kick on the face of imitation avatara

[Guest guest]

Avatara does not mean a big beard or big hair. We do not like to see such

ugly avatara. We kick on their face, this avatara. This is not avatara.

Avatara must be mentioned in the sastra. Caitanya Mahaprabhu, when He was

talking with Sanatana Gosvami, so Caitanya Mahaprabhu described about

avatara. So just to make a little joke, because they are personal

devotees... So he knew that Caitanya Mahaprabhu is the avatara. Still, he

inquired from Caitanya Mahaprabhu, "How we shall know one avatara?" So

Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, "Why? It is all mentioned in the sastra." So

avatara should be understood from the sastra, not by jugglery or magic. This

is rascal. As soon as one wants to establish his avatarship by jugglery and

magic, kick him out, immediately on the face, directly. Kick him. Let the

avatara take steps. I don't mind. If he's avatara, let him kill me, all

right. But I shall kick him on his face.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.7.25 -- Vrndavana, September 22,

1976

[Yogkriya 0]

Yes. So true. A real avatara is mentioned in the scriptures.

Nowadays many people start claiming themselves as avataras etc. But the scriptures tell exactly about the descend of the Lord.

But then avatara also means descend of divinity and divinity can descend into a person if he is totally surrendering to the Lord.

Was Mirabai an avatara? No. But she had the divinity transcending in her for sure. And she could finally meet Lord Krisna. Was Shri Sandeepan Rishi an avatara? Maybe not, but he was divine enough that Krishna himself sat in his lotus feet to learn. So don't kick people who are not Gods but are at least holy.

 

But oh.. what a lame definition of ugliness!!

You would kick anyone who has a beard and long hair!! What a pathetic

view!! Nanda Maharaj also had long hair and a beard!! Would you kick him too? lol! Most Vedic Rishis kept long hair and beards would you kick them all??? Are they all "UGLY"?? Ain't that a bit too arrogant?

Presence or absence of hair don't make some one pious or exalted either.

There are specific purposes for shaving hair off and not doing so though.

 

 

 

 

Avatara does not mean a big beard or big hair. We do not like to see such

ugly avatara. We kick on their face, this avatara. This is not avatara.

Avatara must be mentioned in the sastra. Caitanya Mahaprabhu, when He was

talking with Sanatana Gosvami, so Caitanya Mahaprabhu described about

avatara. So just to make a little joke, because they are personal

devotees... So he knew that Caitanya Mahaprabhu is the avatara. Still, he

inquired from Caitanya Mahaprabhu, "How we shall know one avatara?" So

Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, "Why? It is all mentioned in the sastra." So

avatara should be understood from the sastra, not by jugglery or magic. This

is rascal. As soon as one wants to establish his avatarship by jugglery and

magic, kick him out, immediately on the face, directly. Kick him. Let the

avatara take steps. I don't mind. If he's avatara, let him kill me, all

right. But I shall kick him on his face.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.7.25 -- Vrndavana, September 22,

1976

[madhavachari 0]

Yes, a real avatara is mentioned in the scriptures. But, this is misused by cults by misinterpreting scriptures to make their "avatara" seem genuine. Also, such cults compose their own "upanishads" to promote their ideas.

[Guest guest]

yet, the scriptures say that there is another form of avatar - the shaktyavesha avatar and that they cannot be counted and they are not all mentioned in the shastra.

 

Who is to know if a shaktyavesha avatar has appeared or not?

The Lila Avatars, Yuga Avatars, Purusha avatars etc. have been mentioned in shastra, but shastra doe not name every shaktyavesha avatar of the Lord.

 

What happens if one kicks on the face of a shaktyavesha avatar?

 

A shaktyavesha avatar can appear at any time and any place without specific mention in the shastra.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Perhaps the "kicking on the face" should be left to realized souls who can actually directly perceive the Lord. The rest of us can just follow the path we were given by the saints.

[madhavachari 0]

 

yet, the scriptures say that there is another form of avatar - the shaktyavesha avatar and that they cannot be counted and they are not all mentioned in the shastra.

 

Who is to know if a shaktyavesha avatar has appeared or not?

The Lila Avatars, Yuga Avatars, Purusha avatars etc. have been mentioned in shastra, but shastra doe not name every shaktyavesha avatar of the Lord.

 

What happens if one kicks on the face of a shaktyavesha avatar?

 

A shaktyavesha avatar can appear at any time and any place without specific mention in the shastra.

Any person who possesses awareness of God and inspires others is empowered in comparison to the rest of the population that merely engages in body/mind related activites.

 

.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

Perhaps the "kicking on the face" should be left to realized souls who can actually directly perceive the Lord. The rest of us can just follow the path we were given by the saints.

 

 

Only a true devotee of the Lord (free from karma, jnana, mayavada, impersonal thoughts). i.e Hanuman. Can know for sure who is and who isn't an avatara etc.

 

In other words only a pure devotees know this (inc Sastra). FULLY in totality. Others will only delude you.

 

For example, how would you know a person if he was an incarnation or not? He could say he is incarnation of God, and is jiva-tattva (living entity). How would you find out? I tell you how... (scrool down)

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

 

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

.

ASK His Guru (scrool down again)..

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

 

.

.

 

.

.

.

.

 

If he doesn't have a Guru.

Ask him why not. If he says

he doesn't need 1. Then ask

him why Sastra says you need one.

(scrool down again)...

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

 

.

.

 

.

.

 

.

 

.

 

 

.

.

 

.

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

.

.

.

Tell him to get a Guru.

[Yogkriya 0]

Good scrooling down game!

 

What is a Guru in Iskcon philosophy? Is he a realized soul?

If yes, what is realization?

if not, then what can he reveal?

Is he a scholar, who has memorized certain number of shlokas from scriptures and can argue by quoting shloka numbers?

What is written in scriptures is written. What about a Guru's personal realization that determines his level as a Guru!

 

 

 

 

Only a true devotee of the Lord (free from karma, jnana, mayavada, impersonal thoughts). i.e Hanuman. Can know for sure who is and who isn't an avatara etc.

 

In other words only a pure devotees know this (inc Sastra). FULLY in totality. Others will only delude you.

 

For example, how would you know a person if he was an incarnation or not? He could say he is incarnation of God, and is jiva-tattva (living entity). How would you find out? I tell you how... (scrool down)

.

.

.

.

ASK His Guru (scrool down again)..

.

.

If he doesn't have a Guru.

Ask him why not. If he says

he doesn't need 1. Then ask

him why Sastra says you need one.

(scrool down again)...

.

.

.

Tell him to get a Guru.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

Good scrooling down game!

 

What is a Guru in Iskcon philosophy? Is he a realized soul?

If yes, what is realization?

if not, then what can he reveal?

Is he a scholar, who has memorized certain number of shlokas from scriptures and can argue by quoting shloka numbers?

What is written in scriptures is written. What about a Guru's personal realization that determines his level as a Guru!

 

Krishna (who doesn't belong to any Sampradaya) says in Bhagavad-gita, to APPROACH a Guru, and learn from Him. Krishna had a Guru as well. (Krishna shows by example) So simple isn't it?

[Yogkriya 0]

The question is not whether one should have a Guru or not.

Of course Guru is needed. Even to become a cook, one needs to learn from a teacher. But you failed to address the enquiry on Guru.

 

 

Krishna (who doesn't belong to any Sampradaya) says in Bhagavad-gita, to APPROACH a Guru, and learn from Him. Krishna had a Guru as well. (Krishna shows by example) So simple isn't it?

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

The question is not whether one should have a Guru or not.

Of course Guru is needed. Even to become a cook, one needs to learn from a teacher. But you failed to address the enquiry on Guru.

 

Ok you said:

 

What is a Guru in Iskcon philosophy? Is he a realized soul?

If yes, what is realization?

 

That he is a servant of Krishna and Guru. And He has to be surrendered 100% to krishna (that is uttama-adikari). The highest, but a Guru can also be Madhyama-adikari.

 

But also an Uttama-adikari comes down to madhyama to teach. (but he still remains uttama. There is VERY BIG difference between them (above).

 

Then you have Uttama-adikari who is Nitya-siddha (never fallen).

 

An advanced devotee here can answer how they both differ (uttama-adikari who becomes like that through Sadhana-siddhi) and Uttama-adikari who is Nitya-siddha).

[Guest guest]

Kicking on the face of self-proclaimed avatars seems to be quite a stretch from Vasudeva Datta who would pick up the maggots that fell out of the sores on his body and put them back in place thinking that the maggots were depending on him and would die without having his flesh to eat.

 

Actually, there is a treatment for infection now that uses maggots to eat the infected flesh of certain infections.

 

Maybe Vasudeva Datta just understood the value of having some good maggots eating on an infection?

 

Maggots can treat certain infections caused by diabetes that modern medicine has no treatment for.

 

Was Vasudeva Datta actually really humble, or just very understanding of the value of a maggot on an infection?

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

Kicking on the face of self-proclaimed avatars seems to be quite a stretch from Vasudeva Datta who would pick up the maggots that fell out of the sores on his body and put them back in place thinking that the maggots were depending on him and would die without having his flesh to eat.

 

Actually, there is a treatment for infection now that uses maggots to eat the infected flesh of certain infections.

 

Maybe Vasudeva Datta just understood the value of having some good maggots eating on an infection?

 

Maggots can treat certain infections caused by diabetes that modern medicine has no treatment for.

 

Was Vasudeva Datta actually really humble, or just very understanding of the value of a maggot on an infection?

 

 

I think your thinking of Blood suckers. Maggots are used for fishing. :wacko:

[Guest guest]

 

I think your thinking of Blood suckers. Maggots are used for fishing. :wacko:

 

nope, do a google search on maggots in medical treatment.

 

leaches are also used in certain treatments, but maggots are also used for treating incurable infections caused by diabetes.