Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2006 to see one own faith better and more supreme, more evolved then others is classical secterian views.. for example, to think that your faith is more exalted then christianity or islam or judaism, is faith in tamo guna.. faith in sattva is to see God in all religions, and that God has perfected different faiths for different people.. i know that you all will NOT agree to what im saying and will debate this, and that only shows that you are secterian.. thank you Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2006 to see one own faith better and more supreme, more evolved then others is classical secterian views.. for example, to think that your faith is more exalted then christianity or islam or judaism, is faith in tamo guna.. faith in sattva is to see God in all religions, and that God has perfected different faiths for different people.. i know that you all will NOT agree to what im saying and will debate this, and that only shows that you are secterian.. thank you Ironically, a faith in "non-sectarianism" can also be sectarian. To think that non-sectarianism is more exalted than Christianity, Judaism, Islam or Vaishnavism is faith in tamo-guna. Faith in sattva is faith in suddha-sattva. The "non-sectarian" religionist who feels a need to insult others for being "sectarian" may actually be just as much of an arrogant sectarian as those he insults. Sanatana-dharma excludes neither the sectarian nor the non-sectarian. Those who champion the "non-sectarian" view are often faithless sensualists who follow no sect at all. The true "non-sectarian" is the one who, during the faithful practice of his religion, sees that all others are properly situated according to their own guna and karma. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kripamoya 0 Report post Posted June 25, 2006 But, if one doesn't stand for something, he will fall for anything. To say that Vaishnavas are in ignorance because they think Vaishnavism better than other religions is an attempt to deprive devotees of the responsibility to search for God and then surrender to God if they find him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2006 to see one own faith better and more supreme, more evolved then others is classical secterian views.. for example, to think that your faith is more exalted then christianity or islam or judaism, is faith in tamo guna.. faith in sattva is to see God in all religions, and that God has perfected different faiths for different people.. i know that you all will NOT agree to what im saying and will debate this, and that only shows that you are secterian.. thank you The reason the Vedic religion is supreme is that it is Eternal. All other religions come and go, but the Vedic religion will abide forever, because it is Eternal Truth. All religions can be traced to certain founders or have a beginning time-period in world history, except the Vedic religion, and that is because it is has no beginning and will have no end. The Vedic religion is called Sanatana Dharma (eternal religion). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2006 But, if one doesn't stand for something, he will fall for anything. To say that Vaishnavas are in ignorance because they think Vaishnavism better than other religions is an attempt to deprive devotees of the responsibility to search for God and then surrender to God if they find him. agreed. Might as well forget about worshipping Radha-Krishna as Supreme and following the Vaishnava dharma, if all gods are the same god and all religious paths are the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kripamoya 0 Report post Posted June 25, 2006 to see one own faith better and more supreme, more evolved then others is classical secterian views.. for example, to think that your faith is more exalted then christianity or islam or judaism, is faith in tamo guna.. faith in sattva is to see God in all religions, and that God has perfected different faiths for different people.. i know that you all will NOT agree to what im saying and will debate this, and that only shows that you are secterian.. thank you As far as that goes, you could also be accused of sectarianism. Why just acknowledge Christianity, Islam and Judaism? What about Buddhism? What about Native American beliefs? What about tribal African beliefs? What about New Age yoga spirituality? Why do we only acknowledge the Middle Eastern religions of Christianity, Islam and Judaism as being true world religions? So, sectarianism is not the monopoly of Vaishnavism. We find absolute sectarianism coming from the Abrahamic religions, as they do not acknowledge the other religions and faiths of the world at all. So, the Abrahamic religions are in no position to make any sort of accusations against Hinduism as being sectarian. Abrahamic religions do not respect or acknowledge Hinduism, so why should Hinduism have any respect for the Abrahamic religions? What goes around comes around. Hindus call that karma. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2006 i did know that you wouldnt agree on this, and debate it, because that is the only thing that is happening here, debating.. like cats and dogs why did I say secterian about christian, judaism, islam and HK? because these are the biggest secterian faiths in the world.. for example, in one thread here, there are no angels, because you see that the vedas doesnt support it.. etc etc.. holy books are like manuals for a dvd in different languages.. even Krishna Himself like He does in the Koran, to abandon all religion and surrender unto Him.. 18:66 Bg Krishna dont say that to turn to one specific sect, He is telling you to abandon them for Him.. to give yourself a title is to limit yourself, restrict.. most of the people arent even following Prabhupada.. and by this I meen the ISKCON-sect Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2006 it is called hinduism when it suits your needs, sumtimes its vaisnavaism and when it suits you all its called hinduism.. thats irony.. make up your minds first what you are.. and to say "if they dont respect me, why should I respect them?" <-- isnt that a good tamo based faith? or not to be able to take sum critisism, isnt that also a good, old fashion tamo based faith? if you are in a faith, based on sattva, shouldnt you be more humble, like the grass? read the srí siksastaka.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2006 I agree with enigma, and i havent seen him or her being arrogant or attacking nothing, he asked a question here. why are the responding people acting with agression? also i didnt see him/her say that all gods where the same,, God is One, might be what he/her was saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kripamoya 0 Report post Posted June 25, 2006 it is called hinduism when it suits your needs, sumtimes its vaisnavaism and when it suits you all its called hinduism.. thats irony.. make up your minds first what you are.. and to say "if they dont respect me, why should I respect them?" <-- isnt that a good tamo based faith? or not to be able to take sum critisism, isnt that also a good, old fashion tamo based faith? if you are in a faith, based on sattva, shouldnt you be more humble, like the grass? read the srí siksastaka.. Well, then wasn't Krishna's inspired battle of Kurukshetra a "tamo-based" war because Krishna said that if they don't accept and respect my devotee Emporer, then I will will cause 60,000,000 warriors to die in battle to establish a devotee on the throne of an Empire that was otherwise going on quite nicely? Dhritarashtra was nicely implementing the Varnashrama society, yet Krishna was responsible for killing 60,000,000 warriors to dethrone him and put Maharaja Yudhisthira on the throne because Yudhisthira was an advocate of Krishna-bhakti? If rejecting everything except suddha-bhakti is "tamo-guna" then all the Vaishnava acharyas were in ignorance. Call them fanatics if you like. Krishna ordered 60,000,000 Vedic Kshatriyas slaughtered in favor of the bhakti cult. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2006 Well, then wasn't Krishna's inspired battle of Kurukshetra a "tamo-based" war because Krishna said that if they don't accept and respect my devotee Emporer, then I will will cause 60,000,000 warriors to die in battle to establish a devotee on the throne of an Empire that was otherwise going on quite nicely? Dhritarashtra was nicely implementing the Varnashrama society, yet Krishna was responsible for killing 60,000,000 warriors to dethrone him and put Maharaja Yudhisthira on the throne because Yudhisthira was an advocate of Krishna-bhakti? If rejecting everything except suddha-bhakti is "tamo-guna" then all the Vaishnava acharyas were in ignorance. Call them fanatics if you like. Krishna ordered 60,000,000 Vedic Kshatriyas slaughtered in favor of the bhakti cult. a person asked prabhupada once why Lord Jesu ate fish, and He answered that yes He did, but He could also devour whole planets, and we cannot.. the same is here, Krsna can kill and not be affected by sin.. He is the Supreme controller and enjoyer, so this cant be adepted unto Him.. all Krsna does is nirguna and satguna.. both at the same time.. as He pleases.. enigma didnt talk about God, he/she asked bout secterian views. if the HK arent secterian, the you could convert to islam or sum other religion then? Prabhupada Himself said that He didnt wanna preach to christians or muslims, because they allready have found God. He preached to those without any Godcon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kripamoya 0 Report post Posted June 25, 2006 I agree with enigma, and i havent seen him or her being arrogant or attacking nothing, he asked a question here. why are the responding people acting with agression? also i didnt see him/her say that all gods where the same,, God is One, might be what he/her was saying dharmah projjhita-kaitavo 'tra paramo nirmatsaranam satam "Completely rejecting all religious activities which are materially motivated, this Bhagavata Purana propounds the highest truth" The Bhagavat religion completey rejects all religious activities that are materially motivated. Vaishnavism completely rejects all religions that are materially motivated. It is not devotees that reject these things - it is the shastra that rejects these material religions that have been manufactured in the minds of man. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2006 I am a he.. and i was only wondering why for example sum hare krishna/ISKCON members are so secterian in there views, many here see there faith better and more exalted then the most faiths on the "market".. you are all neophytes like me in my quest for God realization, 1 advice, be more humble and not so agressive when people ask sumthing.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2006 "Completely rejecting all religious activities which are materially motivated, this Bhagavata Purana propounds the highest truth" The Bhagavat religion completey rejects all religious activities that are materially motivated. Vaishnavism completely reject all religions that are materially motivated. It is not devotees that reject these things - it is the shastra that rejects these material religions that have been manufactured in the minds of man. and shastras is the word of the sages in 1 of the posts on this sight.. why could 1 search for God outside all religions, like mystics do? there are many mystics outside the sphere of religion, ibn arabi, rumi, swedenborg, reuess.. many mystics take the good from all religion, test what works for them and go there own way to God.. so do I.. i dont wanna restrict myself to one road, I take what is good from all that I see that leads me closer to God and rejects all else.. I let God work with me as He pleases.. and I have come a good way without any scriptures.. I have let God work with within my heart.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kripamoya 0 Report post Posted June 25, 2006 a person asked prabhupada once why Lord Jesu ate fish, and He answered that yes He did, but He could also devour whole planets, and we cannot.. the same is here, Krsna can kill and not be affected by sin.. He is the Supreme controller and enjoyer, so this cant be adepted unto Him.. all Krsna does is nirguna and satguna.. both at the same time.. as He pleases.. enigma didnt talk about God, he/she asked bout secterian views. if the HK arent secterian, the you could convert to islam or sum other religion then? Prabhupada Himself said that He didnt wanna preach to christians or muslims, because they allready have found God. He preached to those without any Godcon. Please show me any evidence from Christian shastra that directly says that Jesus ATE fish. Jesus never ate fish. jesus broke bread with is disciples. How can a preacher who says "though shalt not kill" then turn around an kill fishies from the Sea? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kripamoya 0 Report post Posted June 25, 2006 I am a he.. and i was only wondering why for example sum hare krishna/ISKCON members are so secterian in there views, many here see there faith better and more exalted then the most faiths on the "market".. you are all neophytes like me in my quest for God realization, 1 advice, be more humble and not so agressive when people ask sumthing.. Hare Krishna's are very sectarian. They belong to the sect of the absolute God, as opposed to the sect of some creator god that helped create the material illusion we all think to be reality. Everybody belongs to some sect. Don't accuse the Vaishnavas becuase they have their own sect. The absolute religion is a sect in comparison to the many sects of god worshippers in the world. Join the sect of God and abandon the sect of the gods. That is the message of Lord Krishna. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2006 Please show me any evidence from Christian shastra that directly says that Jesus ATE fish.Jesus never ate fish. jesus broke bread with is disciples. How can a preacher who says "though shalt not kill" then turn around an kill fishies from the Sea? the common food in israel was fish, and he also HELPED the fishermen to get there fish, this also violates the non-killing words then.. he ate fish, bread and drank wine at a feast, and when the wine was out he made more wine from water.. dont be ignorant.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kripamoya 0 Report post Posted June 25, 2006 Many Christians I have met have said that Krishna is the devil. They say the Hare Krishna's are a cult of devil worshippers. Wonder why the Hare Krishna's are not very sentimental about the Christian cult? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2006 Many Christians I have met have said that Krishna is the devil. They say the Hare Krishna's are a cult of devil worshippers. Wonder why the Hare Krishna's are not very sentimental about the Christian cult? that is true, and muslims see christians like that to.. these is what enigma meant by secterianism.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2006 Hare Krishna's are very sectarian.They belong to the sect of the absolute God, as opposed to the sect of some creator god that helped create the material illusion we all think to be reality. Everybody belongs to some sect. Don't accuse the Vaishnavas becuase they have their own sect. The absolute religion is a sect in comparison to the many sects of god worshippers in the world. Join the sect of God and abandon the sect of the gods. That is the message of Lord Krishna. dharma mean religion AND duty.. in 18:66 He says to abandon ALL dharmas.. doesnt that include hinduism and vaisnavaism? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kripamoya 0 Report post Posted June 25, 2006 the common food in israel was fish, and he also HELPED the fishermen to get there fish, this also violates the non-killing words then.. he ate fish, bread and drank wine at a feast, and when the wine was out he made more wine from water.. dont be ignorant.. Still, you haved not shown me anywhere in the Bible that it specifically says that Jesus ate the fish. Clue: There is nothing in the Bible that can prove that Jesus at fish. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2006 Still, you haved not shown me anywhere in the Bible that it specifically says that Jesus at the fish. Clue: There is nothing in the Bible that can prove that Jesus at fish. read the bible urself.. im to lazy.. but still he helped to catch fishes for the dishermen.. doesnt that break ahimsa? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kripamoya 0 Report post Posted June 25, 2006 read the bible urself.. im to lazy.. but still he helped to catch fishes for the dishermen.. doesnt that break ahimsa? Clue: I have read the Bible many times. There is no statement anywhere in the Bible that states definitively that Jesus ate fish. Please show me any verse in the Bible that says that Jesus ATE FISH. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 25, 2006 Clue:I have read the Bible many times. There is no statement anywhere in the Bible that states definitively that Jesus at fish. Please show me any verse in the Bible that says that Jesus ATE FISH. it was common food at that time.. one of hes disciples was a fisherman.. the bible didnt say for example that many of the disciples had sandals or what kind of colouring on their clothes, and still they had color.. so thats a ignorant question about the fish-eating.. and im not answering that.. because the bible dont say many things doesnt it arent so.. thank God for google Luke 24:42 says: "And they gave him [Jesus] a piece of a broiled fish, and of a honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them." While Luke 10:8 says: "Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you," Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kripamoya 0 Report post Posted June 25, 2006 it was common food at that time.. one of hes disciples was a fisherman.. the bible didnt say for example that many of the disciples had sandals or what kind of colouring on their clothes, and still they had color.. so thats a ignorant question about the fish-eating.. and im not answering that.. because the bible dont say many things doesnt it arent so.. thank God for google Luke 24:42 says: "And they gave him [Jesus] a piece of a broiled fish, and of a honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them." While Luke 10:8 says: "Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you," they gave him fish and honeycomb. It does not say he ate the fish. It says he took the fish and ate before them. It does not say he actually ate the fish they offered him. It says he took the fish. It does not say he ate the fish. Maybe he ate the honeycomb and left the nasty fish. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
