ggohil

If one employs the display of supernatural abilities to prove the effects of Meditation, then one will attract people towards meditation or self-realization for wrong reasons. This practice would be self-defeating.

What kind of bad things happen to you and what kind of negative thoughts occur to you?

In situation as this I have always felt that putting it in practice may serve in answering your question.

Any supernatural ability acquired in process of meditation or spiritual awareness is, I believe, incidental. Acquisition of such abilities is not the ultimate goal of meditation; hence it cannot serve as a proof.

" COMMAND THE IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST TO FLEE! It has to obey God Almighty" I command in the name of jesus Chirst that you "The Guest" to flee.... Opps....I guess it did not work....

“can anyone give me factual proof that Christianity is not the only true religion, and i garentee you i will back Christianity up with historical and scientific proof.” With better technology and time we find that Science and History are constantly changing, so naturally I take it your belief will change too, since it is based on proven Science and History.

“They also explain that the soul is eternal and not subject to the transformations we see here in the material world. Finally, they explain that spirit and matter never mix, but the individual jiva soul (living entity) may be covered over for some period of time. The conclusion is that we cannot access this knowledge through mental speculation and sense perception so we need to hear from an authorized source. That is the Vedas.” That is precisely why I questioned the Soul occupying physical space, because if it did, then I would think the Soul would be subject to time space equation.

"If there is some sin associated with an offering, the performer will and must suffer its bad-effects either in this birth or in the coming ones." I still fail to see how can anyone consider an act of taking someone’s life as a sinless act. That's like saying in the name of Lord I shall kill you, sound familier. If sin is asscociated with offering or sacrifice then how can the act be termed "offering or a sacrifce to the Lord".

“The soul resides in our heart and is very, very tiny. Srila Prabhupada said it is 1/10,000 of a tip of a hair in size, (I believe, if I missquoted, it is approximate to that)” Theoretically, it means that a living entity smaller then 1/10000 of a tip of hair size, would actually have a soul bigger then it’s body. This also means soul actually occupies space. What happens when there is no space?

“u will not get the true answer unless u think with out bias, taking into consideration the environmental situation of the sacrificial ground....” A personal sacrifice to achieve something appears logical, but to sacrifice someone else’s life is really beyond my understanding, irrespective of environmental of sacrificial ground…. Why would a supreme, who is the source of everything and everything is within him, is pleased when one life sacrifices a life of someone else? Where is the divinity in it?

“Sacrifice is supported by Vishnu aswell, If you recall the Mahabharata story, Arjuna sacrificed one of his son before the war begin” I wonder why we did not carry on this practice of sacrificing innocent Human or family members, especially if it is supported by Vishnu!!

I could never understand how can a taking of a helpless life by a Human could be seen as divine and then view the practice as pleasing all powerful Supreme or a Deity.

"I shall now declare unto you in full this knowledge, both phenomenal and numinous. This being known, nothing further shall remain for you to know" BG 7.2 Sounds all-encompassing to me.

"Many of my Muslim friends are claiming that Prophet Mohammed actually was a Kalki avatar." Even a superficial study will reveal that the teachings of Vedanta are fundamentally different from that of Islam. So how did Mohammad become Kalki, unless the all Knowing and all Perfect God got it wrong the first time round.

I would think, an entity subject to time can originate and expire. Since He is the source of time, the question of his origin from our standpoint seems moot.

I am at lost to understand what would one gain, by meeting or seeing Kalki(God), which they have failed to achieve from his teachings and his omnipresence.

Any one who practices and follows a strict code of Brahmin is a Brahmin.

"the prince of islam hazart ali is sri visnu visnu in his original form is krsna visnu is from krnsa as ali is from allah therefore visnu is ali & allah is truley krsna" First God claims Cow to be sacred and accepts more then one way to approach him Now……He preaches cow is no longer sacred and Islam is the only way to approach him. Strange how God seems to change his views. Fickle God.

"Radha was wife of some other person, krishna had extra-marital affair with her......." This is like describing an airplane as a noisy metal contraption with some plastic components, owned privately and corporately. True…….but hardly enlightening.

"Is there anything wrong in asking a question like that?" Since this site is dedicated to discussion and acquiring knowledge on Hinduism, I cannot see on what grounds can anyone put limits to the kind of questions to be asked on Hinduism. I believe, Knowledge through Enquiry, is a part of Vedic Tachings.

"we're also waiting for kalki avtar" If one cannot find a way to salvation with available Vedic knowledge, then I wonder what kind of salvation one expects at the arrival of Kalki?

"1. I think......But I am not doing so." Ok

“to fight asuras is dharma”. Suicide bombers are fighting to save in what they believe is the word of God, but, that does not make right. As you know, there is more to this. ”and who took devition out of the followers of mahammed?” They could not have been much of Devotees. The more I learn about other religion, the more Vedic way of life make sense to me. “dharma is not a tangible thing you "protect". what you protect is the freedom (yours and others) to preach and practice; you mainain an environment of the vedic culture where all can progress towards god, even shudras. you protect the territory where the vedic culture can flourish unchecked. ”but he can become a devotee in strong vedic environment. else he has less chance to become a devotee.” Ok “so, this is true for all times, and for all kshatriya karma. one who dies fighting is never a looser. he and those for whom he fought both gain. asuras loose” True, but how many of us can claim to be true Kshatriya. Just because we are will to fight does not make as Kshatriya. therefore we need ram rajya in bharat. to get it we need to fight Yes, makes sense. any one can invoke kshatriya mood if the time is like emergency. Kshatriya is not a mood one invokes, but is a strict code one follows through out the life, before and after the war. “but never prech them to give up kshatriya dharma. (i am not saying you did, but some here do.)” Read carefully, I am not perching one way or another, just sounding my understanding on both sides of the discussion.

“if yes, then we need to test it by shooting a dart at you, and see if you get hurt or not.” You could not do any harm to me then that is coming to me. That is what the law of Karma states, and that is all I am saying.

Chelaaraamji I understand what you and Maadavji are saying. I must admit, in practice, my reaction to aggressors would be equally aggressive. But consider this: 1. My future is already designed by my past actions and desires. What is coming to me may not be avoided, simply because I am holding a sword or wearing a dhoti. 2. I believe our job is to follow the Dharma as sincerely as we can. I am not sure if Dharma, like a material entity, requires protection from us. I see Dharma as eternal, same as its creator. No one can take the Dharma out of the Devotees and no amount of protection of Dharma will make a non-devotee follow it. For a non devotee the Dharma is dead at any given time. 3. Sri Krishna encouraged warriors to fight, because I believe the emphases was on duty of the warrior and not on the war. Sri Krishna makes it very clear that the end result of the war is already decided by him, the warrior is only performing his duty and has no control over the end result. 4. The military of any country is only performing the will of the presiding government. The presiding government would have to be the followers of the Dharma, before its military may be considered as the protector of the Dharma. 5. If I was a ture Kshatirya then my duty would be to protect Dharma, and I would. 6. I am a sinner and my first job is to follow the Dharma and leave the protection of Dharma in more capable hands.