Beware of Kali Temples - blood,alcohol and cigarette offerings

[LoveroftheBhagavata 0]

 

Radhe Radhe

 

Watching all these unfold, I thought I was watching Melbourne Comedy Week, until I realized we were talking serious business here.

 

The problem with you LOB is that you never cited any verse or reference to buttress your position.

 

Ok, show me where I can buy the Bhagavad Gita that you said was imperative read so I can cogitate:deal: over truth. And I'm serious, ok

 

Malatiji, I am not a lumberjack to indulge in this cutting and pasting business. And most of my e-documents on Advaita Vedanta are in PDF, which does pose a kind of problem for quoting material and verses on this sort of forum. You want a reference, fine, consult the Gita translations with commentary of either the Chinmaya or Ramakrishna missions, and you shall see how sound and universalistic these are, compared with the exclusivist Semitic-type kanishtha sectarianism of the personal god sects. If I have some more time, I shall provide you with links in case I manage to locate these awesome texts online, because I only have access to hard copies of them as we speak.

[LoveroftheBhagavata 0]

Ganeshprasadbhai,

 

Better leave this idiotic thread and let them geezers delude themselves into thinking that their sorry shortage of gnosis is indeed the opposite of what we know it is. You and I would have more success teaching a monkey how to shave itself than to knock any quantity of sense in the minds of some present here. Yet, if they feel like gaining some shiksha that is worth the appellation, they do know where to find us.

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Pranam LoveroftheBhagavata ji

 

 

 

Ganeshprasadbhai,

 

Better leave this idiotic thread and let them geezers delude themselves into thinking that their sorry shortage of gnosis is indeed the opposite of what we know it is. You and I would have more success teaching a monkey how to shave itself than to knock any quantity of sense in the minds of some present here. Yet, if they feel like gaining some shiksha that is worth the appellation, they do know where to find us.

 

 

You are absolutely correct it is not worth arguing but then I can not sit ideally by when at every opportunity some of this so call learned guys and I don’t mean the present cbrahma, who cant even tell a difference between Gita and Bhagvat (sorry I don’t mean to hurt your feelings), but those high fliers who have no ideas or respect for Vedic Hindu culture, which is so diverse and beautiful, therefore it hurt when they abuse Hindus. There is a distinct lack of vivek in them, that in it self would not bother a lot of us, if only they got along with their sadhna, but no they have to have a dig at Hindus at every opertunity,when would they get of their high horse.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[cbrahma 0]

 

Pranam LoveroftheBhagavata ji

 

 

 

 

 

don’t mean the present cbrahma, who cant even tell a difference between Gita and Bhagvat (sorry I don’t mean to hurt your feelings), but those high fliers who have no ideas or respect for Vedic Hindu culture, which is so diverse and beautiful, therefore it hurt when they abuse Hindus.

Jai Shree Krishna

The highest horse has been ridden by yourself with your pompous groundless attacks. Bhagavad-Gita (notice the conjoining of both Bhagavat and Gita) is all that is needed to overthrow your pretentious claims.

A school boy could defeat them.

[cbrahma 0]

 

I spent nearly 15 years as a Vaishnava before recently kicking that hollow and empty doctrine to the dustbin, so I'm well familiar with all of Bhaktivedanta Swami's works, those of other GV and non-Gaudiya Vaishnava practitioners and whatever else you may think corroborates your rudimentary ideas on Vedic dharma. How much of personalism derives from the ancient Vedantic and Upanishadic basis and how much of it springs from the imagination of its medieval founders, I know infinitely more than you do, and could lecture you at great length about. If all you can do is to return my points against me, then I don't see the reason for continuing this ridiculous discussion. You can rave and rant all you want about what you think are Prabhupada's qualifications, the point is, his lack of scholarship is a frequent theme of discourse amongst academics who care to concern themselves with the metaphysical nonentity that Gaudiya Vaishnavism is. On this I close my case, but I would still advise you to ask tackleberry for that link to the Maadhvas' review of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is. It would do you a world of good in fact to peruse that one.

 

Then again, if you wish to learn more of true spirituality, message me privately, and I'll be happy to help increment your grasp of genuine mysticism.

Finally you show your true colors. Finally you make some attempt , as shoddy as it is, to make some sort of case. You are an obvious offender at the lotus feet of a saint , Srila Prabhupada. That is the substance of your so-called knowledgeable attack - which only confirms what was obvious from the beginning - ignorance spawned of hollow tamasic pride.

[Ganeshprasad 0]

 

The highest horse has been ridden by yourself with your pompous groundless attacks.

Ha, so groundless that you have not replied to any one my objection.

 

 

Bhagavad-Gita (notice the conjoining of both Bhagavat and Gita) is all that is needed to overthrow your pretentious claims.

A school boy could defeat them.

 

No so fast, see below your quote

 

 

 

You logically implied it, because I was quoting from the Bhagavatam and citing an authoritative translation. If it is Vedic, logically I am quoting the Vedas. I am going to fast for you?

 

 

 

Now you never quoted from Srimad Bhagavatam but sloka was from BhgvatGita, this error was pointed out to you but you are not clever enough to acknowledge that.

 

 

I made a small error, being a Guajarati we refer to Bhagvatam as Bhagvat, such a wonderful past times of Lord Shree Krishna narrated by Sukhdev Goswami to Parksit Maharj and Bagvat Gita literally translated as song of God.

 

You quoted sloka from Gita and clearly referred to it as Bhagvatam not once but twice, so grow up.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[cbrahma 0]

 

Ha, so groundless that you have not replied to any one my objection.

 

 

 

No so fast, see below your quote

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now you never quoted from Srimad Bhagavatam but sloka was from BhgvatGita, this error was pointed out to you but you are not clever enough to acknowledge that.

 

 

I made a small error, being a Guajarati we refer to Bhagvatam as Bhagvat, such a wonderful past times of Lord Shree Krishna narrated by Sukhdev Goswami to Parksit Maharj and Bagvat Gita literally translated as song of God.

 

You quoted sloka from Gita and clearly referred to it as Bhagvatam not once but twice, so grow up.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

You're so confused you project confusion on me.

Your objection consists of nothing but ad hominem attacks. Nothing to the point. Everbody who disagrees is simply ignorant and unschooled - no proof of your schooling at all.

I did not clearly refer to Gita as Bhagavatam. It was a typing error. When I copied the quote, I clearly understood it to be the Bhagavad Gita. You grasp at straws, as indeed drowning men do. The sloka from the Gita is sufficent to topple your objection and DOES address it. You are not honest enough to admit to it.

[Ganeshprasad 0]

 

You're so confused you project confusion on me.

I did not clearly refer to Gita as Bhagavatam.

 

 

You logically implied it, because I was quoting from the Bhagavatam and citing an authoritative translation. If it is Vedic, logically I am quoting the Vedas. I am going to fast for you?

 

I will not stoop to your level and call you names, i have nothing further to say to you, just ponder on two of your quotes and if you still think I confused you i am sorry.

 

Jai Shree and good bye

[cbrahma 0]

 

I will not stoop to your level and call you names, i have nothing further to say to you, just ponder on two of your quotes and if you still think I confused you i am sorry.

 

Jai Shree and good bye

Clearly referring would be 'the Gita is Bhagavatam'. As I explained, a point you conveniently ignored, it was a typographical mistake, of which you commit several. That is what I mean by confusion and misrepresentation of which you are a master.

You've done nothing but make personal attacks.

You dish it out but you can't take it. You are dishonest as you are puffed up. You are grasping at some pretext to wiggle out of your error. But it is painfully obvious to everybody.

Of course your typo is trivial, whereas mine is signficant. This is the basis of your entire thesis. How childish.

[tackleberry 1]

 

Yes, the correct Gita Press edition of the Bhagavata (Gita also, I may add), the one/s delineating the unquestionable veracity of the Advaitic conclusions thereof.

 

Gita press edition!:rofl: OMG, are you trying to be funny. Cuz it's working...

[kimfelix 0]

It's probably best to stop this now.

[CCC 0]

in three or four posts people are fighting... Too much solar activity?

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Pranam

 

 

Clearly referring would be 'the Gita is Bhagavatam'. As I explained, a point you conveniently ignored, it was a typographical mistake, of which you commit several. That is what I mean by confusion and misrepresentation of which you are a master.

You've done nothing but make personal attacks.

You dish it out but you can't take it. You are dishonest as you are puffed up. You are grasping at some pretext to wiggle out of your error. But it is painfully obvious to everybody.

Of course your typo is trivial, whereas mine is signficant. This is the basis of your entire thesis. How childish.

 

If you are trying to provoke me to stoop to your level its not working, this kind of tactics, a bully uses, to deflect from the real truth, well you are not going to sway me from it,

 

I will repeat my position here, Krishna does not condemn Deva worship any where in Gita, besides devas are not demigod ie. Half God. Veda does not speak of such entity

 

In the Bhagavadgita (or in any Hindu scripture), Lord Krishna NEVER uses the term “demigod” ~ the word only appears in misguided (and misleading) translations.

 

As an adjective, deva means “heavenly, divine, or highly excellent”.

 

As a noun, deva means God or Deity (cf. Latin DEVS ) ~ and deva is a common name for Lord Indra.

 

As a plural noun, devA refers to the Gods ~ especially the 33 prime Deities ~ and deva can refer generally to any image of Divinity or Deity.

 

Sanskrit DEVA is exactly cognate with Latin DEUS, which plainly indicates GOD.

 

The prefix DEMI- means HALF, so that DEMI-GOD means HALF-GOD or PARTLY GOD.

Why use such a belittling term for ANY Deity? Gods are Gods!

 

Indra is the King of Gods, Agni is the God of Fire, Sarasvati is the Goddess of Knowledge ~ there is NO half-measure about it.

 

And there is only ONE Mahadeva, who is certainly not a “partial” deity!

 

Agni is Fire ~ the perfect conception of Fire ~ and wherever the nature of Fire is present, there is Agnideva ~ the Fire God ~ the Lord of Fire ~ Fire in its essence ~ the very Self of Fire.

 

Terms such as “controller”, “administrator”, or “demigod”, are all rather pathetic titles for such a Deity.

 

And Lord Indra can not adequately be described as the “controller of rain”.

 

There is one Sun, but there are many Days ~ and all are Adityas.

 

One God with many aspects ~ all equally divine ~

By Sarabhanga.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[theist 1]

 

I will repeat my position here, Krishna does not condemn Deva worship any where in Gita, besides devas are not demigod ie. Half God. Veda does not speak of such entity

 

 

Krishna says:

 

TRANSLATION Gita 7.20

Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures.

 

Hardly an endorsement.

 

No such thing as a Half God. We agree here. The demigods are much much less than that. There is no comparison between the finite and the Supreme Lord.

[theist 1]

<dl><dt class="hwrd">Here is the online dictionary's definition.

</dt><dt class="hwrd">

</dt><dt class="hwrd">Main Entry:</dt><dd class="hwrd">demi·god </dd></dl> 1 : a mythological being with more power than a mortal but less than a god[God]

 

2 : a person so outstanding as to seem to approach the divine

 

The problem Gangeprasad is that you are not accepting of the Vaisnava conclusion and many of us are. We wll never accept what you say nor you what we say.

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Pranam

 

 

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=12 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center bgColor=#ffffff height=61>TRANSLATION Gita 7.20

Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures.

 

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Sorry very poor choice of Sloka, Krishna here is speaking of Jivas not condemning devas.

 

 

 

Hardly an endorsement.

 

You want endorsement here it is

 

Brahmaa, the creator, in the beginning created human beings together with Yajna and said: By Yajna you shall prosper and Yajna shall fulfill all your desires. (3.10)

Nourish the Devas with Yajna, and the Devas will nourish you. Thus nourishing one another you shall attain the Supreme goal. (3.11)

 

 

No such thing as a Half God. We agree here. The demigods are much much less than that.

There is no comparison between the finite and the Supreme Lord.

 

 

At last we agree on some thing but then if as you agree there is no demigod how can you reduce them to anything less? Mind bogles.

 

In any case I take the words of Arjun and the Vedas against yours in relation to supreme lord

 

vayur yamo 'gnir varunah sasankah

prajapatis tvam prapitamahas ca

namo namas te 'stu sahasra-krtvah

punas ca bhuyo 'pi namo namas te

 

You are Vaayu, Yama, Agni, Varuna, Shashaanka, and Brahmaa as well as the father of Brahmaa. Salutations to You a thousand times, and again and again salutations to You. (11.39)BG

 

RV 1.1.2

Agnih purvebhih rshibhih ido nutanaih uta

sa devan a iha vakshati

 

Agni ancient seers adorable new seers too.

 

Agni, adored by the ancient seers is adored by the news sages too. He brings the deva’s here. Agni is the divine will and is jatavata ( knows all births)

 

What to speak of Deva Dhi Deva Mahadeva.

Hardly a defination of finite being you like to reduce them to. Shame on those who try denigrate the Vedas.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Pranam

 

 

 

<DL><DT class=hwrd>Here is the online dictionary's definition.

 

 

<DT class=hwrd>

 

 

<DT class=hwrd>Main Entry:<DD class=hwrd>demi·god </DD></DL>1 : a mythological being with more power than a mortal but less than a god[God]

 

2 : a person so outstanding as to seem to approach the divine

 

I am not looking for defination of demigod, if you are able to provide me from Vedas defination of Devas that be appreciated.

 

 

 

The problem Gangeprasad is that you are not accepting of the Vaisnava conclusion and many of us are. We wll never accept what you say nor you what we say.

 

 

Problem is you want to build walls my friend, when non exists. If vaishnav, shaiva, dwaita, adwaita, wants to build walls I want no part of it, all I want to do is my Bhakti that is why I am a Hindu.

 

Knowing the whole field of dharma (cf. kurukshetram) the wise guru understands that many different paths are valid for different individual circumstances, but that (when all true paths are considered) there is ultimately no difference at all. And Hindu understanding has always been tempered by this overriding thought of ultimate unity.

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[cbrahma 0]

Ganeshp-- actually came up with a sloka to support his view - apart from his wholesale ad hominems.

The all-inclusiveness that he touts is contradicted by his exclusion of the GV siddhanta.

 

 

"From the highest planet in the material world, Brahma Loka, down to the lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains My abode never takes birth again."

This is the definition of God. He must be situated beyond time. The higher controlling devatas (Agni, Ganesha, Subrahmanya, etc.) have a life span of one kalpa (4,320,000,000 years). Brahma, the topmost material entity, has a life span equal to the life of the universe. When the universe is destroyed by Lord Shiva, even Brahma must face death and his karma, as all living entities do. Despite their tremendously long lives, still, having taken birth, they must also face death. Lord Krishna is "ajah" or unborn: ajo 'pi sann avyayatma. Whereas the devatas possess material bodies composed of subtle elements, Krishna's body is completely spiritual and not different from His self. Thus He is situated beyond birth and death. Lord Krishna's body is eternality (sat), knowledge (cit) and bliss

 

Agni is clearly not Visnu-tattva since he has a material body.

[theist 1]

Clearly we have no more to talk about Ganeshprasad. I am happy to leave you to your polytheistic view of reality and ultimate Advaita.

[LoveroftheBhagavata 0]

 

Finally you show your true colors. Finally you make some attempt , as shoddy as it is, to make some sort of case. You are an obvious offender at the lotus feet of a saint , Srila Prabhupada. That is the substance of your so-called knowledgeable attack - which only confirms what was obvious from the beginning - ignorance spawned of hollow tamasic pride.

 

Your so-called saint was himself an offender of the highest magnitude, devoting such an inordinate proportion of his simplistic theological lucubrations to belittling every other path besides his own. In the end, I cannot judge you too harshly. Being a lowborn, tamasika mleccha with no hope of salvation in this life and the next, you obviously view ACBSP as your saviour, which he is, and that probably explains why you're so smug in the shelter of your teeny-weeny Swami Prabhupada cocoon. As a veritable heir to the original Vedic tradition, I can only feel compassion for low life forms, and as such, this will be my ultimate contribution to this thread. No point in arguing with kids. I'm messaging you privately with something that in my evaluation should be mandatory reading for you.

 

Om Tat Sat

[LoveroftheBhagavata 0]

Lastly, cbrahma, just care to mull over this a little:

 

You can rave and rant all you want about what you think are Prabhupada's qualifications, the point is, his lack of scholarship is a frequent theme of discourse amongst academics who care to concern themselves with the metaphysical nonentity that Gaudiya Vaishnavism is.

[kimfelix 0]

Referring to the contempt some Hindus show for people born in lower castes, Vivekananda said, "How easy it is to speak glibly of Vedanta, how difficult to follow its least precept." I think it was Gandhi who said, "India was lost the day we invented the word mleccha". Contempt for others is always incompatible with advaita darshan. This is the powerful statement of verse 6 of the Ishavasya Upanishad.

[cbrahma 0]

LoveroftheB...

Your chronic and unsupportable arrogance is really boring.

Please go away. You can't even stick to your own conclusion that it is a waste of time to discuss with me....so stop responding and making yourself more ridiculous at every post.

I am putting you on my ignore list because it is necessary as you are an offender at the lotus feet of the greatest personality I have ever come in contact with - His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

[LoveroftheBhagavata 0]

And there go the much-touted "Vaishnava" superior, shuddha-sattvika qualities of forbearance and poise up in smoke! Truth Absolute can at times be quite unpalatable for many, and for this reason it is generally relegated to the backwaters by the masses who prefer to embrace less recondite conceptions and definitions of reality. Those who want to indulge themselves such are certainly free to do so!

 

 

Referring to the contempt some Hindus show for people born in lower castes, Vivekananda said, "How easy it is to speak glibly of Vedanta, how difficult to follow its least precept." I think it was Gandhi who said, "India was lost the day we invented the word mleccha". Contempt for others is always incompatible with advaita darshan. This is the powerful statement of verse 6 of the Ishavasya Upanishad.

 

 

I am in full concurrence with you on this one, and I am no casteist by any stretch of the imagination, not by a long, long, chalk. However, you seem to blithely gloss over the endless jibes and taunts that these Yank goras gratuitously sling at generic Hinduism, mainstream Hindus and our holy land of Bharata. If they cannot respect the cultural and spiritual milieu from which their own adopted mysticism stems, they only deserve to be put in their proper place. I surely have not the slightest regret for calling cbrahma a low life mleccha - he is one. And on this, I shall heed him and bid farewell to this fatuous "debate", more of a hullabaloo if you ask me; this is my final input here, and I pronounce in earnest that I won't be back, not even to read the replies anymore. Namaskar Ganeshprasadji.

 

PS: Malati, I shall provide you with the Ramakrishna and Chinmaya links, once I have them in handy. Pranams to you.

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Pranam

 

 

Clearly we have no more to talk about Ganeshprasad.

 

that’s ok, its your choice.

 

 

I am happy to leave you to your polytheistic view of reality and ultimate Advaita.

 

We can talk about reality for eternity, unfortunately it is beyond the realm of words, that is something one has to realize and experience for one self

I can not leave you with misconception about my view of that reality, I do not hold polytheistic view, if you hold Arjun’s Divya Darsan as polytheistic then so be it.

 

And if that’s is not enough

 

Others, who engage in sacrifice by the cultivation of knowledge, worship the Supreme Lord as the one without a second, as diverse in many, and in the universal form.BG.9.15

 

"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutman.

To what is One, sages give many a title they call him Agni, Yama, Matarisvan." RV (Book 1, Hymn 164.46)

"He in his might surveyed the floods containing productive force and generating Worship.

He is the God, and none beside him. What God shall we adore with our oblation?" RV (Book 10, Hymn 121.8)

Nor do I hold ultimate Advaita as my goal, what ever that may be, all I know is that he is one without a second, nothing can exist out side of him.

Jai Shree Krishna