lokeshvara

normally this would be the case and for a few years he had made visits to beijing to negotiate. he eventually fled however because his life was threatened. if he would return to tibet he will probably be killed. case in point: The Panchan Lama. The Panchan Lama is one of the most important posts in gelugpa religious life, he is the teacher of the dalai lama and is responsible for finding where the d.l. reincarnates after he dies. back in the 90's the panchan lama died and they set out on discovering a new one. they found a little boy, around the age of 4. he was living in india and named the panchan lama. the chinese found out and were concerned, this is a cherished political position and could be the determining factor for tibet's future. so what did they do? they kid napped the child lama and named a chinese boy in his place, saying they found the "real" panchan lama. they stole a child and that child has never been seen since. he's been missing for well over a decade. these are the tactics of the chinese and because of this the dalai lama will most likely end the birth succession tradition and go toward elections. interestingly enough about the chinese. in their so called "atheistic" government. they have made laws regulating reincarnation. you now can't reincarnate with the right governmental documentation JAI SHREE KRISHNA!!!

i didn't know why this topic was posted here for a few reasons. firstly why would such an article be posted on a hindu forum as it seems to only function to cause dirision between religious traditions. then second is why on the spiritual forum. i would venture to say that what the dalai lama does or does not do will not have a direct impact on our spiritual lives. i would also venture to say that the type of compassion you generate towards the suffering of beings will have a direct impact on spiritual life. just my thoughts. JAI SHREE KRISHNA!!!!

i am not quite sure why this is even here except to attack a member of another religion. i think there are some flaw in the basic understanding of tibetan buddhism that weaken the arguments made. firstly the construction of tibetan society and the dalai lama's role. the dalai lama is not the religious leader of tibet, he with a few other lamas is the head of the gelugpa order (there are 4 branches of tibetan buddhism: nyingma (the oldest), kagyupa, sakyapa, and gelugpa) he was not the temporal leader but worked throughout history in conjunction with the tibetan royal family. buddhism has always stressed the importance of the 4 fold sangha (monks, nuns, lay women, and lay men) and in tibet this relationship was unique and at poinst oppressive. none the less doing things like giving treasure to monastaries and what not is believed to bring on good karmic roots and to over ride some previous negative karma. that's why it's done. for better or worse, the asking of donations at a time of war was supposed to be a way of over turning national karma to keep the chinese out. further more, the above presentions seems to leave out the negative sides of the chinese in tibet, mainly the concentration camps and the cultureal genecide. china remains one of the largest violaters of human rights in the world and i'm not just talking about tibet. most analysts choose to look over this because of the importance the chinese play in the international ecconomy. i have to end it there because i have to run. but let me encourage you to not take what either side of the argument says without thoroughly investigating the issue for your self. Jai Shree Krishna!

i'm not quite sure i understand the issue here. why is polytheism bad? the original post whether consciously or not takes the stance that polytheism is bad in light of western culture. well what makes western culture the be all and end all? the traditional monotheistic faiths= judaism, christianity, and islam all state it is bad. (i don't include zorastrianism because it isn't straight monotheism and antonism failed) well lets look at these three traditions, judaism has a strict understanding of monotheism but it wasn't always that way. and even as it appears today there are plenty of jew who take impersional and even borderline atheistic points of view so why are you concerned about what they think. next we have christianity, in it's oldest still existant form we have catholicism (western and eastern rites) and they are anything but monotheism. god has three divine persons in the form of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. next they also have the veneration of Mary, angels, and saints. You can pray to mary and worship her to get special blessings. this is not monotheism. if you want to look at some protestant movements ie: evangelicals and what not who deny worship of mary and the saints they still give just as much power to the devil as they give to god even though they don't worship the devil (kind of reminds me of zorastrianism) next we islam. this is probably the closest thing we have to pure monotheism today. and yet some shi'as worship saints and martyrs. furthermore have you read the Qur'an ? if that is monotheism at its best, no thanks. Now we move onto Bahai since someone mentioned it. this is not strict monotheism either because all of the "messangers" of all the other faiths and the gods get sucked up into one divine presense. it sounds more monistic to me. so, what does all this mean? western standards of religiousity are not the cornerstone or measuring stick of good religious practice. who really cares if some hindus practice monotheism and some polytheism. hinduism is the oldest living tradition tradition in the world and it takes on various colors, shapes, and forms to suit the needs of the adherents. if people want to be down on hinduism because they think it's polytheism, let them. it doesn't take away from your own practice. just my thoughts. Jai Shree Vishnu!!!

Namaste and thank you for the great responses. i was not aware that Kripalu taught mayavadi philosophy as i hadn't come across it yet but i am only in the beginning stages. i am not at the point in my life where i am not looking to be initiated with a guru or wanting to move into a temple so my interest is definitely more superficial. i am more interesting in finding an organization where i can learn legit teachings as outside of reading the gita and some parts of the bhagavatam, i don't have much experience. the sites listed though are wonderful from the little bit i have had the chance to read so far. i will keep an open heart though and ask the lord for guidence. my concern was that i don't want to be learning things from an organization or teacher of questionable reputation. thanks again for all of your help, direction, and insight. JAI SRI VISNU!

Namaste, thank you everyone for your helpful and very informative answers. the suggestions about going to the Lord on this is very good and something i hadn't even thought of doing (left over effect from being a buddhist, doing everything on your own) Thank you also Malati and Vedesu for the links. i have a ton to read over without sparking any type of debate or anything, what do you guys think about the Divine Love Society http://www.jkp.org ? are they recognized as being legit? I kind of like what have been reading but i don't want to get involved with any kind of culty stuff. thanks again Jai Sri Visnu!

Namaste Everyone i have been reading through the posts about vaishnavaism and also caste system on this board and i had a question. as some of you already know i am a neophyte in sanathana dharma. i am interested in finding a group or organization or teacher where i can learn more. i think i perfer vaishnavism and i feel affinities to god in both krishna and narayan forms but i do not particularly feel any connection with iskcon. does anyone know of any alternative places where a westerner can learn? are there particular groups of teachers to stay away from? thank you for your advice JAI SRI VISNU!

I had spent a month in varanasi last summer, spent some time perched above manikarnika and bathed in the sacred river. i can say from personal experience that being in the holy city is what eventually parcipated the growth of faith in my heart. i was a devout buddhist and being there changed my heart. when i came back i had gone back to buddhadharma briefly and intensly then it burnt out and love of the lord is growing in my heart and this is all from staying in this holy place and bathing in the pure waters. i don't know much about puranic lit regarding the city but i do know there is alot of power there. enought to turn and athiest into someone looking for the lord. just my thoughts about that sacred place

I am not sure there will be an effective way to address the issues with the pastor because unless he or she is willing to dialogue about the issue, they will not listen to what is said. i would point out though to this person that they are presenting a very biased and inaccurate image of sanatana dharma. "hinduism" as he calls it is incredibly diverse and the philosophy he is presenting is one of many different understandings. he is in a way building a straw man with his presentation. to cbrahma- krishna gave a straight forward path to salvation, not only jesus. blessings

with much respect, i didn't say necessarially that the buddha invented anatta. i was making a point that many of the things usually attributed to buddha (ie: anatta and sunyata) are not even widely believed by the larges branch of buddhism (mahayana) so i think we are in more agreesment than it may first appear. as for bikshunis, the majority come from mahayana and vajrayana traditions as the lineage of full ordination has died out in theravada countries. even there tho there is still the mata dasi and mei ji ordinations for women. it is far more prevalant in mahayana. some famous ones (at least in america) are vens. yi fa, pema chodren, and tubten chodren. also the founders of Tzu Chi ( the world's large buddhist humanitarian organization) was founded by bhikshunis. blessings.

just as a side note, not all buddhist sects eat meat. most chinese mahayana practitioners do not. it is forbidden in the mahayana tripitaka. so those belonging to ching tu, tien tai, vinaya, chan, and huayen schools abstain from meat eating. (also the eating of pungent flavors like garlic and onion) if individual practitioners eat meat, that is their karma but it is not permitted in traditional mahayana. the exceptions are going to be the japanese buddhists (who have their own reading of texts) and those who do not practice straight up buddhism but mix it with taoism, confucianism, and shamanism. as for what did buddhism present to india that was different from hinduism? well for one thing it abolished notions of caste and it gave women the opportunity to participate equally as ordained bhikshunis. (although it can be argued that neither issued forth from hinduism itself but were general cultural practices) in terms of philosophy i think it gets a bit more difficult to decipher because there seem to be so much over lapping of traditions. even when buddha teaches anatta there are plenty buddhists who believe in atman (tathagatagarbha) when he denies brahman then the teaching of dharmakaya is introduced (it's the same thing) blessings

interesting discussion, thank you for the info. are beings always reincarnated as humans or can they be reborn as other things as well? if ghosts are beings in between lives, how long do they normally stay in that form?

Thank you everyone for the insightful answers. do yakshas etc want to hurt humans or are they generally disinterested? also does staying mindful of Krishna protect one from ghosts or possession? i ask because when i was heavy into buddhist practices i could feel things around me and we were always told that if you don't say this or that mantra then the ghost can possess you and drive you mad or it could haunt your house and bother your family. having lived with nasty ghosts when i was little, this is a concern of mine. thanks and hope you are having a great day

Namaste all i just want to first say thank you to you all. everyone here has been so welcoming and kind. and now on to another question (i know, i have lots) what is the general stance on ghosts and demons? do they exist? what are they? is there any teachings on the reason for hauntings or possession? thanks again and i hope i'm not flooding the board with random questions.

Hiya Sanskruti, i can understand how you feel as i am going through a similar thing right now. i have been buddhist for most of my life but after some strange things happened i began to reconsider, i came to this board still as a buddhist but now am feeling very drawn to krishna. so please know that you are not alone. i too am curious to hear of others experiences. peace and blessings.

Blessings, in response to the original poster, just as you have quoted scripture that would lead one to believe murti devotion is forbidden there is also plenty of other sacred texts allowing it. i think what you fail to realize is that there is no one over arching hinduism that is often envisioned by others. hinduism is so vast that it allows for theists, agnostics, pantheists, monists, and even atheists (and welcomes those of us sitting on the fence ) all of these groups have scriptures, teachers and traditions of their own. it would not be fruitful to take a text not directly pertaining to bhakti and apply it to bhakti practice. Islam is more concentrated as there are only two main branches suni and shi'a then the category of sufis which is made of both suni and shi'a. hinduism is made of many more different types of groups. More so Islam generally looks to the Quran and Haddiths for religious and daily life instruction. There are for Hindus the Vedas and Upanishads along with the Puranas and epic poems (Mahabharata and Ramayana) so there's a great deal more diversity in scripture. i don't know if this helps at all but my two cents peace.

it should be noted that the original poster is not posting his or her own textual analysis unless they are, Dr. Zakir Naik. otherwise it is plagerized. as for the actual question presented, there is no reason why the kabba and murti don't function in the same way. the kabba is a geographical location, offering direction for the prayers of the devotee. the murti can function similarly, only there is one in ever temple as opposed to one on earth.

Hi Bawang, this is a buddhist topic so i'm not sure how much response you will get but to answer your question, it is both a branch of mahayana and seperate. it really depends on who you ask. it is a part of mahayana in that it contains central mahayana beliefs like the bodhisattva vow, the trikaya, the teachings in the sutras etc. it is different in that it is a tantric tradition. it relies on the guru student relationship and has added to the scriptural cannon by including the Tantras. so all vajrayana practitioners are mahayana but not all mahayana are vajrayana. hope this helps.

i am saddened to hear about the news from puri but not surprised. it seems to be a fairly common practice to try and bar certain groups of people from entering shrines. while i can understand not allowing just sight seers in but to not allow admission to those who seek darshan seems silly. when i was in varanasi this past summer a similar thing happened to a few of my friends. we had gone to the Vishvanath Mandir and right away an american born indian friend of my was told none in the group could enter. not even him, a devotee of shiva. a week later i had returned on my own and brought prasad to offer to lord Shiva and after a few questions from the police and filling out some papers (none of which asked if i was Hindu) i was permitted entry. so this matter of entry to shrines seems to be at the whim of whom ever happens to be there at the time. it doesn't just happen in hinduism either. buddhists in south asia won't allow certain types of other buddhists into their shrines. it is an unfortunate set of circumstances. as if anyone could really have any control over the infinite. as for ratha yatra, is there a particular reason why temple officials are demanding it be done during that specific time? does the date have some significance? blessings

thank you everyone so much for your insightful comments. they have given me alot to think about namaste!

thank you both for the replies. i am in agreement with the sentiments about illusion vs. reality. Indulekhadasi, you mention dreams about Krishna or the Guru from the perspective that the dreamer is some form of devotee, either pure or not yet pure. what about those who dream of such things who are not devotees? love and blessings

when i first read through this thread the other night, the story left me with tears in my eyes. may Lila have peace and ever lasting joy with her beloved.

thank you Sarva for the explanation. if i am understanding this correctly, dreams then are not merely a biological function but have a connection with the divine. some parts of the mind of God can be encountered in certain dreams. No matter what though dreams come from God as a result of karma. is this accurate or am i way off base here? if dreams come from God does he pick which images and senerios to send or is it more like he is providing the foundation for particular karmas to come to fruition?

namaste everyone it's been a few weeks since i have had the chance to chat and i hope everyone is well. i am starting this new topic to get your thoughts. what is the vaisnava stance on dreams? are they meaningful, important, or perhaps should be cast aside as being more maya? what are your thoughts? love and blessings.

Namaste Bhaktajan you are absolutely right in your assesment of suffering. this is the first noble truth of the Buddha. in life there is suffering. we have the suffering of old age, sickness, death, losing those we love, being joined with those we don't get on with, not getting what we want etc. buddhists often refer to samsara as an ocean because it is built on tears. we even cry when we are happy. happiness here is not lasting and suffering is always quick to come. this is not the only thing tho buddhas see. they are no longer effected by the suffering of samsara and because they do not distinguish between like and dislike, they can exist in samsara and nirvana at the same time. it doesn't take the prajna of a buddha tho to see the suffering of the world. in the mahayana tradition buddhas/bodhisattvas do not seek repose for themselves only. if they did, they would fail. they are moved by the initial realization of suffering and achieve liberation for the benifit of all sentient beings. thats why buddhas and bodhisattvas manifest in the myriad of world systems to teach sentient beings, to cure illness, to show all manner of siddhis. its all for the benifit of others. they do not abandon samsara once they wake up. i think it may be benificial to consider in the buddhist sense what makes up a being. this can be classified into the 5 Skandhas which are: form, sensation, mental formation, perception, and consciousness. at death these elements that we often assume as "I" break down and skatter. so then what is reborn? the store consciousness or Alayavijnana. this contains the karma and deep elements of personality along with tathagata-garbha or buddhanature. it is also true that dying consciously is very important. this is because after death the being is thrown into bardo or inbetween states where if not aware, are at the mercy of their own karma and cravings which can lead to very bad rebirths. a good portion of mahayana buddhists have made provisions for this and have adopted some level of pure land practice. this ensures that if buddhahood is not achieved in this life, a particular buddha (usually Amitabha) will come to them at the end of this life and escort them to his buddhaworld which is considered outside the cycle of samsara and is therefore not marked by suffering, non self, and impermenance. once there, beings are free to train for as long as it takes to achieve bodhisattva and buddhahood. other beings will choose to die consciously so that they may return to our world out of compassion for other beings. you see this with various gurus and high teachers. i hope this clears things up a little. Blessings