Arjuna Haridas

Wa Muhammadur Rasulallah. If you don't believe Muhammad is the messanger of God, then you have a different God than the Muslims. This is how they see it, so that is why I said "their god" and "our god".

We are not monkeys, but at the same time how many of us can say that we are liberated and self-realized? What Lord Rama did wasn't a mistake, it was righteous. It is explained in a Scripture (I forgot which) that when Vishnu incarnates, He does so to show the path of Dharma and to reestablish it on Earth. The Scripture further explains that He thus acts like <o:p></o:p>a human and He doesn't use His godly powers. Why? Because when Vishnu acts just like a human, man will know that they can do exactly what He did while at the same time being only a human. If Vishnu used His godly powers in His avatars that are meant to teach Dharma (such as Rama and Krishna), then man will say "I can't do this. He only did it because He used His Divine Powers". However, when Vishnu does only what a man is capable of and lowers Himself to become a man, then man can know that the path of Dharma is possible for them. This is why Vishnu doesn't just kill everyone at Kurukshetra as Krishna, and this is why He follows the boon of Vali and doesn't confront Vali, as a few examples. Vali's criticism of the way Lord Rama killed him is unjustified because Vali didn't understand the simple facts that I've just stated. <o:p></o:p> So Vishnu as His avatars meant to preach Dharma, such as Rama and Krishna, act human and hide their Divine Nature so that humans will know that they can do the exact same things that Rama and Krishna did while at the same time the ones who know and do not deny the Truth will know that they are Vishnu. Can you prove this, that Vaishnavas "tampered" with the Ramayana? Experts actually say that the Valmiki Ramayana<o:p></o:p> was written by the same person, and that Vaishnavas didn't "tamper" with it in any way. Are you trying to make excuses when the facts are obvious? The facts being that the Ramayana wasn't tampered with in any way and that Rama was an avatar of Vishnu. <o:p></o:p> See my first response.

The importance of OM is acknowledged, but it is never put into practice. To be honest. I've never seen (figuratively speaking) a Vaishnava meditate on OM. No need to be defensive at all; I'm not "attacking" a certain sampradaya or something like that (all the sampradayas are bona-fide, so why attack them?).

In Vaishnavism, we never hear about OM. This is why I call it the "forgotten syllable". It's very important. OM is the most Holy syllable in the world, aside from the Name of Vishnu Himself, but yet we never even utter the word. However, is this the right way to go? Does Vishnu recommend any other mantra above OM? He recommends mantras other than OM (such as Brahma Who is Vishnu, recommend Hari Krishna/Hari Rama, for example), but does He ever say in any way that these mantras are above OM? First, let's look at the importance of OM. We need not look further than the Upanishads. Aside from the fact that every Upanishad starts with "OM", look at this verse: LET a man meditate on the syllable Om, called the udgîtha; for the udgîtha (a portion of the Sâma-veda) is sung, beginning with Om. (Khandogya Upanishad 1.1.1) Now let's look at the nature of OM. It's nature is clearly stated in the Bhagavad Gita. "I am the taste within water, the radiance of the Moon and Sun, I am OM in all the Vedas, Sound in aether, manhood in men." (Bhagavad Gita 7:8) "Of great Rishis, I am Brighu; of words, I am the one-syllable OM; of Yajnas, the Japa Yajna; of immovables, the Himalayas." (Bhagavad Gita 10:25) It is clear from these verses that the Nature of OM is Vishnu Himself. The meaning of OM is very simple. The meaning of OM is "Vishnu". Repeating OM thus agrees with this verse: "O ye who wish to gain realization of the supreme truth, utter the name of Vishnu at least once in the steadfast faith that it will lead you to such realization." (Rig Veda V.I.15b.3) Bhagavad Gita 10:25 also raises another good point. By Lord Vishnu as Lord Krishna saying that He is the Japa Yajna (repetition of a mantra as an offering) of Yajnas (sacrifices/offerings), this proves that the greatest offering is the repetition of a mantra. Later in my post, I'll show that the Bhagavad Gita recommends reciting OM, which proves that repeating "OM" as an offering to Vishnu is the greatest offering. The Bhagavad Gita states that a person should meditate using OM. It is clearly stated: "Uttering OM, the syllable that is God, and intent on Me, departing thus from his body, he then attains the Goal Supreme." (Bhagavad Gita 8:13) This verse in the Bhagavad Gita I consider the 2nd most important verse of yoga (as in, a verse that talks about how to gain moksha), second only to Bhagavad Gita 18:66 (a verse telling us to surrender to Vishnu). So, combining all of the verses together, we can further prove that the Bhagavad Gita is the essence of the Vedas since there is no contradiction between the Vedas recommended uttering the Name of Vishnu as the greatest way to moksha and Lord Vishnu saying that uttering OM (the syllable that means "Vishnu") as the greatest way to moksha. Also by combining all the verses together, we can conclude that the greatest offering to Lord Vishnu is the meditate on Him using the mantra "OM". Remember that meditating on OM is part of Bhakti (meditation is part of Bhakti). So, if we meditate on Vishnu using the mantra "OM", and also devote ourselves to Him constantly, then we will reach Him without a doubt. This was not hidden, nor is it a secret. The way to liberation is to meditate on Vishnu using OM as the mantra and to devote ourselves to Him.

"Uttering OM, the syllable that is God, and intent on Me, departing thus from his body, he then attains the Goal Supreme." (Bhagavad Gita 8:13) "Relinquishing all dharmas, you should take refuge in Me alone; then I shall fully liberate you from all sins; wherefore grieve not." (Bhagavad Gita 18:66)

ISKCON and Gaudiya Vaishnavism are out of the question in the USA due to the many scandals associated with ISKCON (which is associated with Gaudiya Vaishnavism). However, other Vaishnava groups are "secure", meaning that they aren't getting a lot of new people to join them and not many people leaving them. But, I may or may not be wrong. Hinduism in the USA is stereotypically viewed in only 2 ways: Prabhupada's Vaishnavism or Swami Vivekananda's "Modern Vedanta". In schools, they teach Swami Vivekananda's "Modern Vedanta". This is basically Advaita Vedanta with a few twists. However, in daily life, if you mention Hinduism to a non-Hindu, non-students will think that it's a religion where people shave their heads except for a ponytail in the back and chant something on the streets wearing orange robes. If you mention Hinduism to a non-Hindu student, they will think that it's a religion that has no god OR is polytheistic (depending on whether or not they listened).

Everyone seems to forget these important verses: "Uttering OM, the syllable that is God, and intent on Me, departing thus from his body, he then attains the Goal Supreme." (Bhagavad Gita 8:13) "Relinquishing all dharmas, you should take refuge in Me alone; then I shall fully liberate you from all sins; wherefore grieve not." (Bhagavad Gita 18:66)

I just skimmed the article, but I know of no threats from Wi-Fi. A handheld gaming system, the Nintendo DS, uses Wi-Fi. I owned one and I had no loss of concentration, fatigue, etc. The claim of cancer isn't at all proven. However, I agree that parents should have a choice in this matter.

Furthermore, it is proven in the Bhagavad Gita and the Vishnu Sahasranama that Lord Vishnu is also Lord Vaayu, Lord Chandra, Lord Yama, and Lord Varuna. This may be an unorthodox view, but it is clearly written in the Bhagavad Gita and once again written in "cryptic" format in the Vishnu Sahasranama. In the Vishnu Sahasranama, this is proven: Name 162: Yama Name 281: Chaandramshu Name 414: Vaayu Name 553: Varuna Name 827: Saptajiva The translation of Name 281 (Chaandramshu) is "The Rays of the Moon". The translation of Name 827 (Saptajiva) is "One Who expresses Himself as the seven tongues of Fire". Saptajiva is also a Name of Agni. It is clear that these Names prove that Vishnu is also Yama, Chandra. Vaayu, Varuna, and Agni. (source: http://www.hknet.org.nz/names1000v.html#trans) Here is the proof from the Bhagavad Gita: "You are Vayu, Yama, Agni, Varuna, Chandra, Prajapati, and Great-grandfather. I bow, yea, I bow to You a thousand times, Again and again I bow, I bow to You!" (Bhagavad Gita 11:39) Here, Arjuna is praising Lord Vishnu after Vishnu (as Krishna) showed Arjuna His Mighty Universal Form (Vishwarupa). "Prajapati" is also a Name of Vishnu in the Vishnu Sahasranama (Name 69). Prajapati is a Name of Brahma. So is "Great-grandfather". Not only is this further proof that Vishnu is Brahma, but it is also further proof that Vishnu is Vayu, Yama, Agni, Varuna, and Chandra. This is also further proof that the Bhagavad Gita is the essence of the Vedas since there is no contradiction between the Vedas/Upanishads saying that Vayu controls the winds, Yama controls the underworld, Agni controls fire, Varuna controls the sea, and that Chandra is the presiding diety of the moon and Lord Vishnu (as Lord Krishna) saying in the Bhagavad Gita that He controls all things. This also explains more about Lord Vishnu's Vishwarupa Form and why it is made up of these gods.

I don't agree. Health shows how your soul is, in my opinion. If you're obese, chances are that you are eating too much and you are also eating the wrong foods. In the Bhagavad Gita, we are warned against doing both. If you are obese, also, then chances are you don't exercise. This is laziness, something we are also warned against in our Scriptures. If you are underweight, chances are you aren't eating enough, which we are warned about in the Bhagavad Gita. Complications, diseases, and problems can occur if we are obese or underweight, and in the case of STDs if we just have sex with anyone and everyone. We are warned (obviously) against doing so in our Scriptures. Remember that the cases that I use as examples are for people who aren't in any way pressured to be overweight, underweight, eat bad foods, etc. The cases are only for people who are able to stop what they're doing.

Funny. I seem to view conservatives differently based on their views. No, we want to be taught in school that homosexuals are OK and that they aren't subhumans who should be put away for their preferences. It varies between people whether or not Homosexuality is OK. You seem to be hypocritical here. You complain that liberals see conservatives the same, yet you seem to be generalizing all "liberals". Even calling being "liberals" is a generalization. Just because I believe in unorthodox views (the orthodox view seems to be Christian in America), I'm a "liberal". Go figure. If by sexual activity you mean using condoms and the belief that both members should be able to get pleasure from sex, then sure. If you mean sexual activity such as rape and sex between family members, then what "liberal" believes that? Abortion is something that varies between an individual. Just because you say that condoms are OK and that homosexuals aren't subhuman doesn't mean you'll automatically think that abortion is OK, nor does it mean that you'll automatically think any of the generalizations that you are using in your post. Yet again I say that you are being hypocritical since you generalize all "liberals" and yet whine about people generalizing Conservatives. Who believes this? Wasn't Bill Clinton a "liberal"? Didn't he sign anti-drug laws? Based on your generalizations, I'm a "liberal", too. Recreational Drugs are NOT OK, murder is NOT OK (unless it is in the case of the death penalty, which has been misused), and gangs are NOT OK. Personal liberty is in the Constitution. Have you ever read the Bill of Rights? And yet again, who do "liberals" kill? I don't see Conservatives marching out, either, for people who die in gang violence, car accidents, etc. Does that mean that they don't care? As a matter of fact, people do march out against gang violence and car accidents and such. They seem to be "liberal", based on your views. As a matter of fact, I'm "liberal" (based on what you say) and I have the desire to fight for this country. If there was a draft, I'd be proud to serve and I wouldn't run to Canada. Scratch that. I would've signed up for the military before a draft even started. So just remember that just because someone doesn't have Conservative ideas doesn't mean that all they're ideas are "wrong" and should be silenced. As a matter of fact, that breaks the Bill of Rights (free speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion; 1st Ammedment). To try to base the US Law on Christianity is also breaking the Constitution (the government can't establish a state religion; 1st Ammendment). And also remember that just because I believe that homosexuals and bisexuals are human and still deserve equal rights along with heterosexuals doesn't mean that I support murder, recreational drug use, abortion, etc. That is generalizing all people with a different belief than your's into one; the same exact thing that you were whining about at the beginning of your post. Let me quote Deval Patrick (governor of Massachusetts) here: "If it you'd come down off that high horse of your's and see how it actually works..., I'd be happy to show you around"

Throughout my short path as a Vaishnava, I've always wondered this. It confused me a lot. I found the answer to this important question yesterday, and I would like to share with you my answer. In the Vishnu Sahasranama (The 1000 Names of Vishnu), the answer is given in a sort of "cryptic" format. Here is how it is given: Name 27: Shiva Name 114: Rudra Name 600: Shiva Name 663: Brahma As we can see, Shiva and Brahma (Rudra is another Name for Shiva) are given as Names of Vishnu. It is "cryptic", however, because it isn't explained. Thus, people interpret it differently, thinking that the Names don't mean the demigods Shiva and Brahma, but rather the meaning of those Names (Auspicious and Creator respectively). They then think that Rudra (a Name of a form of Shiva) is meant as "Terrible", and isn't meant as "Shiva". I thought the same. However, the Bhagavata Purana proves this view wrong. It is as plain as day, and only those who deny the Truth can't see the obvious in the following Bhagavata Purana verse: "To those unaware of Your position understanding it the material way do You, by Yourself expanding Your maya, appear for the matters of creation as Me, as Yourself for the purpose of maintenance and as Lord Trinetra (Shiva) in the end." (Bhagavata Purana 10.14.19) As we can clearly see in Lord Brahma's prayer (which is what Bhagavata Purana 10.14 is), Lord Vishnu expands Himself as Lord Brahma to create, He Himself preserves, and He expands Himself as Lord Shiva to destroy. I personally think that Prabhupada describes it beautifully: "Similarly, by expanding Himself as Lord Shiva, the Supreme Lord is engaged when there is a need to annihilate the universe. Lord Shiva, in association with maya, has many forms, which are generally numbered at eleven. Lord Shiva is not one of the living entities; he is, more or less, Krishna Himself. The example of milk and yogurt is often given in this regard -- yogurt is a preparation of milk, but still yogurt cannot be used as milk. Similarly, Lord Shiva is an expansion of Krishna, but he cannot act as Krishna... The essential difference is that Lord Siva has a connection with material nature, but Vishnu or Lord Krishna has nothing to do with material nature." (source: http://vedabase.net/tlc/8/en1) This thus explains the meaning of this verse: "The Supreme Lord said: I am death, the mighty destroyer of the world, out to destroy. Even without your participation all the warriors standing arrayed in the opposing armies shall cease to exist." (Bhagavad Gita 11.32) The fact that Lord Vishnu expands Himself as Lord Shiva explains this verse. On the battlefield, Lord Vishnu showed Himself as Death, which terrified Arjuna. Here, Death is Rudra, the terrifying form of Lord Shiva that destroys. Since Lord Vishnu is Shiva, then this shows that there is no contradiction between this Bhagavad Gita verse and the Upanishads. This fact also further proves that the Bhagavad Gita is the esscence of the Vedas. In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Vishnu says that He creates, preserves, and destroys. The fact that Lord Vishnu expands Himself as the Trimurti shows that the Bhagavad Gita and the Vedas/Upanishads are not in contradiction here. In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Vishnu also states that He created the 4 Varnas (note: the Caste System is different from the Varna System, but that's a different subject). The fact that Lord Vishnu expands Himself as Lord Brahma shows that the Vedas/Upanishads (which state that Brahma created the 4 Varnas) and the Bhagavad Gita are not in contradiction. I hope this answer has given you as much relief as it has given me.

Read the Bhagavad Gita: Read it here (link) It helped me through all my troubles. It's the essence of the Vedas and the Upanishads. One who reads it with pure faith and understands it and believes it and practices it will never have a true trouble in the world. The death of a family member, for example, isn't true trouble as death is natural. The death of spirituality in a person, however, is true trouble. This is what makes you truly unsuccessful, not unsuccessful in terms of money, but unsuccessful where it really counts: your relationship with Vishnu. Read the Bhagavad Gita. You be releaved and will be on the path to spiritual realization. Everything you need to know spiritually is in there, at your fingertips.

That is the aim of all "serious religion" scriptures (besides Buddhist and Jain scriptures). However, the fact that scriptures talk about loving God doesn't mean that the scripture was created by God. Look at the Qur'an, for example. The Bhavishya Purana contains a prohpecy from Lord Shiva about Muhammad and at the end calls Muhammad an incarnation of a demon (I forgot the demon's name). The prophecy is dead-on to the life of Muhammad. That means that the Qur'an, even though it speaks about loving God, isn't from God. If it is true that the Bible is a Hindu scripture, then that means that puja is forbidden for us. That also means that the Vedas and the Bible contradict each other, and the Vedas are always taken first. A sabbath day isn't a day where you would go to the Temple and worship. A sabbath day is a day where you would stay home and do nothing. This is why the Jews didn't go to worship on the sabbath. They didn't even go to collect food or anything. Even fishing on the sabbath day is forbidden.

"Be aware of Me always, adore Me, make every act and offering to Me, and you shall come to Me; this I promise because you are dear to Me. Leave all other support, and look to Me for protection. I shall purify you from the sins of the past. Do not grieve." (Bhagavad Gita 18:65-66)

I don't see it as taking a risk for devotional service at all. It's good to do physical service by cooking food, but to make someone either abandon their religion or starve (which isn't what they did, but what they would have done should they have ignored the Muslims) isn't exactly physical service.

I can't say I'd blame them. In Islam, you can't knowingly eat food offered to other dieties besides Allah or else sin will be on your hands (it says so in the Qur'an). We are allowed the right to follow our God, so they should be allowed the right to follow their God.

Madhva sees the soul as seperate and different from God. Vallabha sees the soul as like God. Ramanuja sees the soul as different from God, but of the same nature. And to put it simply, Nimbarka sees the soul as different from God. Those two equations are not applicable to any school of Vedanta besides Advaita. Vaishnava A's basic beliefs = Vaishnava B's basic beliefs if A and B are from different traditions. There are a few minor differences, such as daily practices (Ramanuja recommends puja, Chaitanya recommends chanting, for example). According to A, B is NOT hell-bound and according to B, A is NOT hell-bound. There is little disagreement among Vaishnavas in basic beliefs. What are basic beliefs? That there is no God (demigods don't count) but Vishnu That Bhakti (devotion) to Vishnu is important to salvation That karma is real That reincarnation is real That puja is legit etc., etc., etc. The only thing that shouldn't be lumped into one group are Hindus. You have Advaitins, Vishishtadvaitins, Shuddhadvaitins, Dvaitins, Dvaitadvaitins, and such in one school (Vedanta) alone. Nevermind about the other schools, the other sects, and the fact that Hinduism is a largely personal religion (so people can have "unorthodox" ideas).

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son so that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but will have eternal life" (John 3:16) This alone disproves any Christianity-Hindu "hybrid" religions out there. All of the teachings of Jesus are written in the same books as things stated by disciples that disagrees with Hinduism. Even Jesus says some things that disagrees with Hinduism. And the Old Testament definately disagrees with Hinduism. Just look at the 2nd and 4th commandments of the 10 commandments. The OT also states a punishment for those who don't observe the 4th commandment, and nowhere in Hindu scriptures is a Sabbath mentioned or required.

I see. In that case, I would say that the meaning of the Maha-mantra is that you are chanting 3 of Vishnu's Names. What is your belief on the meaning of it?

I have 2 discussion questions about the Maha-mantra. 1) I have read that it goes "Hare Rama" and then "Hare Krishna", but when I see people chanting it, I hear it backwards (they start with "Krishna" and end with "Rama"). Do you think it's OK? 2) What is your opinion on the meaning of the Maha-mantra? My answers will probably be different than your's. However, here are my answers: 1) I think it's OK because I've heard that Chaitanya taught the mantra this way in order to not break the Shashtras (which state that non-Brahmins can't recite Scripture). Now I think it's OK to chant it both ways, because in both ways they mean the same. 2) I think that the meaning of the Maha-mantra is "O Krishna, remove my sorrows, my failures, and my pains. O Rama, remove my sorrows, my failures, and my pains". I think this because "Hare" is from "Haran", which means to remove. "Hari" (The Remover, another Name for Lord Vishnu) can also be another meaning for "Hare". If this is so, then you are chanting 3 Names of Vishnu in the mantra. This would also agree with Scripture where it says "O ye who wish to gain realization of the Supreme Truth, utter the Name of Vishnu at least once in the steadfast faith that it will lead you to such realization" (Rig Veda V.I.15b.3) These are my opinions. What are your's?

So are you saying that we should abandon what Vishnu as Krishna said in the Bhagavad Gita and follow Prabhupada? Do you wish to abandon God's direct and clear Teaching for the teachings of a man?

I meant that eating meat is easier for the common man, not the government and the industry. My family, for example, sometimes (more often than not) goes through a food drought (as I like to call it). Sometimes, we go weeks with little food (and by little, I mean 2 apples a day). When we occasionally get money that doesn't have to be contributed to an over priced rent and electric bill, we can afford only fast food. Let me tell you that McDonalds, Burger King, and KFC (as examples) are much cheaper than getting a package of vegetables, believe it or not. This is what I mean by "Vegetarianism is for the rich". Maybe "rich" is a little too high of a class, but vegetarianism is definately NOT for the lower middle class.

"If one takes meat after worshipping dieties and manes in Sraddha, one does not acquire sin" (Garuda Purana 1.96.72) It is clear that Vaishnava Scripture simply state that meat something that is best to avoid if you want to spiritually progress (faster, at least), but not a "must avoid".

Tea is beneficial to the health and contains minimal caffine so that the drug (caffine) doesn't work on your body. Just as oranges contain alcohol, but they are still allowed, so is tea (just replace alcohol with caffine). Coffee, however, isn't beneficial to the health and contains enough caffine for the drug to work on your body. If it helps you feel better, then drink Decaf tea. But there's nothing wrong with regular tea, whether it be black tea, green tea, or white tea, or whatever other types of real teas there are (real teas are a category of tea). Tea is even used in Ayurvedic medicine (Ginger tea, for example, is used as a digestion aid). Just don't drink too much of it in a short period of time, for the Lord Vishnu as Lord Krishna states: "This yoga is not possible, O Arjuna, for one who eats too much or too little..." (Bhagavad Gita 6.16) I would avoid coffee unless absolutely necessary, for it is also stated in the Bhagavad Gita: "The foods that promote longevity, virtue, strength, health, happiness, and joy are juicy, smooth, substantial, and nutritious. Perons in the mode of goodness like such foods" (Bhagavad Gita 17.8)