Gaur Purnima/ekadasi/Golden Age

[Guest guest]

natabara wrote:

The

> Lord is lacto-vegetarian, that means that He does not like meat, fish, eggs,

> garlic or onions.

 

Hi!

 

This is ME, the notorious rebel.

THIS IS NOT DEFENSE OF OR RECOMMENDATION FOR MEAT_EATING! ONLY AN ATTEMPT TO

PUT THINGS IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE!

 

The Lord does not eat! He "accepts" an offering made out of love and reverence.

As the Avatars Rama and Krishna he could not have been a strict vegetarian. Many

(Rig)Vedic sacrifices demand animal sacrifice, which then was prasada! The truly

vedic community was a semi-nomadic, hunting was an essential part of life: the

king regularly went on hunting expeditions to feed his people.

 

Rama and Krishna were Kshatriyas - non-vegetarian. Actually vegetarianism

started only after Buddha - and he too was not strict! His monks were told to

beg at three houses (only) and eat WHATEVER was given. He himself is supposed to

have died from eating bad pork offered by a hunter!

 

The Law of Nature is that every animal, with a few exceptions, gets eaten up -

often immediately after birth!

 

Physically Man is an ape. Apes are generally vegetarians, but every week or so

they hunt and eat meat!

 

There are some proteins that the human body requires, which can only come from

animals. Milk and milk-products can supply these. Also soya-beans. Soya beans

were not known till a few decades ago and their cultivation is still limited.

 

Substitutes for meat are found easily in the United States and in the UK, but

not elsewhere. I have to drive 40 miles to get Tofu! - Living near Berlin!

Others in Germany may have to drive much further.

 

J.C. Bose demonstrated that plants have "feelings" like animals. They have no

mouths to cry out! The guy who invented the "lie-detector" showed that plants

"remember" and react to love and hate! Plants have a multiple life. If you eat

one pea you have hurt the plant, the pod, the pea - each twice and if you cook

or chew on the pea it is a total of 7 times. You kill an animal only once!

 

Being a vegatarian does not make you any better morally.

 

The inclusion of onions and garlic as taboo foods has nothing to do with

vegetarianism, but may be based on some ayurvedic knowledge. Jains in India -

if strict - do not eat any "roots" like potatoes or carrots, for pulling them

out from the earth could kill creatures in the soil! Many of our vegetables

were unknown in vedic times and even the names we know are not really certain!

Agriculture was limited and only certain "naturalfruits of the eart" were

known. In Africa I have found many things like Mangoes, bananas, egg-plant,

okra etc. growing in abundance, but hardly palatable.

 

To transfer vedic food habits into our times is only a guessing game!

 

Logically speaking there is only one article of food which can be considered as

non-destructive: the unfertilized egg! And perhaps milk, if more than the calf

can consume.

 

It is the attitude that counts. There is a story of Kannappa. He was a hunter

and every day he offered the meat he had hunted to Siva. Once he came with a

very large deer on his shoulder, had to keep hold of it with both hands. The

Siva Linga had a face and its right eye started to bleed. Kannappa, since his

hands were not free, put his foot on the bleeding eye to stop the bleeding. Siva

appeared at once and gave him moksha. It was an act of love that was rewarded.

 

 

Janardhana, the Feeder of all, has manifested himself in so manay ways to feed

us. He has invented a system of re-cycling, by which every body becomes the food

of another Even the shit of one body is food fo another!

 

Being vegetarian or not is irrelevant: advaita says that we "eat the Lord"!

Being vegetarian is not a moral issue, only a matter of preference, a matter of

balanced nourishment. It is neither a sign of spirituality nor does it

particularly promote human virtues. Adolf Hitler was a strict vegetarian. ......

Over-eating is the real "sin" - or stupidity!

 

WHATEVER WE EAT, WE MUST THANK JANARDHANA FOR HAVING MANIFESTED AS OUR FOOD!

Lamb or legume, we must express our thanks to it for having lived to feed us!

 

 

Here my views re: ekadasi.

 

Both ekadasis - waxing and waning moon - are "positive": the moon is trine or

sextile to the sun, the energies flow harmoniously.

 

The physical body is more attuned to the spiritual soul at such periods. This is

enhanced when the body has a "holiday": has to deal less with metabolism. The

less one eats, the better!

 

The particular foods that are "taboo" are grains and legumes: starch and

protein!

 

Milk has vitamins and a certain amount of all essentials. This is allowed for

the weak.

 

The principle is FASTING! In South India this is not really understood: usually

the midday meal is normal and only the evening meal is different, but

unfortunately usually rich in legumes!

 

One must also consider that when the rules were given the choice of food was

restricted: potatoes and tomatos were unknown! Most of the grains, vegetables,

legumes etc. which wee know today were not known in those days. It is essential

to understand the principle and apply it to our present world! Eating tomatoes

may be okay, but potatoes would break the rule, for the protein content of

potatoes is high!

 

Further we must understand the allegory in the mythology. The Mura story is

meant for kids! It does not justify or explain anything, serves only to REMIND!

The grain is harvested and stored. How can mura live in it only when consumed on

ekadasi? wher can he live otherwise? It only says that consoming grain on

ekadasi is NOT RECOMMENDED!

 

The consumption of grain is in itself a very doubtful matter: the human body is

not "designed" for eating grain. It is like a pig: its natural food is meat,

roots, fruits and vegetables, but not grass or derivatives. Many allergic

roblems are connected with eating grain!

 

Golden Age:

 

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times... In short, it was a

time like ours."

- Charles Dickens, "Tale of Two cities"

 

Socrates bemoaned the decadence of his times, the disobedience and perverse

behaviour of youth, the loss of morals.

 

There is a papyrus, estimated a 1000 years before Socrates, that says the same!

 

No time was a "golden age". the earth is a school and there can be no day on

which we don´t have to learn. if you lived in a cave and all you possesed was a

few flint stones you lived in dread of the sabre-toothed tiger. Today if you

live in a nice house you live in dread of the revenue department. If the apples

in grandma´s days were sweeter, she most likely died of tuberculsis at the age

of 40!

 

However the golden age may seem to be, our perception of it will always be

"leaden"! We will always dream of better things, suffer from disappointments. We

will never stop complaining.

 

The golden age is when we lose all desires. But can we ever reach that stage?

What then? Can we be happy? Would the good things of life please us, if we do

not desire them in the least? Would we be human or only living stones ... even

Dr. Livingstone was flled with the desire to discover and explore!

 

Golden Ages are past periods, the evils of which have been forgotten, and only

the achievements thereof are remembered. For centuries Hammurabbi was praised

for his great administration, the building of canals that made the grasslands of

Mesapotamia the richest agricultural area of the Middle East. It was those

canals that salted up the soil and finally turned the same area into a desert.

 

regards

Mani

[Guest guest]

Oh boy, here we go...

 

| The Lord does not eat! He "accepts" an offering made out of love

| and reverence.

 

Of course He eats. If the Lord is incapable of anything that we are capable

of, He would not be the Supreme. Actually since the Lord is omnipotent, He

is capable of performing the activities of any sense with any other sense.

Just like it is stated in the Upanishads that He impregnated material nature

with the jivas by glancing over the material energy. Similarly He can eat

just by glancing at the food, or He can eat just like a human being. Haven't

you read in Bhagavata Purana where Krsna shares His lunch with the Gopas? Do

you think He just sits there? No, He is eating with great relish. Even the

Gopas are described as putting the food directly in Krsna's mouth. So He

certainly eats.

 

| As the Avatars Rama and Krishna he could not have been a strict

| vegetarian.

 

Only in your mind. In the sastras both Rama and Krsna recommend pure

vegetarianism. Krsna condemns meat as food in the mode of darkness. Where do

you think the idea of vegetarianism comes from? The Lord makes the rules of

religion, it is we who break them due to our speculative mentality. You

cannot present any scriptural quote that shows Rama or Krsna eating meat.

 

| (Rig)Vedic sacrifices demand animal sacrifice, which then was

| prasada!

 

No, no. The animal was not offered in the sacrifice, nor eaten as prasadam.

This is total speculation. An old animal was killed and then rejuvenated and

given a new young body by the power of mantras. This was just to prove the

power of the officiating priest. Since no one can perform these sacrifices

properly in Kali-yuga, they are banned in favor of sankirtan-yajna, the

chanting of the Lord's Holy Names. In fact Buddha appeared just to stop

animal killing in the name of the Vedic sacrifices. (see below)

 

The truly vedic community was a semi-nomadic, hunting was an essential

| part of life: the

| king regularly went on hunting expeditions to feed his people.

 

More nonsense; you have been reading Western so-called scientific

disinformation designed to denigrate the Vedic culture. The origin of Vedic

culture is the higher planets, not some tribe of hunters. If the Vedic

culture was nomadic, why are the Vaisyas an agricultural community? And why

did Lord Rama rule Ayodhya, a sophisticated city of immense dimensions? Do

nomads build cities? Where the Vedic kings went hunting, they did so to

perfect the killing art so they could protect the people against rascals who

want to demean the principles of religion, and introduce sinful acts like

animal killing. When Maharaja Pariksit encountered Kali personified

torturing a bull, he was ready to execute him on the spot. Kali begged mercy

from the Emperor, and was allowed to live wherever the principles of

sin--meat eating, gambling, illicit sex and intoxication--were performed. So

your saying that the same Vedic culture that trained an emperor like

Pariksit was a nomadic tribe of hunters is insane. Hunters are the lowest of

the untouchables in Vedic society.

 

|

| Rama and Krishna were Kshatriyas - non-vegetarian.

 

Just because They acted as Ksatriyas in some of Their pastimes does not mean

They ate meat. Krsna was a cowherd; do you think He is going to allow the

slaughter of His beloved cows? You know nothing about Krsna's character if

you do.

 

| Actually vegetarianism

| started only after Buddha - and he too was not strict! His monks

| were told to

| beg at three houses (only) and eat WHATEVER was given. He

| himself is supposed to

| have died from eating bad pork offered by a hunter!

 

More nonsense speculation. What is your source for this? Buddha is accepted

as an incarnation of the Lord, so He is sinless. He came specifically to

stop the improper killing and eating of animals in bogus Vedic sacrifices.

He preached total nonviolence, and He was also accepted as a brahmana since

he took the renounced order of life, and would only have begged at the

houses of brahmanas, who are strict vegetarians. By the way, all the three

higher varnas accept the sacred thread or Gayatri initiation, so they must

be vegetarians to qualify for this mantra.

 

| The Law of Nature is that every animal, with a few exceptions,

| gets eaten up -

| often immediately after birth!

 

So you want us to become animals again, and kill and eat whatever we want?

This is very foolish justification. Animals have no free will, they are

controlled by the modes of passion and ignorance. Human life means using the

precious gift of free will to attain the mode of goodness, meaning

nonviolence to all creatures and pure vegetarian diet.

 

| Physically Man is an ape. Apes are generally vegetarians, but

| every week or so

| they hunt and eat meat!

 

Apes and monkeys are human species in the mode of ignorance. So you want us

to give up our hard-won intelligence, finer religious sentiments and other

qualities of goodness and again become like apes? You must be mad.

 

| There are some proteins that the human body requires, which can

| only come from

| animals. Milk and milk-products can supply these. Also

| Soya-beans. Soya beans

| were not known till a few decades ago and their cultivation is

| still limited.

 

The human body requires 11 specific amino acids, all of which are available

by combining grains and legumes at a single meal. Soybeans are not the only

source of these nutrients, they are also found in beans, chickpeas and dahl.

 

| Substitutes for meat are found easily in the United States and

| in the UK, but

| not elsewhere. I have to drive 40 miles to get Tofu! - Living

| near Berlin!

| Others in Germany may have to drive much further.

 

So eat good old red beans. If you cook them slowly for a long time they will

not induce gas.

 

| J.C. Base demonstrated that plants have "feelings" like animals.

| They have no

| mouths to cry out! The guy who invented the "lie-detector"

| showed that plants

| "remember" and react to love and hate! Plants have a multiple

| life. If you eat

| one pea you have hurt the plant, the pod, the pea - each twice

| and if you cook

| or chew on the pea it is a total of 7 times. You kill an animal

| only once!

 

But plants are designated as human food by scriptural authority. So even if

we hurt them by eating it is not held against us. But each time we eat meat

we are responsible for that sin because eating meat is prohibited in the

scriptures.

 

| Being a vegetarian does not make you any better morally.

 

Morally is one thing, spiritually is another. By following the instructions

of the scriptures we become fit for spiritual advancement. If we were

already enlightened we would be able to tell right from wrong. But since we

aren't, we need the scriptures to guide us. Moral codes are created by

fallible human beings. But the Vedic scriptures come from God. The science

of karma--action and reaction according to the three modes of material

nature--is far beyond any moral code. That's why Vedic Astrology is so good.

 

| The inclusion of onions and garlic as taboo foods has nothing to do with

| vegetarianism, but may be based on some ayurvedic knowledge.

| Jains in India -

| if strict - do not eat any "roots" like potatoes or carrots, for

| pulling them

| out from the earth could kill creatures in the soil!

 

Jains do not follow the Vedic tradition. They are impersonalists who believe

they become God by performing certain austerities. Onion and garlic are

foods in the mode of ignorance because of their pungent taste and agitating

effect on the senses. Read your Gita. In the last 6 chapters all these

things are described in detail.

 

| Many of

| our vegetables

| were unknown in vedic times and even the names we know are not

| really certain!

| Agriculture was limited and only certain "naturalfruits of

| the eart" were

| known. In Africa I have found many things like Mangoes,

| bananas, egg-plant,

| okra etc. growing in abundance, but hardly palatable.

 

The name of the food does not matter, but the whether the quality is of

goodness, passion or ignorance determines its effect and suitability.

Followers of the Vedas can eat any food as long as it demonstrates the

quality of goodness, just as any person who demonstrates the quality of

goodness is allowed to accept brahminical initiation, regardless of the

family in which he took birth.

 

| To transfer vedic food habits into our times is only a guessing game!

 

Only for someone who does not understand the Vedic principles for

determining edible foods as described above.

 

| Logically speaking there is only one article of food which can

| be considered as

| non-destructive: the unfertilized egg! And perhaps milk, if more

| than the calf

| can consume.

 

So you are going to eat an aborted chicken fetus? You are even more

gross-minded than I already thought!

 

| It is the attitude that counts. There is a story of Kannappa.

| He was a hunter

| and every day he offered the meat he had hunted to Siva. Once he

| came with a

| very large deer on his shoulder, had to keep hold of it with

| both hands. The

| Siva Linga had a face and its right eye started to bleed.

| Kannappa, since his

| hands were not free, put his foot on the bleeding eye to stop

| the bleeding. Siva

| appeared at once and gave him moksha. It was an act of love that

| was rewarded.

 

Siva is the demigod in charge of the mode of ignorance, so he attracts

degraded people like hunters, demons and ghosts. Does that mean we should

become like them? In most cases, they wind up offending Siva and he destroys

them. The same is the case of anyone who breaks the laws of Visnu. The

Tamasic Puranas contain all kinds of stories like the above, but with the

aim of gradually promoting their readers to the mode of goodness. The proper

attitude is that since the sattvic scriptures prohibit meat-eating, this is

the highest standard. We should hold ourselves to the highest standard, not

the lowest. And anyway, who is there that eats meat after offering it to

Siva? Do you? Mostly these stories of tamasic devotion are used as

justification for a completely impure existence.

 

 

| Janardhana, the Feeder of all, has manifested himself in so

| manay ways to feed

| us. He has invented a system of re-cycling, by which every body

| becomes the food

| of another Even the shit of one body is food fo another!

 

Yes, creatures in the darkest mode of ignorance eat impure things, which is

why dogs are never allowed in Visnu temples. If you want to become like a

dog then eat anything you want. The real followers of Vedic culture eat only

Visnu-prasadam, which is pure vegetarian.

 

 

| Being vegetarian or not is irrelevant: advaita says that we "eat

| the Lord"!

| Being vegetarian is not a moral issue, only a matter of

| preference, a matter of

| balanced nourishment. It is neither a sign of spirituality nor does it

| particularly promote human virtues. Adolf Hitler was a strict

| vegetarian. ......

| Over-eating is the real "sin" - or stupidity!

 

This Advaita philosophy is another nonsense. God does not become His

creation, anymore than I become this email message by writing it. God

emanates the material energy from His body, and enters into it as the

Paramatma, but He does not become the creatures of this world. Even if this

were so, then by eating meat you would be eating God, which is a horrible

thought! Only Jeffrey Dahmer would find it attractive to eat the one you

love the most!

 

 

| WHATEVER WE EAT, WE MUST THANK JANARDHANA FOR HAVING MANIFESTED

| AS OUR FOOD!

| Lamb or legume, we must express our thanks to it for having

| lived to feed us!

|

|

| Here my views re: ekadasi.

 

<snip>

 

At this point I don't really care to go on. I have 856 references to Ekadasi

in my Vedic database, and they all disagree with Mani's viewpoints. We human

beings are imperfect; we cannot arrive at conclusive spiritual knowledge by

our own efforts because our spiritual vision is blinded by the glare of the

material energy. Only God can provide certain knowledge of transcendence.

Our intelligence is limited and imperfect. That's why we require the

authority of the scriptures, or we go bass-ackwards off the deep end like

our good pal Mani here.

 

Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to address some of the more egregious

fallacies in your post.

 

Dasanudas

[Guest guest]

Bhaktisiddhartha Dasanudas wrote:

> Oh boy, here we go... ..........................

>

 

Dear BD,

 

In this world of Maya I respect your right to hold on to your illusions. For

myself I prefer to stick to my own illusions!

 

I am not a convert to Vaishnavism á la ISKCON.Was born a brahmin - Smaartha -

and learned my traditions at home and from our guru Sri Sankaracharya of

Kanchipuram. Much of this tradition is at variance with the relatively modern

views and interpretations of ISKCON. Even for a traditional Indian Vaishnavite

lord Krishna is not the Supreme Being, but an avatar of Vishnu, whom they

consider as being supreme. Saivaites see Siva as the Supreme Being, the

Smaarthas Siva/Uma (Ardhanari), often expressed as Shakthi or Durga.

 

My views about meat-eating are not based on western teaching. Our books specify

the vegetables to be cooked on religious occasions and each is defined as a

substitute for a particular kind of meat, for instance green bananas for fish.

 

To call an unfertilized egg "an aborted chicken" is weird: you cannot abort an

ovum when it is not a foetus. A hen starts laying eggs even before it mates!

 

Advaita and ISKCON views are very different! They cannot be reconciled.

 

regards

Mani

 

PS: I have to go the same shop for natural red beans as for tofu! Nearer shops

have tins, which I detest!

 

PPS: i think it is better to disagree politely.

[Guest guest]

|

| I am not a convert to Vaishnavism á la ISKCON.Was born a brahmin

| - Smaartha -

| and learned my traditions at home and from our guru Sri Sankaracharya of

| Kanchipuram. Much of this tradition is at variance with the

| relatively modern

| views and interpretations of ISKCON.

 

For those on the list who are reading this exchange and scratching their

heads, there is a long history of acrimony between the Advaita (impersonal

monist) school and the Vedic personalist tradition based on the Puranas,

Upanishads and Vedanta-sutra. It got so bad in recent times that the

smarta-brahmana community tried to have Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati (the

guru of my guru) assassinated. This was because he revealed the truth that

spiritual qualifications cannot be handed down by material family tradition,

but only by spiritual connection with the Supreme Personality of Godhead

through the process of disciplic succession and Vedic initiation. Material

family qualifications are never sufficient to provide spiritual advancement

without purification by serving the self-realized souls.

 

Now of course Mani is going to insist that the Advaitins have the only

correct interpretation of Vedanta and Vaisnavism is some kind of illusion,

but before he does I'd like to remind him of the passage in the Padma Purana

where Lord Siva admits to Parvati:

 

srnu devi paraksyami tamasani yatha-kramam

yesam sravana-matrena patityam jnaninam api

 

apartham sruti-vakyanam darsayal loka-garhitam

karma-svarupa-tyajyatvam atra ca pratipadyate

 

sarva-karma-paribhramsan naiskarmyam tatra cocyate

paratma jivayor aikyam mayatra pratipadyate

 

"My dear Devi, sometimes I teach Mayavadi philosophy for those who are

engrossed in the mode of ignorance. But if a person in the mode of goodness

happens to hear this Mayavadi philosophy, he falls down, for when teaching

Mayavadi philosophy, I say that the living entity and the Supreme Lord are

one and the same." So this is the fate of the erstwhile brahminical families

who take up the Mayavadi philosophy. Lord Siva also says,

 

mayavadam asac-chastram pracchannam bauddham ucyate

mayaiva kalpitam devi kalau brahmana-rupina

 

"I appear as a brahmana in the Kali-yuga and teach the Mayavadi

philosophy, which is untruth and against the conclusions of the Vedic

scriptures. Actually it is veiled Buddhism. The Supreme Personality of

Godhead has His transcendental body," Lord Siva states, "but I describe the

Supreme as impersonal. I also explain the Vedanta-sutra according to the

same principles of Mayavadi philosophy."

 

So the Advaita philosophy and all interpretations of Vedic scripture based

on it are a transcendental fraud propagated by Lord Siva to deceive his

unqualified and offensive worshipers and make them fall down. The real

interpretation of Vedanta-sutra is written by Vyasadeva, the author of

Vedanta-sutra, and it is called Srimad-Bhagavatam. It describes the personal

aspect of God to the exclusion of all impersonal concepts.

 

Mani's assertion that the brand of Vaisnavism espoused by the disciples of

Bhaktivedanta Swami (who is my guru, although I have nothing to do with

ISKCON) is new is groundless. ISKCON is only an organization founded

recently in the West by Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, latest in a long

line of Vaisnava preceptors going back over 5,000 years.

 

| Even for a traditional Indian Vaishnavite

| lord Krishna is not the Supreme Being, but an avatar of Vishnu,

| whom they

| consider as being supreme. Saivaites see Siva as the Supreme Being, the

| Smaarthas Siva/Uma (Ardhanari), often expressed as Shakthi or Durga.

 

 

There are four Vaisnava sampradayas or disciplic lineages, descended from

Lord Brahma, Brahma's sons the Kumaras, Goddess Laksmi and even one from

Lord Siva. So Lord Siva actually worships Lord Visnu, or how could there be

a Vaisnava sampradaya descended from him? All of the Vaisnava sampradayas

are far older than the Advaita philosophy, which is a product of recent

(Kali-yuga) history. Some of them worship Lord Visnu as their principal

Deity, and others worship Lord Rama or Lord Krsna, but they all accept the

version of Vyasadeva that all the incarnations of the Lord are the same

Supreme Being.

 

Mani just doesn't know what he is talking about because Vaisnavism is not

his tradition. He doesn't know either the history or the philosophy of

Vaisnavism because all he has ever heard is the illusory teachings of

Mayavadi monism. Therefore by the authoritative statement of Lord Siva

quoted above, his intelligence is in a fallen condition. Furthermore, it

makes no difference ontologically whether Krsna is an incarnation of Visnu

or the reverse. The supreme is always the supreme, as it is stated in the

Isopanisad,

 

om purnam adah purnam idam

purnat purnam udacyate

purnasya purnam adaya

purnam evavasisyate

 

"The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because

He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this

phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes.

Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in

itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many

complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance."

 

So God can emanate an unlimited number of personalities equal in potency to

Himself without any diminution of His transcendental potency. He expands

millions of incarnations, all of whom are identical in all respects.

Therefore He remains supreme in any of His unlimited transcendental forms.

This is the real meaning of God's omnipotence.

 

 

| Advaita and ISKCON views are very different! They cannot be reconciled.

 

 

That is alright. Let us never reconcile anything with the Advaita

conception, which as Lord Siva says is a product of the mode of ignorance.

But again, here Mani confuses ISKCON the organization with the

Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya, whose teachings are at least

5,000 years old. His arguments do not touch any of my points, because he

knows that actually none of his ideas are based on anything but his own

opinion. Everything I say is backed up 100% by Vedic sastra, so there is

really no argument.

 

 

| PPS: i think it is better to disagree politely.

 

Then don't make impolite and degrading statements about the incarnations of

God like Lord Rama and Lord Krsna eating meat. This is not only impolite, it

is wrong, insulting and offensive to those of us who actually live by Vedic

principles. As has been pointed out recently in this forum, astrologers

should practice vak-siddhi and always tell the truth so that their

predictions turn out correctly. It is not good to make offensive statements

about the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as if He is an ordinary human

being. The authority of the Vedic scriptures stands supreme and

unquestioned, except by fools who think they know better than God.

 

All the best,

Dasanudas

[Guest guest]

Bhaktisiddhartha Dasanudas wrote

>.........

>

> Now of course Mani is going to insist that the Advaitins have the only

> correct interpretation of Vedanta and Vaisnavism is some kind of illusion,

 

NO! I do not insist on anything!

"He who realizes that I am incomprehensible has understood me,

but he who thinks he has comprehended me has NOT understood me."

 

"All roads lead to me"

- Gita

 

The children fight, but the Great Mother laughs at them!

 

Om shanthi, shanthi, shanthihi!

 

And thanks to all who did not "thrash" me!

 

regards

Mani