Ayodhya

To cbrahma: I do not follow Jesus' rules, thus eventhough you say that Jesus loves me, it cannot be true. That is all I am saying.

Simply because I defend a school of thought does not mean I belong to that school of thought. You are naive and foolish to assume such a thing.

So are you saying that Jesus doesn't love me? If he doesn't, than obviously Christianity is not universal and not the great religion you suppose it is. I have never claimed to the eternal individuality of the soul because I do not believe that can ever exist. If you remembered correctly, I do not consider myself to be of any sect - Bhaktin, Advaitain, etc. I am the farthest from a fundamentalist than any of you. I guarantee it. Only a fool would say that the Bible is not one book, because it is. I am not a neither a Gaudiya Vaishnava nor a Vaishnava in general, so my spiritual advancement does not come only from the Bhagavatam Purana or the Bhagavad Gita. Hindu texts range from the Vedas, to Upanishads, to poetry about the sublime. Also, surprising as it may seem to all of you, there is spirituality in Western literature besides religious texts! Forget Christianity for a second and examine yourself. When did I ever state that I accepted the statue itself as God? When? The answer: never. Being as naive as you are, you are putting words in my mouth to prove the superiority of one religion over another. The statue is a representation of God, not God Himself.

Same here. This has happened to me hundreds of times. I never looked at it in terms of fate, though, just coincidence.

Jesus does not love me, because I am a pagan. I do not believe in the God of the Old Testament. I do not believe that Jesus is my savior. I do not believe Jesus to be the best person on the planet Earth (Gandhi definitely seems better) I do not believe that Jesus died for my sins. I bow to idols. I've broken the First Commandment a thousand times, thus as God, he would feel the need to punish me as Moses did when they created a statue of a cow (which by the way, I consider sacred). Your hatred for ISKON blinds you cbrahma. Simply because it states in the Bible that Jesus rose the dead does not mean he actually did it or actually even lived. You are discrediting an entire religion because of one book - and that is the mark of a fundamentalist (which is a bad thing, by the way). Can it also be said that simply because Frodo took the ring to Mt.Doom that it is also true? You're acting on blind faith, not reason. This gets you nowhere, however comforting it may be to derail another's religion.

Wow. I didn't think crazy Hindus existed until I met you. Stating that "Shaivites are bogus and not the genuine Shiva Sampradaya" is absolutely false, rude, and derogatory. Shaivites today are genuine Shaivites who believe and have believed for all time that Shiva, and his consort, Shakti, are the supreme. Do not defile the beliefs of others with your bias. Surely, despite whatever you believe, you can see that your thoughts are based on your teachings from a Vaishnava guru and a Vaishnava upbringing? If you were born as a Shaivite, I'm sure you would think differently. ----- To answer the original question: Krishna may not have been initiated by a Shaivite guru, but if he did, what difference does it make? Wouldn't Krishna show respect to Shiva? Read the Shiva Purana and you will find that Vishnu bows to Shiva on several occasions. Shiva and Vishnu are both one and the same and to think them any different is foolish and does not lead to Enlightenment.

Uhhh... Shaivites consider Shiva to be Supreme, Guruvani. They believe him to be the Preserver, Creator, and Destroyer, not just the guru. I think a little bit of your fanaticism is creeping up.

Then obviously, Hitler reaches enlightenment and Jesus gets to be reborn.

So, Jesus wants to save me too, a pagan, and idolater, who he specifically condemns to Hell? No, he doesn't want to, because Jesus doesn't love me. Who says these gurus are not God? You? And what makes Jesus different than Self-Realized souls? The fact that it says so in the Bible? That doesn't meaning anything. And why is idolatry bad? I can't prostrate to a statue of Krishna?

Ummm... Did someone forget that hundreds of priests raped altar boys? Christian theology may, on a more metaphorical level, come close to Eastern theology, but in, in no way surpasses it. Krishna is Love incarnate, as are we all, if we choose to be. Follow whatever faith you wish, but I think it is important to keep the spirituality alive. Don't completely wipe out any fragments of Eastern theology that may have existed simply because of some silly organization. Hindu thought goes far beyond Krishna Consciousness, man. If you need a regular Hindu to talk to, I'm here.

What about other religions who condone the eating of meat? Would they not consider their dominion over the plants and the animals a viable explanation? They have absolutely no reason to refrain from eating meat.

I thought it was good! Doesn't Article I contradict Article X? If we are immortal and can't die, how could we attain Vaikuntha through a head-on crash?

Sagan and Hawkings are both very open-minded and amazing scientists. Only a few scientists can say with such humor that it is possible for the Universe to exist on the back of a tortoise. Sagan, specifically, has stated in a couple of his books that the Hindu religion is the only one which coincides the best with modern day science.

Thanks for the explanation about Diti. You were probably joking, but I would rather not think that Krishna would create people simply to fight with. Perhaps its the version I'm reading? I'm getting a different vibe from this version of the Bhagavatam. http://bhagavata.org/canto10/chapter3.html And I quote: Krishna says: "As a man and wife without a son did you, for the sensual life to achieve this so strongly attracted to My divine energy, never ask Me for liberation from this world [see also 4.9: 30-35]. (40) After My departure, having received the benediction, you engaged in enjoying sex and was by the both of you the desired result achieved of having a son like Me"

I'm glad the Hindu American Foundation exists.

This is where I am drawing my questions from: <big>http://bhagavata.org/canto3/chapter14.html Please read it and give me feedback. Are we to say that Sage Kashyapa was wrong in his prediction, or just ambiguous in his meaning? Or is this version wrong? </big>

What confuses me is why Sage Kashyapa praises the wife and the householder and then continues to condemn her once she is pregnant... Normally, sex is not seen as evil as in the case of Vasudeva and Devaki because they were married. So are Kashyapa and Diti, so I am assuming that the act of sex is not why Diti is condemned so. Did Krishna really want to torture Diti by having her bear demons? I would appreciate it if you would ask your guru or someone else "bona-fide" for this answer. Thanks in advance.

In the Shri Bhagavatam Purana, it states that Diti is condemned to bear two demons from which all the Asuras arise. Why did Kashyapa have sex with Diti if he knew it would bear demons?

"One who thinks himself lower than the grass, who is more tolerant than a tree, and who does not expect personal honor yet is always prepared to give all respect to others can very easily always chant the holy name of the Lord." (Adi-lila 17.31) You referenced a -lila here, Guest. Where can I read lilas online? Sephiroth Your definition of a Hindu is nice, since I am not a Hare Krishna, but just a normal proud Hindu. Since Hinduism has been around for close to 7,000 years, it has undergone several revivalist movements in which those sages involved brought forth the scriptures they favored. The Vedas and the Upanishads, which are not read frequently were at some point in time in India. However, Sankaracharya, during his revival movement during the Middle Ages brought the Bhagavad Gita to the forefront, and thus, to this day, we read the Bhagavad Gita more than the Vedas and the Upanishads. Personally, I hope to one day compile the earlier scriptures (Smriti's, Agamas, Ithihases, etc.) and distribute a book that all Hindus can use without needing to sort through hundreds and thousands of scriptures (I mean come one, 108 Upanishads?!) Swami Vivekananda "Say is it proudly: I am a Hindu"

I can't imagine ever supporting Intelligent Design. All supporters of Intelligent Design use the Bible and the Creation story to back up their claims. All their evidence goes into proving the Christian story of creation. Whether or not they prove there is an intelligent designer, it won't be a Hindu one.

Thank you for the responses, but I believe I confused people by not elaborating on what I meant. In the Bhagavatam, it is clear that Devaki and Vasudeva had sex and Devaki did go through progressive stages of pregnancy until a few weeks before her delivery. However, as theist stated, it is not clear if Krishna specifically came from Vasudeva's sperm. It is said that Devaki was pregnant with Ananta (it starts to get confusing here, who apparently is Balarama incarnate) and Vishnu moved her embryo to Yashodas to make room for Him. In addition, it also states that the baby born (as all of us) are but planery expansions of Him, which makes sense, but then why would Vishnu need to move the embryo? Here is the version of Bhagavatam I am reading: http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto10/chapter2.html If anyone can provide other links, it would be much appreciated.

Was Krishna's birth virgin like that of Jesus and his mother?

The original title of this poem was Maya, but no one in my poetry class understood it and I wasn't about to spiel on for an hour about Hindu metaphysics, so I changed it to This Grand Illusion This Grand Illusion Dark is this world As it is to the unborn, Once free, then wrapped In a shawl of maternal affection Around our balding heads and weary eyes Our weapon. Our shield. For it does not burn And it does not tear. Crystalline planks, dive Up in a wave, to a place Unlike an ocean, and unlike a pond, Bewildered by eternity, All to the tint of the blue. A drop back in the bow and once again we see with weary eyes, All to the intransitory veiled.

How was Nehru a womanizer?

The real clincher with your explanation is your disability to see oneness. In my eyes, only one thing can happen after death. If the Advaitins are correct, than regardless of how much your worship Krishna, you will be absorbed into the Brahman. And no matter how much the Advaitins do what they can to merge into the Brahman, they will experience the celestial planets if that be true. And if the Christians be true, we are all going to Hell. Also, please do not group me and do not label me. I am not a pure Bhaktin, or a pure Advaitain, or a pure anything.