahastrika Prajna-Paramita Sutra, Lalita Vistara where by proper scrutiny of the texts, it will be revealed three category of Buddha, namely: 1. Human Buddhas: like Gautama, who was named with the title of Buddha after enlightement. 2. Bodhisattva Buddhas: Personalities like Samanta Bhadraka, who were born enlightened 3. Adi Buddha: Original Buddha, the omnipotent avatar of Lord Visnu. For more detailed information on the subject, please see the chapter “Two Buddhas” from the book Mayavada Jivani written by Srila Bhakti Prajnana Keshava Gosvami Maharaja, one of the first disciples of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada, and also the sannyasa guru of the famous Srila Bhaktivedanta Svami Prabhupada. The book appeared under the name Beyond Nirvana, The Philosophy of Mayavadism, A life history, translated by one of his most dear disciples Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja.

Jiva is never an incarnation (avatar) of the Lord. See the thread jiva-tattva. In the case of avesh avatar see the quotation bellow. The matter of fact even the use of the word incarnation applied to the avataras of the Lord is an utter mistake. Incarnation means in-carne, which in latin means in flesh. Krishna never comes in the material world in material body made of maya. Maya is only a trick of the Big Illusionist. The Big Illusionist is not affected by His own illusion. Krishna Himself says in the Gita: "janma karma ca me divyam" My birth, My activities, and Myself are transcendental" not from maya. "10 To prove that the Supreme Lord, Sri Krsna, is the best of they who are worthy of worship, His forms will be described here, one after another. 11 In His abodes beyond the worlds of matter, the Supreme Lord is manifest in three kinds of forms: 1. svayam-rupa 2. tad-ekatma-rupa and 3. avesa-rupa. 12 The svayam-rupa is said to be the original form, not manifested from any other. 13 It is described in Brahma-samhita (5.1) "Krsna, who is known as Govinda, is the supreme controller. He has an eternal, blissful, spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin, for He is the prime cause of all causes."* 14 The svayam-rupa is not different from His original form. In the tad-ekatma-rupa the Lord's form and other features are different from His original form. The tadekatma-rupa forms are divided into two types: 1. vilasa-rupa and 2. svamsa-rupa. 15-16 When the Lord displays numerous forms with different features by His inconceivable potency, such forms are called vilasa-vigrahas.* In this way from Lord Govinda is manifest Lord Narayana, the master of the spiritual sky, and from Lord Narayana is manifest Lord Vasudeva. 17 These forms manifest other forms that have lesser power, and are called svamsa-rupas. The forms headed by Lord Sankarsana and the forms headed by Lord Matsya, each manifest in His own abode, are examples of these forms. 18-9 Exalted individual souls (jivas) into whom Lord Janardana enters with a portion of His knowledge-potency and other potencies, are called avesas. Sesa, Narada, and the four Kumaras are examples of them in Vaikuntha. They were seen by Akrura, as described in the Tenth Canto. 20 <font color="blue">Prakasa-rupas</font color> are the same form manifest in many places. 21-2 If numerous forms, all equal in their features, are displayed simultaneously, such forms are called prakasa-vigrahas of the Lord.* Lord Krsna did this in the many places of Dvaraka. This will be proved when Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.69.2 is quoted here. 23 Sometimes, without abandoning His Krsna-form, Lord Krsna manifests a four-arm form. This is a prakasa-rupa of His two-arm form. 24 The many forms of the Supreme Lord each have their own abode in the spiritual sky, beyond the touch of matter. This is confirmed in the Uttara-khanda of the Padma Purana, and in many other Vedic literatures also." From Rupa Gosvami's only book dealing with sambandha tattva.

Can you give as an example ome of his lectures, please? to know one's guru is kanishta or madyam is not an insult. An uttama bhagavat guru is a quite rarely incidence.

"VrajanAtha: Is there any material component in the jiva’s original constitution? BAbAji: No, the jiva is created solely from the cit-Sakti. He can be defeated – that is, covered by mayA – because he is minute by nature and lacks spiritual power, but there is not even a scent of mAyA in the jiva’s existence. VrajanAtha: I have heard from my teacher that when a fraction of the conscious brahma is covered by mAyA, it becomes the jiva. He explained the sky to be always the indivisible mahA-AkASa, but when a part of it is enclosed in a pot, it becomes ghaTa-AkASa. Similarly, the jiva is originally brahman, but when that brahman is covered by mAyA, the false ego of being a jiva develops . Is this conception correct? BAbAji: This doctrine is only MAyAvAda . How can mAyA touch brahma? The MAyAvAdis propose that brahma has no Sakti (luptaSakti) , so how can mAyA – which is a Sakti – possibly approach brahma, (if Sakti is supposed to be non-existent)? ( Everyting is brahma, brahma has no Sakti, where comes mAyA from ?) The conclusion is that (the inexistent) mAyA cannot possibly cover brahma and cause such a miserable condition. Conversely, if we accept the transcendental Sakti (parASakti) of brahma, how can mAyA, which is an insignificant Sakti, defeat the cit-Sakti and create the jiva from brahman ( which IS by definition immutable )? Brahman is by definition indivisible, so how can such a brahma be divided ? The idea that mAyA can act upon brahma is not acceptable. MAyA plays no role in the creation of the jivas. Admittedly, the jiva is only atomic, But even so, it is still superior as a tattva to mAyA." from Jaiva Dharma Prameya Jiva Tattva Ch 15

So this fraud was transmited ... by the means of what they call bible? What is Pious Fraud? Pious fraud was a common technique employed by early Christian writers to make a point. Their intention was to convert anyone and everyone by any means available. One of the more persuasive methods was to write a text and falsely tell others that it was written in first person. For example, the four canonized gospel tales were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. That has been a well known fact for about 200 years. And to this day, no one knows who the gospel stories were written by. These texts are perfect examples of pious fraud. Pious fraud is the foundation of the deception known as Christianity and it continues to this day. During the first couple of centuries of the Common Era the early Christian priestcraft, which would eventually become the early Catholic fathers, were in the process of assimilating religions from all over Europe. Ultimately the new religion become known as the Christian religion, or more accurately The Catholic Church. The Bible was put together by hundreds of people who were either at the head of the fraud or were pawns in its assembly. Once the original languages were translated into Latin, it was only a matter of time before the original language nuances could be discarded. Ever wonder why it was punishable by death to read the Bible during the Middle Ages? Punishable by death by the common folk to read it, that is. Well, the reason was that the priestcraft was well aware of the errors, inconsistencies and flat-out lies that riddled the Bible. If the common man found out, it could have been the death of the Church's authority, power and control over the masses. And since the original languages are rarely, if ever, used by those who read the Bible (well, those who actually READ it), the fraud is perpetuated. When a pious fraud is knowingly perpetuated in the name of power and money, you have deception. Remember, 1700-2000 years ago, when these texts were being assembled into a 'new testament', the vast majority of humanity was illiterate. Science was not known. Demons rules the world. Anything could be put forth and said to be 'absolute truth' when it was in fact, completely fraudulent. What is the implication of this? Wrong siddhanta pertaining 1. sambandha jnana - knowledge about bhagavan tattva jiva tattva guru tattva shakti tattva maya tattva... and their relations 2. abhideya tattva - knowledge about shuddha bhakti, the means to attain the goal 3. prayojana tattva - the goal, prema, pure love for bhagavan Sri Krishna or one of His expansions in the category bhagavan-tattva.

Many people come in contact with the "christians" by the force of circumstances. As for example my sister, although took initiation from a bonafide guru, is married to an ardent christian. So how is it possible to argue with them, if you don't understand why their siddhanta is so wrong? Just present the facts. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada, Srila Bhakti-Prajnana Keshava Maharaja, and Srila Bhaktivedanta Svami Prabhupada faught also against the false siddhanta of sunya-vada and maya-vada which was prevailing in India. But in the west the so called "christianity" is prevailing.

We should better remain factul and present the facts: Let's take the controversial point of the invented term of "monoteism" and "politeism" which "make" the vaisnavas politeist worshipers of idols!? The story of Genesis, that Christian proselytizers love to advance (although it is part of the much older Jewist texts), is a complete and utter forgery. In that story we are led to believe that there was a single god. The earth was created in 6 days, etc. Not only has science proven the timeline to be completely false, the religious aspect is a complete fabrication. At the time that the Genesis story was supposed to have been written, the Hewbrew people were not "monotheistic". That's history. They believed there were many gods (or demi-gods) and Genesis proves it. The story actually goes back to before the Hebrews were a distinct people- and the story is not Hebrew in origin. Pious Fraud in Translation Let's take a look at the very first words of the book of Genesis. Note very carefully that the Hebrew culture, at the time of this writing, was not monothestic, but rather, polytheistic (veneration of demigods). Will the priest, minister or preacher tell you that? No. But you can find out for yourself with a simple dictionary. The Hebrew word for God is el; the plural is elohim, gods. What is the first sentence in the Bible? "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). Here is Genesis 1:1 in Hebrew (transliterated into the Latin alphabet, of course): "Bereshith bara elohim," etc., In-beginning created (the) GODS! (the) heavens (the material paradise worlds, which has nothing to do with the spiritual world) and (the) earth." When “Christians” speak about the heavens, they do not know that they point on these heavens which have been created, and whatever has a beginning has an end, the heavens are material. The spiritual world was never created and will never be destroyed. The truth is, the “Christians” have no information about the spiritual world, the realm of God. In the same chapter the word "elohim" (gods) is used thirty times. To clarify, here is the translation of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1. Notice how Jewish and "Christian fathers! don't bother to tell you what the original text says. They would like you to believe that a single god created everything. (In fact the Supreme Lord is not directly involved in this part of creation, only His empowered representatives). But, they messed up big time and actually translated it properly. In plain English, the translation reads 'let us make man in our image': Here are three examples of the Hebrew plural gods mentioned in Genesis: 1. "And-said elohim (gods), let-US-make man in-image-OUR, after-likeness-OUR" (1:26). (which implies the Hebrews knew about the existence of the demigods, and also implies that the Supreme Lord, Yahveh was not involved in the direct creation inside the material universe) 2. And when "adam" had eaten of the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge, "the Lord God" said, "Behold, the-man has become like one of US, to know good and evil" (3:27). 3. And when the Tower of Babel was being built: "The Lord [Heb. Yahveh] said ... Come, let US go down," etc. When speaking of the Hebrew deity, Yahveh, elohim, (gods) is used in the Hebrew texts, The plural elohim is used 2570 times. It is always falsely translated to the singular "God", thus falsely making us believe that this text was written at a time when the Hebrew people were monothestic, when it clearly is the case (written at least 2570 times, no less!) that they WERE NOT. In the three Genesis verses above, there are three different designations of the Hebrew deity or deities: elohim, (gods), falsely translated "God": Lord God (Heb. Yahveh-elohim); and Lord (Heb. Yahveh). Yahveh is the proper name of the Hebrew God, which, in English, is Jehovah. Yahveh-elohim is a Hebrew "construct-form" which is translated to "Yahveh-of-the-gods" but means The Lord of the Gods, which is pointing on the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Invariably these personal names were falsely translated "Lord" and "Lord God," respectively, for purposes of pious fraud.

So religious conversion and colonialism were to go hand in hand. As Arun Shourie has pointed out in his recent book Missionaries in India, European Christian missions were an appendage of the colonial government, with missionaries working hand in glove with the government. In a real sense, they cannot be called religious organizations at all but an unofficial arm of the Imperial Administration. (The same is true of many Catholic missions in Central American countries who were, and probably are, in the pay of the American CIA. This was admitted by a CIA director, testifying before the Congress.) The key point here is Macaulay's belief that 'knowledge and reflection' on the part of the Hindus, especially the Brahmins, would cause them to give up their age-old belief in favor of Christianity. In effect, his idea was to turn the strength of Hindu intellectuals against them, by utilizing their commitment to scholarship in uprooting their own tradition. His plan was to educate the Hindus to become Christians and turn them into collaborators. He was being very naive no doubt, to think that his scheme could really succeed converting India to Christianity. At the same time it is a measure of his seriousness that Macaulay persisted with the idea for fifteen years until he found the money and the right man for turning his utopian idea into reality. In pursuit of this goal he needed someone who would translate and interpret Indian scriptures, especially the Vedas, in such a way that the newly educated Indian elite would see the differences between them and the Bible and choose the latter. Upon his return to England, after a good deal of effort he found a talented but impoverished young German Vedic scholar by name Friedrich Max Müller who was willing to undertake this ardous task. Macaulay used his influence with the East India Company to find funds for Max Müller's translation of the Rigveda. Though an ardent German nationalist, Max Müller agreed for the sake of Christianity to work for the East India Company, which in reality meant the British Government of India. He also badly needed a major sponsor for his ambitious plans, which he felt he had at last found. This was the genesis of his great enterprise, translating the Rigveda with Sayana's commentary and the editing of the fifty-volume Sacred Books of the East. There can be no doubt at all regarding Max Müller's commitment to the conversion of Indians to Christianity. Writing to his wife in 1866 he observed: It [the Rigveda] is the root of their religion and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last three thousand years</font color>. Two years later he also wrote the Duke of Argyle, then acting Secretary of State for India: "The ancient religion of India is doomed. And if Christianity does not take its place, whose fault will it be?" The facts therefore are clear: like Lawrence of Arabia in this century, Max Müller, though a scholar was an agent of the British government paid to advance its colonial interests. But he remained an ardent German nationalist even while working in England. This helps explain why he used his position as a recognized Vedic and Sanskrit scholar to promote the idea of the 'Aryan race' and the 'Aryan nation', both favorite slogans among German nationalists. Though he was later to repudiate it, it was Max Müller as much as anyone who popularized the notion of Arya as a race. This of course was to reach its culmination in the rise of Hitler and the horrors of Nazism in our own century.

Please bring evidence.

Where ETERNAL distinction and non-distinction are found at one and the same time, eternal distinction takes prominence. The nitya-dharma of the jiva is loving servitorship to KriSna. When he forgets this, he is subjected to the tyranny of mAyA, and from that very moment he becomes diverted from KriSna. The fall of the jiva from the marginal realm does not take place within the context of material time. (because the marginal zone between the material and the spiritual worlds is not under the influence of mAyA, so this is also known as Viraja river the river without passion) Accordingly,the words anadi-bahirmukha from kRSNa bhUli sei jiva anadi-bahirmukha ataeva mAyA tAre deya saMsAra-duhkha Caitanya-caritAmRta, (Madhya 20.117) are used, meaning that the jIva has been diverted since time without beginning. From the moment of this diversion and the jIva’s entry into mAyA, his nitya-dharma (seva vriti) becomes perverted. Therefore, by the association of mAyA, the jiva develops nisarga, an acquired nature, which thus facilitates the display of his temporary function and disposition known as naimittika-dharma . Source: Jaiva Dharma Chapter 1 The Eternal & Temprary dharmas of the jiva In this way jiva becomes sick, developing bhoga vriti, the enjoying propensity, and her seva vriti, the devotional service, is covered and perverted by bhoga vriti.

“KRSNa is endowed with unlimited potencies. His complete potency (purNA-Sakti) is perceived in the manifestation of the spiritual world, cit-jagat. Similarly, His tatastha-Sakti, or marginal potency, is observed in the manifestation of the jivas. A special potency acts in assembling the finite world (apUrNa-jagat), and this potency is known as taTasthA-Sakti . The action of the marginal potency is to create an entity (vastu) which exists between the animate objects (cid-vastu) and inanimate objects (acid-vastu) and which can maintain a relationship with both the spiritual and material worlds. Purely transcendental entities are by nature quite the opposite of inanimate objects, and therefore have no connection whatsoever with them. Although the jiva is an animate spiritual particle, he is capable of a relationship with inanimate matter due to the influence of aiSi-Sakti, a divine potency, which is known as the taTasthA-Sakti. “The boundary region between land and the water of a river is known as a taTa or shore. This taTa may be considered to be both land and water; in other words, it is situated in both. The divine aiSi-Sakti, which is situated in the border region, upholds the properties of both land and water, as it were, in one existential entity. The jiva’s nature is spiritual, but still, his composition is such that he can become controlled by jaDa-dharma, the inert nature. Therefore the baddha-jiva (conditioned soul) is not beyond all connection with matter, unlike the jivas in the spiritual domain . Nonetheless, he is distinct from dull matter because of his animate, spiritual nature. Since the jiva is by nature <font color="red"> different </font color>from both the purely spiritual (nitya siddha) entities and dull matter, he is classified as a separate principle. Therefore, the eternal distinction between BhagavAn and the jiva must be accepted. Source: Jaiva Dharma Chapter 1 The Eternal & Temprary dharmas of the jiva

The greatest effect of these ideas was on the psyche of the German people. German nationalism was the most powerful political movement of nineteenth century Europe. The idea of the Aryan race was a significant aspect of the German nationalistic movement. We are now used to regarding Germany as a rich and powerful country, but the German people at the beginning of the nineteenth century were weak and divided. There was no German nation at the time; the map of Europe then was dotted with numerous petty German principalities and dukedoms that had always been at the mercy of the neighboring great powers - Austria and France. For more than two centuries, from the time of the Thirty Years War to the Napoleonic conquests, the great powers had marched their armies through these petty German states treating these people and their rulers with utter disdain. It was very much in the interests of the French to keep the German people divided, a tactic later applied to India by the British. Every German at the time believed that he and his rulers were no more than pawns in great power rivalries. This had built up deep resentments in the hearts and minds of the German people. This was to have serious consequences for history. In this climate of alienation and impotence, it is not surprising that German intellectuals should have sought solace in the culture of an ancient exotic land like India. Some of us can recall a very similar sentiment among Americans during the era of Vietnam and the Cold War, with many of them taking an interest in eastern religions and philosophy. These German intellectuals also felt a kinship towards India as a subjugated people, like themselves. Some of the greatest German intellectuals of the era like Humbolt, Frederick and Wilhem Schlegel, Schopenhauer and many others were students of Indian literature and philosophy. Hegel, the greatest philosopher of the age and a major influence on German nationalism was fond of saying that in philosophy and literature, Germans were the pupils of Indian sages. Humbolt went so far as to declare in 1827: " The Bhagavad-gita is perhaps the loftiest and the deepest thing that the world has to show." This was the climate in Germany when it was experiencing the rising tide of nationalism. Whereas the German involvement in things Indian was emotional and romantic, the British interest was entirely practical, even though there were scholars like Jones and Colebrooke who were admirers of India and its literature. Well before the 1857 uprising it was recognized that British rule in India could not be sustained without a large number of Indian collaborators. Recognizing this reality, influential men like Thomas Babbington Macaulay, who was Chairman of the Education Board, sought to set up an educational system modeled along British lines that would also serve to undermine the Hindu tradition. While not a missionary himself, Macaulay came from a deeply religious family steeped in the Protestant Christian faith. His father was a Presbyterian minister and his mother a Quaker. He believed that the conversion of Hindus to Christianity held the answer to the problems of administering India. His idea was to create an English educated elite that would repudiate its tradition and become British collaborators. In 1836, while serving as chairman of the Education Board in India, he enthusiastically wrote his father: Our English schools are flourishing wonderfully. The effect of this education on the Hindus is prodigious. ...... It is my belief that if our plans of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolator among the respectable classes in Bengal thirty years hence. And this will be effected without any efforts to proselytise, without the smallest interference with religious liberty, by natural operation of knowledge and reflection. I heartily rejoice in the project.

A modern student today can scarcely have an idea of the extraordinary influence of race theories in eighteenth and nineteenth century Europe. Many educated people really believed that human qualities could be predicted on the basis of measurements of physical characteristics like eye color, length of the nose and such. It went beyond prejudice, it was an article of faith amounting to an ideology. Here is an example of what passed for informed opinion on 'race science' by the well-known French savant Paul Topinard. Much of the debate centered on the relative merits of racial types called dolichocephalics and brachycephalics, though no one seemed to have a clear idea of what was which. Anyway, here is what Topinard wrote in 1893, which should give modern readers an idea of the level of scientific thinking prevailing in those days: The Gauls, according to history, were a people formed of two elements: the leaders or conquerors, blond, tall dolichocephalic, leptroscopes, etc. But the mass of the people, were small, relatively brachycephalic chaemeophrosopes. The brachycephalics were always oppressed. They were the victims of dolicocephalics who carried them off from their fields. ... The blond people changed from warriors into merchants and industrial workers. The brachycephalics breathed again. Being naturally prolific, their numbers [of brachycephalics] increased while the dolichocephalics naturally diminished. ... Does the future not belong to them? [sic: Belong to whom? - dolichocephalic leptroscopes, or brachycephalic chaemeophrosopes?] This tongue-twisting passage may sound bizarre to a modern reader, but was considered an erudite piece of reasoning when it was written. In its influence and scientific unsoundness and dogmatism, 'race science' can only be compared in this century to Marxism, especially Marxist economics. Like Marxist theories, these race theories have also been fully discredited. The emergence of molecular genetics has shown these race theories to be completely false. By creating this pseudo-science based on race, Europeans of the Age of Enlightenment sought to free themselves from their Jewish heritage. It is interesting to note that this very same theory - of the Aryan invasion and colonization of Europe - was later applied to India and became the Aryan invasion theory of India. In reality it was nothing more than a projection into the remote past of the contemporary European experience in colonizing parts of Asia and Africa. Substituting European for Aryan, and Asian or African for Dravidian will give us a description of any of the innumerable colonial campaigns in the eighteenth or nineteenth century. According to this theory, the Aryans were carbon copies of colonizing Europeans having nothing to do with the original meaning of the word aryan, which can be found in holy sanskrit texts. Seen in this light the theory is not even especially original.

"VrajanAtha: What is the Vedantic meaning of the word taTastha ? BAbAji: The space between the ocean and the land is called the taTa (shore), but the place that touches the ocean is actually nothing but land, so where is the shore? The taTa is the line of distinction separating the ocean and the land, and it is so fine that it cannot be seen with the gross eyes. If we compare the transcendental realm to the ocean, and the material world to the land, then taTa is the subtle line that divides the two, and the jiva-Sakti is situated at the place where the two meet . The jivas are like the countless atomic particles of light within the sunrays. Being situated in the middle place, the jivas see the spiritual world on one side and the material universe created by mAyA on the other. Just as BhagavAn’s spiritual Sakti on one side is unlimited, mAyA-Sakti on the other side is also very powerful. The innumerable subtle (sUkSma) jivas are situated between these two. The jivas are marginal by nature because they have manifested from KRSNa’s taTasthaSakti (marginal potency). VrajanAtha: What is the taTastha-svabhAva (marginal nature)? BAbAji: It is the nature that enables one to be situated between both worlds, and to see both sides. TaTastha-svabhAva is the eligibility to come under the control of either of the Saktis. Sometimes the shore is submerged in the river because of erosion, and then again it becomes one with the land because the river changes its course. If the jiva looks in the direction of KRSNa – that is, towards the spiritual world – he is influenced by KRSNa Sakti. He then enters the spiritual world, and serves Bhagavän in his pure, conscious, spiritual form. However, if jiva looks towards mAyA , he becomes opposed to KRSNa and is incarcerated by mAyA. This dual-faceted nature is called the taTastha-svabhAva (marginal nature)." Source: Jaiva Dharma Prameya Jiva Tattva Ch 15

"Julian Huxley, one of the leading biologists of the century, wrote as far back as 1939: In 1848 the young German scholar Friedrich Max Müller (1823-1900) settled in Oxford, where he remained for the rest of his life. ... About 1853 he introduced into the English language the unlucky term Aryan as applied to a large group of languages. ... Moreover, Max Müller threw another apple of discord. He introduced a proposition that is demonstrably false. He spoke not only of a definite Aryan language and its descendents, but also of a corresponding 'Aryan race'. The idea was rapidly taken up both in Germany and in England. It affected to some extent a certain number of the nationalistic and romantic writers, none of whom had any ethnological training. ... In England and America the phrase 'Aryan race' has quite ceased to be used by writers with scientific knowledge, though it appears occasionally in political and propagandist literature. In Germany the idea of the 'Aryan' race found no more scientific support than in England. Nonetheless, it found able and very persistent literary advocates who made it very flattering to local vanity. It therefore spread, fostered by special conditions. This should help settle the issue as far as its modern misuse is concerned. As far as ancient India is concerned, one may safely say that the word Arya denoted certain spiritual and humanistic values that defined her civilization. The entire Aryan civilization - the civilization of Vedic India - was driven and sustained by these values. The whole of ancient Indian literature: from the Vedas, the Brahmanas to the Puranas to the epics like the Mahabharata and the Ramayana can be seen as a record of the struggles of an ancient people to live up to the ideals defined by these values. Anyone regardless of birth, race or national origin could become Aryan by following this code of conduct. It was not something to be imposed upon others by the sword or by proseleytization. Viewed in this light, the whole notion of any 'Aryan invasion' is an absurdity. It is like talking about an 'invasion of scientific thinking'. Then there is also the fact that the concept of the Aryan race and the Aryan-Dravidian divide is a modern European invention that receives no support from any ancient source. To apply it to people who lived thousands of years ago is an exercise in anachronism if there ever was one. The sum total of all this is that Indians have no reason to be defensive about the word Arya. It applies to everyone who has tried to live by the high ideals of an ancient culture regardless of race, language or nationality. It is a cultural designation of a people who created a great civilization. Anti-Semitism was an aberration of Christian Euorpean history, with its roots in the New Testament, of sayings like "He that is not with me is against me." If the Europeans (and their Indian disciples) fight shy of the word, it is their problem stemming from their history. Modern India has many things for which she has reason to be grateful to European knowledge, but this is definitely not one of them. European currents: 'Aryan nation' As Huxley makes clear in the passage cited earlier, the misuse of the word 'Aryan' was rooted in political propaganda aimed at appealing to local vanity. In order to understand the European misuse of the word Arya as a race, and the creation of the Aryan invasion idea, we need to go back to eighteenth and nineteenth century Europe, especially to Germany. The idea has its roots in European anti-Semitism. Recent research by scholars like Poliakov, Shaffer and others has shown that the idea of the invading Aryan race can be traced to the aspirations of eighteenth and nineteenth century Europeans to give themselves an identity that was free from the taint of Judaism. The Bible, as is well known, consists of two books: the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament gives the traditional history of mankind. It is of course a Jewish creation. The New Testament is also of Jewish origin; recently discovered manuscripts known as the Dead Sea Scrolls show that Christianity, in fact, began as an extremist Jewish sect. But it was turned against the Judaism of its founding fathers by religious propagandists with political ambitions. In fact, anti-Semitism first makes its appearance in the New Testament, including in the Gospels. Nonetheless, without Judaism there would be no Christianity. To free themselves from this Jewish heritage, the intellectuals of Christian Europe looked east, to Asia. And there they saw two ancient civilizations - India and China. To them the Indian Aryans were preferable as ancestors to the Chinese. As Shaffer has observed: Many scholars such as Kant and Herder began to draw analogies between the myths and philosophies of ancient India and the West. In their attempt to separate Western European culture from its Judaic heritage, many scholars were convinced that the origin of Western culture was to be found in India rather than in the ancient Near East. So they became Aryans. But it was not the whole human race that was given this Aryan ancestry, but only a white race that came down from the mountains of Asia, subsequently became Christian and colonized Europe. No less an intellectual than Voltaire claimed to be "convinced that everything has come down to us from the banks of the Ganges - astronomy, astrology, metempsychosis, etc." (But Voltaire was emphatically not intolerant; he was in fact a strong critic of the Church of his day.)"

This tattva is described in many places in the Vedas. I will cite a few of them: yathagneH kSudrA visphuliNgA vyuccaranti evam evAsmad AtmanaH sarvANi bhUtAni vyuccaranti BRhad-AraNyaka UpaniSad 2.1.20) Innumerable jivas emanate from para-brahma, just like tiny sparks from a fire. tasya vA etasya puruNasya dve eva sthAne bhavata idaN ca paraloka-sthAnaN ca sandhyaM tRtiyaM svapna-sthAnaM tasmin sandhye sthAne tiSThann ete ubhe sthAne paAyatAdaM ca paraloka-sthAnaM ca There are two positions about which the jIva-puruSa should inquire – the inanimate material world, and the spiritual world. The jiva is situated in a third position, which is a dreamlike condition (svapna-sthAna), and is the juncture (taTa-stha) between the other two. Being situated at the place where the two worlds meet , he sees both the jaDa-jagat (inert world) and the cid-jagat (spiritual world). This Sloka describes the marginal nature of jiva-Sakti. Again, it is said in BRhad-AraNyaka UpaniSad (4.3.18): tad yathA mahA-matsya ubhe kule ‘nusaNcarati pUrvaN cAparaN caivam evAyaM puruSa etAv ubhAv antAv anu saNcarati svapnAntaN ca buddhANtaN ca Just as a large fish in a river sometimes goes to the eastern bank and sometimes to the western bank, so the jiva, being situated in kAraNa-jala ( "the causal ocean" that lies between the inert and conscious worlds ), also gradually wanders to both banks, the place of dreaming and the place of wakefulness. source Jaiva Dharma Jiva is called marginal potency, because she originally starts her existence in the marginal zone of existence, coming from the light of the eyes of Maha-Vishnu. From that marginal position, by her independence potency (shatantra shakti) jiva chooses between enjoying alone the enticing maya, or beeing a servitor of the Lord in the realm of Vaikuntha.

The word 'Arya' in Sanskrit means noble and never a race. In fact, the authoritative Sanskrit lexicon (c. 450 AD), the famous Amarakosa gives the following definition: mahakula kulinarya sabhya sajjana sadhavah An Arya is one who hails from a noble family, of gentle behavior and demeanor, good-natured and of righteous conduct And the great epic Ramayana has a singularly eloquent expression describing Rama as: arya sarva samascaiva sadaiva priyadarsanah Arya, who worked for the equality of all and was dear to everyone The Rigveda also uses the word Arya something like thirty six times, but never to mean a race</font color>. The nearest to a definition that one can find in the Rigveda is probably: praja arya jyotiragrah ... (Children of Arya are led by light) RV, VII. 33.17 The word 'light' should be taken in the spiritual sense to mean enlightenment. The word Arya, according to those who originated the term, is to be used to describe those people who observed a code of conduct; people were Aryans or non-Aryans depending on whether or not they followed this code. This is made entirely clear in the Manudharma Shastra or the Manusmriti (X.43-45): But in consequence of the omission of sacred rites, and of their not heeding the sages, the following people of the noble class [Arya Kshatriyas] have gradually sunk to the state of servants - the Paundrakas, Chodas, Dravidas, Kambojas, Yavanas, Shakhas, Paradhas, Pahlavas, Chinas, Kiratas and Daradas. Two points about this list are worth noting: first, their fall from the Aryan fold had nothing to do with race, birth or nationality; it was due entirely to their failure to follow certain sacred rites. Second, the list includes people from all parts of India as well as a few neighboring countries like China and Persia (Pahlavas). Kambojas are from West Punjab, Yavanas from Afghanistan and beyond (not necessarily the Greeks) while Dravidas refers probably to people from the southwest of India and the South. Thus, the modern notion of an Aryan-Dravidian racial divide is contradicted by ancient records. We have it on the authority of Manu that the Dravidians were also part of the Aryan fold. Interestingly, so were the Chinese. Race never had anything to do with it until the Europeans adopted the ancient word to give expression to their nationalistic and other aspirations.

Bhagavad-gita is very easy for understanding some basic points like this, that you should learn by heart. Maybe you would need one month to learn it, but it will be a great asset. dehino smin yathA dehe / kaumaram yauvanam jara tatha dehantara-praptir / dhiras tatra na muhyati Just as the embodied atma (soul) passes from boyhood to youth to old age, similarly, after death, he passes into another body. An intelligent person is not bewildered by the birth and death of the body. SARARTHA-VARAINI "The following point may be raised: Since the AtmA is associated with the body, the body will also be an object of our love. Furthermore, those who are related to the body, such as sons, brothers, relatives, grandsons and so on, will also be the objects of our love, so when they die, we will certainly feel grief. Sri BhagavAn speaks this Sloka beginning with dehinah, in answer to this. The jiva in the body attains boyhood; at the end of boyhood he attains youth, and at the end of youth he attains body. Just as one does not grieve at the end of boyhood and youth, which are objects of love due to their relationship with the ätmä, similarly, one should not grieve for the loss of the body itself, which is also an object of love due to its relationship with the ätmä, when it is lost. If a person grieves when he attains old age at the loss of youth, then he also feels happy when he attains youth at the loss of boyhood. Therefore, you should feel happy because when BhiSma and DroNa lose their old bodies they will attain new ones. Or you should consider that, just as in one body various stages of growth are reached, the same jiva attains various types of bodies." We should start with baby steps, but keep on going. Do you want to practice bhakti?

parAhyAyAH Sakter apRthag api sa sve mahimani sthito jivAkhyAM svAm acid-abhihitAM tAM tri-padikAm sva-tantrecchaH SaktiM sakala-vizaye preraNa-paro vikArAdyaiH SUnyaH parama-puruzo yaM vijayate DaSa-mUla (3) Athough Sri BhagavAn is non-different from His inconceivable transcendental potency (parA-Sakti), He has His own independent nature and desires . His parA-Sakti consists of three aspects - cit-Sakti (spiritual potency), jiva-Sakti (marginal potency) , and mAyA-Sakti (external potency) - and He always inspires them to engage in their respective functions. That para-tattva (Supreme Absolute Truth), even while performing all these activities, still remains immutable and is eternally situated in the fully transcendental svarUpa of His own glory. Jaiva Dharma Prameya Jiva Tattva Ch 15 quote: "VrajanAtha said, Prabhu, when I remember your sweet instructions, my heart becomes restless and the entire world seems to be devoid of all substance. My heart is becoming eager to take shelter at Sri GaurANgadeva's lotus feet. Please be merciful to me and tell me who I really am according to tattva, and why I have come to this world. BAbAji: My dear son, you have blessed me by asking such a question. The day that the jiva first asks this question is the auspicious day on which his good fortune arises. If you will kindly hear the fifth Sloka of DaSa-müla, all your doubts will be dispelled. sphuliNgAH RddhAgner iva cid-aNavo jivA-nicayAH hareH sUryasyaivApRthag api tu tad-bheda-viSayAH vaSe mAyA yasya prakRti-patir eveSvara iha sa jivo mukto 'pi prakRti-vaSA-yogyaH sva-guNataH Just as many tiny sparks burst out from a blazing fire, so the innumerable jivas are like atomic, spiritual particles in the rays of the spiritual sun, Sri Hari. Though these jivas are non-different from Sri Hari, they are also eternally different from Him. The eternal difference between the jiva and ISvara is that ISvara (The Controller) is the Lord and master of mAyA-Sakti, whereas the jiva (the soul) can fall under the control of mAyA, even in his liberated stage - sa jivo mukto, due to his constitutional nature -sva-guNataH" Mukti is not enough to really get out of the control of mAyA. As long as one does not recognize the existence of the Lord and develop some loving devotion towards Him, one can fall any time back under the spell of mAyA. A jivan mukta who does not engage himself in the service of the Lord is an aparadhi (offender) to the Lord, negating His transcendental form, qualities pastimes and names, and by that he can not get access to that transcendental abode where these are plenary manifested but by dint of his desire of being engaged he get to the only place of activity he knows, jada jagat, the material worlds.

"I WAS AN ATHEIST UNTIL I DISCOVERED THAT I WAS GOD" you were an atheist, now you made some progress and realized that there is something beyond the dull mater, and this ist the spirit. Some day you will realize that God is a Person... that has many things that you don't have, and you will never have. For example God never suffered or will suffer under the miseries of the material Modes of Nature (ignorance, passion and goodness) Some day you will realize His majesty. And maybe some day you will realize His sweetness. Please follow the thread about the nature of the soul

"Srila Prabhupada has said that dharma means occupational duty. How can a student, like me, who is forced to study, dedicate my duty to Krsna?" Read Bhagavad-gita. Bhagavan Sri Krishna said there what is dharma, Srila Bhaktivendanta Svami Prabhupada only repeated something. Try to elevate over naimitika dharma and enter into parma-artika dharma. You may take Jaiva Dharma by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura and read something, but I doubt you will understand it, so what to do? Be always in good association, go to the temple, and try to associate with devotees that can teach you something and... chant more... come to 64 rounds a day, and learn gita under the guidance of senior devotees, and render some service to them, and learn by heart as many slokas as you kann... under guidance... and learn Upadeshamrita, Siksha-ashtakam and Mana Shiksa by heart... This is your duty...in the begining you should learn some siddhanta, so that you become strong: siddhanta balya citte na koro alas iha hoite krisna lagi sudrida manas And than go to Caitanya Caritamrita, and try to dive in the message of Gauranga nahito tabe ke hoito, and when you will come out of that you will find yourself in Krishna lila vikriditam vraja-vadhubir idam ca visnoh sraddha-anvita 'nasrinuiad atha varnayed yah bhaktim param bhagavati pratilabya kamam hrd-rogam ashvapahinoti acirena dhira and serve some senior devotees.

The evidence of science now points to two basic conclusions: first, there was no Aryan invasion, and second, the Rigvedic people were already established in India no later than 4000 BC. How are we then to account for the continued presence of the Aryan invasion version of history in history books and encyclopedias even today? Some of the results - like Jha's decipherment of the Indus script - are relatively recent, and it is probably unrealistic to expect history books to reflect all the latest findings. But unfortunately, influential Indian historians and educators continue to resist all revisions and hold on to this racist creation - the Aryan invasion theory. Though there is now a tendency to treat the Aryan-Dravidian division as a linguistic phenomenon, its roots are decidedly racial and political, as we shall soon discover. Speaking of the Aryan invasion theory, it would probably be an oversimplification to say: "Germans invented it, British used it," but not by much. The concept of the Aryans as a race and the associated idea of the 'Aryan nation' were very much a part of the ideology of German nationalism. For reasons known only to them, Indian educational authorities have continued to propagate this obsolete fiction that degrades and divides her people. They have allowed their political biases and career interests to take precedence over the education of children. They continue to propagate a version that has no scientific basis. Before getting to the role played by German nationalism, it is useful first to take a brief look at what the word Arya does mean. After Hitler and the Nazi atrocities, most people, especially Europeans, are understandably reluctant to be reminded of the word. But that was a European crime; Indians had no part in it. The real Aryans have lived in India for thousands of years without committing anything remotely resembling the Nazi horrors. So there is no need to be diffident in examining the origins of the European misuse of the word. In any event, history demands it. The first point to note is that the idea of the Aryans as foreigners who invaded India and destroyed the existing Harappan Civilization is a modern European invention; it receives no support whatsoever from Indian records - literary or archaeological. The same is true of the notion of the Aryans as a race; it finds no support in Indian literature or tradition.

How did all start, this exclusivist way of thinking of churchianism? To see this we should understand how was made the colection of books called bible. And how was this collection decreted holy? I found here something http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=6067 "The Bible is a huge collection of writings, 38 (+9 disputed) books comprising the Old Testament and 20 (+7 disputed) books of the New Testament. The Old Testament assortment includes books of history, proverbs, myths, legislation …etc, representing the popular literature of the Israelites. They were composed by many scribes, several centuries after the Prophet Moses, peace be upon him. Similarly, the New Testament embodies the Gospels, four different biographies of the Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, written by Matthews, Mark, Luke and John, whose identities are widely disputed. In addition, the New Testament contains the epistles of Paul, Peter and John. This is as well as the Acts - also due to Paul or Luke - and the Visions of John. So, none of the Bible books can be claimed to be the word of God. It was the Nicea Council in the fourth century after Christ, who selectively sanctified these books to be “holy”, from among hundreds of other writings of the earlier Christians. While admitting the human authorship of these books, the churches claim and teach - without proof - that these human writings were “inspired” by God."