Jump to content

Malati dasi

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Malati dasi

  • Rank
    Junior Member


  • Biography
    diksha from Sadhu Baba Nikunja Gopal Goswami - 13th generation direct descendant of Advaita acharya
  • Location
  • Interests
    japa, smaranam, kirtan, little puja to my istha deva

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. NOT ALL lactic acid comes from the by-product of animal metabolism. As the wikepedia article says it can come from lactose or milk sugar as a product of its natural fermentation. Of course, any biological processes is not 100% sterile. Even the water we drink contains bacteria and we are "killing" them. This is comparable to the natural fermentation without using cultures. There are products like mayonnaise or cheese or yoghurt that do not depend on starter culture to produce the product. A friend of mine even as early as 28 years ago is making cheese, yoghurt etc from soymilk. Nonetheless in the process, though not intended, bacteria can do take part in the natural process of soy processing. To answer Ganeshprasad: Yes, just because it says suitable for vegetarians/vegans doesn't mean it doesn't contain animal by products. So be careful. Read the label or in doubt , ask the manufacturers; most big companies are honest about their products ingredients ánd they will tell you. In Australia I buy the brand Nimbin for cheese because they use plant enzyme to process it. Of course I can't say it's 100% sterile (no microorganisms). That's the same with all vegetarian food we take. Radhe Radhe
  2. From Wikipaedia Lactic acid in foods Lactic acid is primarily found in sour milk products, such as: koumiss, leban, yogurt, kefir and some cottage cheeses. The casein in fermented milk is coagulated (curdled) by lactic acid. Although it can be fermented from lactose (milk sugar), most commercially used lactic acid is derived by using bacteria such as Bacillus acidilacti, Lactobacillus delbueckii or Lactobacillus bulgaricus to ferment carbohydrates from nondairy sources such as cornstarch, potatoes and molasses. Thus, although it is commonly known as "milk acid", vegan products can contain lactic acid as an ingredient. Lactic acid may also be found in various processed foods, usually either as a pH adjusting ingredient, or as a preservative (either as antioxidant or for control of pathogenic micro-organisms). It may also be used as a fermentation booster in rye and sourdough breads.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-2>[3]</SUP> Lactic acid is also present in wheat beers, especially lambic, due to the activity of Pediococcus damnosus.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-3>[4]</SUP> Lactic acid is widely used for inhibiting pathogenic bacteria like E.coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter and Listeria on animal carcasses like beef, pork and poultry during the slaughtering process. Potassium lactate, sodium lactate and calcium lactate are the neutralized salts of lactic acid. Potassium lactate is used in many fresh and cooked meat products for shelf life control, color preservation and reduction of sodium content. Sodium lactate has a mild saline taste and is therefore suitable for flavour enhancement in meat products as well. Sodium lactate is being produced as liquids as well as powders. Calcium lactate is popular for fortification and improved texture in emulsified meat products like frankfurters.<SUP>[5]</SUP>Lactic acid in foods <SUP>5]</SUP>
  3. Quote: <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by bhaktajan One cup or serving can multiply itself unlimitedly: Any don't get me in trouble with Sri Radha --I'm always saying the wrong things. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Radhe Radhey108: I'm sure Krishna will split His grilled cheese with Her And, no need to worry... you won't get in trouble with Srimati Radharani... She's very merciful to us fallen ones Malati dasi: Just be 100 % sure that the cheese DOES NOT have rennet!
  4. Beggar: How minute is the minuteness of the free will of the jiva? How great is the greatness of the free will of the infinite supreme controller? How can we measure infinite or infinitesimal? Who are we to measure anyway by our limited mind and senses and what Srila Saraswati Thakur calls our "puppy brains"? Amlesh: Don't enclose your thoughts within limitations. Think in a broader sense. I've said earlier, choices do exist but it is like planting flower in the sky. I also said, it exist but only for the ignorant but not for the wise. Instead of using the word Karma, you are using Destiny. You've responded the way I wanted, that is, punishment and rewards according our Karma.... But tell me who regulates the Law of Karma. Even if a choice is made, whether serving Krishna and not serving Krishna, you wil meet Krishna or his energy in some way or the other. Choice: 1. Serve Krishna --- Obtain Bhakti by Krishna. 2. Not Serve Krishna --- Face Maya, energy of Krishna. In short run there is choice. In the long run, do we really have any choice. Amlesh: If we are really free, then it should be devoid of all conditions. <!-- / message --><!-- sig --> Theist quoted: <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Bg 18.63 - Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> Malati dasi's comments: Beggar, very good point. Amlesh, that was very intelligent. Bija, keep reflecting it's food for our soul. Theist , about your quote. Srila Prabhupad in his purport says: ... As you like you may act.-- indicate that God does not interfere with the little independence of the living entity. However, we can further understand that quote by reading . BG 18.13 O mighty-armed Arjuna, according to the Vedānta there are five causes for the accomplishment of all action. Now learn of these from Me. SP's purport: ... The ultimate control is invested in the Supersoul. As stated in the BG, sarvasya caham hrdi sannivistah he is engaging eveyone in certain activities by reminding him of his past actions. BG 18.14: The place of action [the body], the performer, the various senses, the many different kinds of endeavor, and ultimately the Supersoul — these are the five factors of action. SP's purport: ... The word adhiṣṭhānam refers to the body. The soul within the body is acting to bring about the results of activity and is therefore known as kartā, "the doer." That the soul is the knower and the doer is stated in the śruti. Eṣa hi draṣṭā sraṣṭā (Praśna Upaniṣad 4.9). It is also confirmed in the Vedānta-sūtra by the verses jño 'ta eva (2.3.18) and kartā śāstrārthavattvāt (2.3.33). The instruments of action are the senses, and by the senses the soul acts in various ways. For each and every action there is a different endeavor. But all one's activities depend on the will of the Supersoul, who is seated within the heart as a friend. The Supreme Lord is the supercause. Under these circumstances, he who is acting in Kṛṣṇa consciousness under the direction of the Supersoul situated within the heart is naturally not bound by any activity. Those in complete Kṛṣṇa consciousness are not ultimately responsible for their actions. Everything is dependent on the supreme will, the Supersoul, the Supreme Personality of Godhead BG 18.15: Whatever right or wrong action a man performs by body, mind or speech is caused by these five factors. BG 18.16: Therefore one who thinks himself the only doer, not considering the five factors, is certainly not very intelligent and cannot see things as they are. SP's comments: A foolish person cannot understand that the Supersoul is sitting as a friend within and conducting his actions. Although the material causes are the place, the worker, the endeavor and the senses, the final cause is the Supreme, the Personality of Godhead. Therefore, one should see not only the four material causes but the supreme efficient cause as well. One who does not see the Supreme thinks himself to be the doer. WEll, our free will is very small as to be negligible.
  5. CBraham: If our will is neglible then so our we. That is tantamount to impersonalism. Firstly, "I" am not we. Please, cbrahma, only speak for yourself! I am a jiva; an insignificant entitity in the overall scheme. When I say "our free will is negligible as to be insignificant" that does not negate our individual form (swarup) or our identity. So what I said did not equate to impersonalism. If I'm going to the bowels of the lowest planetary system I do not even make a dent of the whole material universes. We have always thought we are the doer and we have that many choices, but just take an honest look at your practical life. To those who would care to read this: The reason why I post here is that I want people to understand that Gaudiya Vaishnavism has a very rich philosophical teachings and that can be found by going back to our roots, the teachings and writings of ouir foundational acharyas. Bye for now, I will have to go shopping. To CBrahma, you always complain that you have no time for sadhana but you always find time to hang around in this forum. Radhe Radhe Radhe
  6. Amlesh: Choice is given, but outcome is already decided by providence. Arhuna was asked to choose but was said by Krishna, whether you choose or not to do the Job, the outcome has already been decided. In the long run even that free will, will dissapear, the only thing that exist is the thing that is eternal, our dependence to God. I agree with Amlesh. Yesterday we planned to mountain hike as we do every weekend but it rained the whole day. My plan, my choice, was thwarted by nature! Our will is very small as to be negligible in the overall scheme of things. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
  7. If you are following the Gaudiya Vashnava line. Firstly, Radha Krishna and the acharyas must have their own plates. Then say the mantra below, short and sweet. First offer food and drinks to Krishna For food say 'etat sa tulasI naivedyam sri krsnAya nivedayAmi namah For drinks say 'etat sa tulasI pAnIyam gangodakam sri krsnAya nivedayAmi namah' 2nd part of the offering is to Radha and sakhis say 'Sri RAdhikAdi sakhI-ganebhyo namah' 3rd part of the offering is to Sri Gurudeva say 'Sri GurudevAya namah' After that I say the Hare Krishna Mantra 2 times and then leave them to enjoy their meals
  8. Radhe Radhe The ideas of Shuvu, Tackleberry, and Dark Warrior are in line with the "traditional" Gaudiya Vaishnavas position on this. Other Vedic based school of thoughts are in the same bandwith. It's only the ISKCON/GM who hold to these views, consistent with their fall vada theory. Of course as you can see on this thread, that the explanations given by the posters here that to GM/ISKCOn are very simplistic. But the truth can be very abstract indeed! I've pasted some ideas, from my gurubhai's blog. Our free will is very minute as to be negligible. Mandukya Upanisad (1.9): bhogartham srstir ity anye kridartham iti capare devasyaisa svabhavo'yam aptakamasya ka sprha "Some say that Lord creates the material world for His enjoyment and some say He creates for His play. Indeed it is His mere nature. After all, He is fully satisfied, so what desires does He have to fulfill?" Purport by Satyanarayan Dasji of the Jiva Institute: "The idea is that just as the Lord is causeless so are His activities such as the creation. It is not possible to attribute any ultimate cause for them except that it is His very nature. Any one who has energy will act. People act to attain something, but the Lord is aptakama, one whose desires are fully satisfied. Therefore His activities are just part of His nature." <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> Visvanatha Chakravarti ‘s tika of SB 3.7.10: tatra bhagavatah prstha sthitaya anadyavidyaya tamah svarupaya anadi vaimukhya rupa bhagavat prstha-sthanam jivanam jnanam yallupyate tasya na vastutvam karanam napi prayojanam kim apy asti "Ignorance, which is beginningless, is situated on the Lord's back. She covers the knowledge of the jivas who are situated on the Lord's back and are non devotees. Their non devotion is anadi. There is no real reason or purpose for their knowledge being covered." Commenting on this verse Bhagavad Gita 13.20 Visvanatha Cakravartipad declares that the conditioning of the conditioned souls is beginningless—mAyA jIvayor api macchaktitvena anAditvAt tayoH saMzleSo'py anAdir iti bhAvaH "Illusion and the conditioned souls are both My energies. They are both beginningless and they have been interconnected since beginningless time as well." <o:p></o:p> To Paramatma Sandarbha 47 quotation, Satyanarayan das of the Jiva of the Jiva Institute replies: "The meaning of the words tat-parAGmukhatva doSeNa labdha-chidrayA mAyayA paribhUtaH (ParamAtma Sandarbha, Text 47, ) is that the jiva is covered by mAyA and who sees the defect of non devotion in the jiva. It is important to understand that there is no sequence intended here. Just as it is said that jIvas spring from the Lord, but the jIva and Lord both are aja, unborn, nitya, eternal. How can the jIva spring from the Lord, because that would imply that jivas did not exist once upon a time? The point is that they co-exist as energy and the energetic. Similarly the non devotion of the jiva and MayA's covering him is all simultaneous. When expressed in words it appears there is a sequence of events. That is the limitation of language in trying to express a reality that in fact has no relation of cause and effect. Sequence is a limitation of language, because words must be spoken or written in some sequence. Thus language has the influence of material time, which has the divisions of past, present and future. As a result language causes concurrent events to appear linear." (SB 10.51.54) "When the end of this seemingly endless cycle comes in sight, one attains the association of a devotee...." <o:p></o:p>
  9. Just to give a better picture of the history of (Gaudiya) Vaishnavism in the West. Premananda Bharati Baba came to the US in 1904 - 1915 to spread Chaitanya Vaishnavism and Dr. Mahanambrata Bramachari represented Vaishnavims in the 2nd Parliament of Religion in Chicago in 1933. I think there's a German devotee who took initiation in the 1950s (not sure of the year) and tried to introduce it in Europe. These sadhus were of the traditional line (too make the term simple). Of course Bhativedanta Swami made it in the West on a bigger scale. Radhe Radhe
  10. Radhe Radhe With due respect to Bhativinode Thakur. I remember in one of the threads theist quoted Bhaktivinode Thakur this: Krishna's name is non-different from his swarup or form. Therefore we have to settle who Jesus's God is. As have been pointed out by Dark Warrior, it could be any god. (However, good Jesus messgae is). By Jesus not mentioning it we just can't be sure. Our God is Krishna! Bhaktivinode thakur is a great acharya but he is not the only great acharya of the Vaishnava world. His words has authority for GM/ISKCON but may not have the same weight for others. As DW has pointed out his words are not pramans. Since most Iskconites and GM posit the idea that Jesus is a shaktyavesha avatar even though 2 shastras mention a list of shaktyavesha avatars not including Jesus the onus is on you to prove it, not the opposition. And dont put aparadha into the picture, or else it will only prove you are on a shaky ground. Or to blunt then you lose the debate. Prove it!
  11. Why are we so hang-up on Jesus? Jesus talked about God in the form of light! The shastras have given us the mercy by which we can have a glimpse of the Lord's rupa, swarup, guna, form, qualities nature. Why settle for anything less?
  12. To AMariner & Co. I was meant to leave this thread already. But because you mentioned "my guru" I have to clarify. My Guru has nothing to do with my post. My post was practically about the realizations of my Gurubhai, which indirectly of course came from his direct association with our guru. The BIG O! Aparadha! Quite expected from your group. When you reach the dead end as you can not find support from shastra and other sadhus , you invoke the aparadha defence. Radhe Radhe
  13. AMariner: Ok fine you think Prabhupada is wrong about Jesus that is your viewpoint but the body of evidence suggests that Prabhupada refered to Jesus as a Saktyavesa avatara and Srila Prabhupada has a lot of respect in Gaudiya Vaisnavism so you should at least take that into account in your objective analysis of things instead of trying to say people are merely being sentimental. Gvism is about shastra, guru, sadhu. They should reconcile. I have nothing more to say. I have to do japa. Have you done japa yet? Radhe Radhe
  14. Ancient Mariner: That's fine but I never could figure out which guru you were talking about in that blog so it would be helpful if you had included the name of the guru so I thought that was your blog and you were the guru. Anyway you seem to think anyone who thinks Jesus was a saktyavesa avatara lacks common sense so apparently you think Prabhupada lacked common sense so at least you have clarified that you don't think Prabhupada is a worthy representative of GVism. I have a lot of admiration for Prabhupada but if he is not your cup of tea then take the opinion of the guru that is your cup of tea but I have read many quotes by Prabhupada in regards to Jesus and his position is that Jesus is a saktyavesa avatara and even Kulapavana who is one of your "ilk" agrees that this is true so apparently you even think Kulapavana lacks common sense even though he is one of your "ilk"? Have a nice day. <!-- / message --> The problem with you, Ancient Mariner and your cohorts is that, if anyone gives an objective look (meaning cross-referencing backing from sources to prove a position) on a certain topic, you will come back with your sentimentalism attack that one is disrespecting Srila Prabhupad. I respect Srila Prabhupad highly, I still bow down to his vyasasan when I go to ISKCON temples. Without his preaching bhakti I will not have met US preachers who introduced me to Krishna. However, I will never give up on my god given ability to honestly understand a certain topic by looking at what the shastra says and the understanding of other Vaishnavas. Srila Prabhupad is not the body of GVism. The Q & A from a blog is not from some one who wants to be a guru. He is a very sincere devotee who has spent his entire life studying the works of the 6 Goswamis. He was asked Questions so he had to give Answers to the best of his realizations. What's wrong with that? To Kulapavana. Though there are a few topics I don't agree with you. Please know that my gurubhai once said that you were a "Cool(a) guy. Radhe Radhe
  15. Quote: <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by Malati dasi Quote: <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by Kulapavana Did I EVER deny Jesus was a saktyavesa avatar? He is. Still, that does not make Christianity a true Vaishnaviasm, or justify accepting Jesus to be God. I have heard from some devotees that Prabhupada once said Hitler was also a saktyavesa avatar, because his special DESTRUCTIVE power was given to him by God. You still think every saktyavesa avatar should be worshipped just like Krsna? </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> Ancient Mariner: Do you think saktyavesa avatars should be disrespected? At least I got you to clarify that you believe Jesus was a saktyavesa avatar. I think Prabhupada refered to Christianity as a crude form of Vaisnavism so where you get the notion that he was arguing that it is pure Vaisnavism is beyond me. I thought I read a statement of yours once that said Christianity has nothing to do with Vaisnavism or something to that effect but if not then I apologize. Our take: We should put sentimentalism aside and see things in the light of sadhu, guru, shastra. Srila Sanatan Goswami in Hari Bhakti Vilas made a definitive statement on what is a Vaishnava. In my one of our blogs: Bhakta: "Some acharyas saysJesus and Muhammad are shakty avesha avataras." Answer: "With due respect, the shaktyavesha avataras are mentioned in the first canto of the Bhagavat and the Laghu Bhagavatamrita and Jesus and Muhammad are not mentioned there." Bhakta: "They could have been closet-Vaishnavas?" Answer: "Personally I do not believe that preachers keep a substantial amount of knowledge hidden from their audience, and I absolutely disbelieve that they had any knowledge of Vishnu or Krishna." Bhakta: "Yes, but avataras are described to be like waves in the ocean in the first canto. Only the most prominent ones are described." Answer: "There are 2 billion Christians and 1 billion Muslims. I dont think that is smalltime." Radhe Radhe</I> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> Ancient Mariner: That's fine but I haven't personally experienced that you are qualified to be a guru so your opinion on the subject is noted but is not extremely important to my spiritual life. I have personally experienced that Prabhupada is qualified to be a guru from my perspective so his opinion on this subject holds more weight with me personally but you are entitled to your viewpoint. Well, I dont know that I gave the impression that I speak from the position of a guru. You are expressing your opinions too and I never accuse you of taking the role of a guru. I am trying to prove my position with as much convincing backing than you do. This topic has spanned across 2-3 threads already but you and your ilk have only quoted from one source plus your sentimentalism. I at least have pointed out what the shastra says, the opinion of a GV foundational acharya, the opinion of a devotee who has dived deep into GVism and have used common sense. btw, the exchanges are not from my blog. Radhe, Radhe
  • Create New...