zorba

truly informative bt should be used to encourage people of india to regain its past glory and not to create a rift between hindus and muslim. Hindu's as never tried to convert any one will remain on this earth till this earth is in existence as beautiful lines of lao tzu are coming in my mind that"people ,who knows never claim for their right, are never deprived of their right".

I found this debate interesting. I born in a so called a hindu family and have little knowledge of islam and a meditator and philosopher. i read quran ,i check out the history of hinduism or rightly sanatandharma(but i will not be using this term as its meaning are so wide that it will include every religion existing on the surface of earth) and found that the difference between islam and hinduism is only because of the person who was the initator of that religion otherwise they are mostly same in spirit. islam as started with mohhamad( i accept as said in quran that islam was much before mohammad and christ and moses were its part but as mohhamad utered quran i am taking him as its pioneer) ,an enlightened beingh and a devotee but that of nirguna sect(in indian language) was less a poet and more logical then most of indian seer ,much closer to buddha.Indian seers as were more poetic and environment was such that sufficient condition were their for spiritual growth grew to be more poetic or airy which leads to building up of statues which are nothing but a poetic expression of what most of quran speaks of allah. As vedic religion grew vedant comes as its product which comes with dynamic statement such as "ahm bramh asi" etc .Simmilarly as islam grew sufism comes into existence which comes out with same conclusion as "an al haq" which implies same as that i am truth or bramha.However orthodx muslims and hindus were both against these growth but as in india environment is such that people tends to be more spiritual they soon found out that vedant is equally good howeever islam has immuned itself aginst the sufism but interesting thing is that in india sufism has much deeper roots than islam. However the argument that current hinduism is a perversion is true to some extent as one just needs to open his eyes to see how dirty this religion has become but no part in this is of authentic religion but because of wrong interpretation of old language and signs. on other hand islam has its own drawbacks .I don't know how many of you know that mohammad had requested like that of buddha,vedic rishis,upnishadic rishis,etc that his message should not be recorded or written and this is the point that makes a great difference in islamic areas. Moral conduct as given by vedas or shariyat are good to live a social life but they are of no use for spiritual growth unless accompanied by a sadguru or master.simple reason for this is that only guru can transmit silence or provide living existence that is prerequisite for spiritual growth and in which books fails to play any role. This is drawback for islam as they have taken book too seriously and dearth of living mystics and non accetance of sufism makes it too difficult for people to go for a living master which in turn has hinder the growth in islam. looking for further discussion love om shanti shanti shanti.....................................................................

i think it symbolise that bramha has both sex or in other words bramh has no sex. If it would have been sharmads way then buddha would have said that brahm or rather sunya do not have any sex but as hindu's(too vague as term to be used but still works) are more life affarmative they built this statue to symbolise the idea of bramha i.e,the whole.

Logic has its own advantages and disadvantages and as discussion can only proceed with logic it inherits all those weaknesses. In earlier periods masters used to emphasize on satsang and less on intellectual discussions. Maharishi raman has rightly said that "we have doubted so much that we have forgotten of our real self or brahma as that is doubtless".I quoted this so that i can bring out the futility of logic and discussion on scriptures. Another incident from the life of ashtavrak comes to my mind when he entered the palace of janak and all pandits engaged in the discussion started laughing which revealed that how brilliant philosophers,well versed in scriptures valued and laughed over at the form and could not see the soul of ashtavraka which was illuminating not less than that of krishna. So debate on any scripyure is good but of no use to a devotee. Debate can prove something as wrong or wright but can not preceed existence.Existence and truth can not be affected by debate. Om shanti shanti shanti...............

Brahmayan rightly says that this discussion can not help a true seeker as it is more of a philosophical thought than coming out of heart. A upasak and sadhak has to go for one i.e, advaita howeever sadhak do so by going for one own self while upasak by going for the deity. Even if one is successful to prove supremacy of any deity with the help of scriptures ,problem will still persist as lao tzu has rightly said that knowledge of right will bring the knowledge of wrong and thus samsara will again be in as dvaita is root of this samsara. And by the way what about christians and muslims will they never attain that brahma as according to many of you supreme is krishna and they don't belive in him . It reminds me of problem that printing has brough with it.Today knowledge is more than knowelgable persons i.e,sages. Today asybody can read veda or upnishads or bible or any scripture and may think himself as knower but people remeber that sages of past wether it be sayers of veda or mohhmad or buddha or sages of upnishads had emphasized on direct interaction of master and disciple as they knew that book is futile to pass on the treasure that can be given only in silence or what being can provide .Therefore need is to earch for the sadguru. And another point is that upnishads had called that only and supreme one as tat or turiya ,etc so do you not accept them. love om shanti shanti shanti...........

As far as i have expereinced and my knowledge of scriptures go ,the reason is that they enjoy in their tears ,it is most natural to them.Narada has classified a bhata in to many categories and this is one of them.] love

hey all of you are devotees or jnani sadhaks. For a devotee such question will never arise as narad has rightly pointed out that bhakti is a ripe fruit which just implies that it is the supreme condition which is outcome of long journey. You all seems to be naive as i think most of you have not tried out the path of yoga or sharmads ,path of shiva is also more like of sharmad and have directly jumped on to the path of devotion which is the difficult way as it is the most natural way of attaining moksha. And on every forum i see ISCKON people ,is there any special reason for it. love

I found every forum here full of Isckon people is there any specific reason for that. I have gone through prabhupada commentary on gita .I liked the part which has given just translation and not explanation by prabhupada . Prabhupada ji in my opinion as he was following devotion towards krsishna unnecessarily seems to establish him on top and many times it is clear that he is going against reason as many times ( by my memeory as i read it about 1 year back) krishna used to refer brahm but prabhupada by one way or other seems to confirm that it is about himself he is talking.And importantly prabhupada was refering to physial form of lord krishna and not brahm to which krishna attains or descended. nd interestingly in the same book i found that to even have a dream of vishnu in physical form is sin and one should go for bath in ganga then how vaisnavites can go for devotion of form of krishna(this is just an intelectual thought).Howeever this is par with zen philosophy in which it is said that if buddha comes in your way then slap him and continue in your journey. And i have gone through narad's sutras of devotion and found them beautiful,do vaisnavites accept those sutras as any authority. LOve