Beware of Kali Temples - blood,alcohol and cigarette offerings

[cbrahma 0]

 

Once more, you evince complete unacquaintance with the extensive literatures penned by a number of other highly respected sadhus from diverse lineages, and in so doing, you confirm my initial conclusion that you're not to be taken seriously, since you have such an enormous amount of homework to do. By so stating, I am not diminishing Prabhupada's significant contribution, merely putting it in perspective.

 

What perspective? By contradicting his (Prabhupada's) and Krsna's statements on the subject of deva worship? So what if there are other opinions? What does that have to do with knowledge of spiritual philosophy?

[cbrahma 0]

 

cbrahma, give it up, man. As someone who relies solely on BBT publications, you're just not up to the task. Then again, such small-mindedness would be expected from a convert like yourself, one hailing from a narrow Biblical background.

You have no idea of what I've read. You are a rank speculator and an offender at the lotus feet of a pure devotee, and I don't mean me. I have read Prabhupada's books which consist of far more than magazines. Your characterization is simplistic and childish.

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Pranam

 

 

How is it my opinion when it is literally the words of Krsna and Srila Prabhupada. Read the sloka and the purport.

 

I have already answered to you regards Lord Krishna's words, fact that you have ignored it completely is because you have no answer to it.

 

sloka you have provided has an error you have failed to address.

 

purport and opinion when so biased i have no time for it.

 

Give me refrence from Vedas that Devas are half God then i concede.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[tackleberry 1]

 

Tackleberry, for a more historically verifiable and rational recounting of the Impersonalist-Personalist discourses that have taken place over the centuries, you could mind taking a trip to Shringeri Matha for a version that lies at 180 degrees from what your fellow beleaguered Maadhvas care to tell. Mark my words, you could be in for a jumpy ride, buddy, and possibly a change of faith, if yours is rather pliable.

 

Madhva's followers were advaitins, who converted after defeat to dvaitins. Some of them are Trivikrama Panditacharya, Padmanabha Tirtha. Since no dvaitin has ever been defeated, you'll find no mention (not in Sringeri or any other record) of any dvaitin converting to advaita. Sorry to disappoint you!

[cbrahma 0]

 

Pranam

 

 

 

I have already answered to you regards Lord Krishna's words, fact that you have ignored it completely is because you have no answer to it.

 

sloka you have provided has an error you have failed to address.

 

purport and opinion when so biased i have no time for it.

 

Give me refrence from Vedas that Devas are half God then i concede.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

You're talking in circles. Let me break it down for you.

Prabhapda translates deva as demigod. In fact for your benefit I will restate the relevant sloka.

 

kanksantah karmanam siddhim

yajanta iha devatah

ksipram hi manuse loke

siddhir bhavati karma-ja

SYNONYMS

kanksantah--desiring; karmanam--of fruitive activities; siddhim--perfection; yajante--worship by sacrifices; iha--in the material world; devatah--the demigods; ksipram--very quickly; hi--certainly; manuse--in human society; loke--within this world; siddhih bhavati--becomes successful; karma-ja--the fruitive worker.

 

 

TRANSLATION

 

 

 

Men in this world desire success in fruitive activities, and therefore they worship the demigods. Quickly, of course, men get results from fruitive work in this world.

 

Also in the purport

 

There is a great misconception about the gods or demigods of this material world, and men of less intelligence, although passing as great scholars, take these demigods to be various forms of the Supreme Lord. Actually, the demigods are not different forms of God, but they are God's different parts and parcels. God is one, and the parts and parcels are many. The Vedas say, nityo nityanam: God is one. Isvarah paramah krsnah. The Supreme God is one--Krsna--and the demigods are delegated with powers to manage this material world. These demigods are all living entities (nityanam) with different grades of material power. They cannot be equal to the Supreme God--Narayana, Visnu, or Krsna. Anyone who thinks that God and the demigods are on the same level is called an atheist, or pasandi.

None of this is my opinion, but the opinion of an educated man of god.

Clearly from these authorized statements Krsna is claiming that worship of the devas is materialistic. Prabhupada concurs.

What is your objection?

[tackleberry 1]

 

Quite typical nursery stuff of the Hare Krishna cult, the Johnny-come-lately of India's panoply of religions.

 

 

 

I would advise you to go back to high school in order to brush up on your English reading skills, since what I wrote is a million miles away from what you made of it. And oh, Advaitins lost time and again to the funny Madhvas, eh? I suppose that is what explains why Dvaita never gained a foothold outside of a few marginalised swathes of Kannada-desha, and why Tattvavadis are still dwarfed by Shankarites and Sri Vaishnavas, even though Madhva appeared and preached after Shankara and Ramanuja, which is partly why I counselled you to get a reality check in my message. Give me your email addy and I'll send you dozens of PDF files laying out logically the unquestionable and unimpeachable doctrinal foundations of Advaita. By the way, what kind of an id is that, tackleberry? Any particular reason for such a preposterous nick?

 

Going by your ridiculous logic, christianity must be the greatest religion because it has got billion followers. Advaita is nothing in comparison to christianity, right? Dvaita is only for satvik souls. And because there are more number of taamasa-s in the kali yuga, it isn't surprising that tamasic religions like advaita, christianity etc. have the highest membership.

 

And speak of logic and advaita...don't make me laugh. Jayatirtha, the foremost amongst the dvaita scholars, has shown how the flaw called 'upajivya virodha' destroys the very foundation of advaita, thus making every other pathetic attempt of the advaitins immaterial. But I don't want to hurt your feelings by exposing more and more of advaita's weaknesses. Read the KanDaNa Traya of Madhvacharya to get a better idea on how fragile advaita is.

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Pranam

 

 

You're talking in circles.

 

 

What! You have not answered any of my objection, so what circles are you on?

 

 

Let me break it down for you.

Prabhapda translates deva as demigod.

 

That does not make it right, prove to me from Vedas that devas are half god. Opinions have no value if you cant substantiate with Vedas after all devas are intergal part of Vedas.

 

 

In fact for your benefit I will restate the relevant sloka.

 

Who you trying to convince with that, first get the sloka right, I ask you again where does it say furtive ?

 

i know my benifit, i dont follow blindly on opinions.

 

 

None of this is my opinion, but the opinion of an educated man of god.

 

It is clear from this you can not think for your self, therefore any argument you put forward, you will deflect it on some else’s opinion, it is obvious I can not have any straight answers from you.

 

 

Clearly from these authorized statements Krsna is claiming that worship of the devas is materialistic. Prabhupada concurs.

 

This make no sense at all, for if I read it correctly, you are claiming Lord Krishna is basing his sloka on the statement of prabhupada that the worship of devas are materialistic.

 

 

 

What is your objection?

 

Stop making statements you cant defend.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[cbrahma 0]

 

That does not make it right, prove to me from Vedas that devas are half god. Opinions have no value if you cant substantiate with Vedas after all devas are intergal part of Vedas.

 

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

 

The Srimad Bhagavatam is not Vedic?

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Pranam

 

 

The Srimad Bhagavatam is not Vedic?

 

Did i say that?

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[cbrahma 0]

 

Pranam

 

 

 

Did i say that?

 

Jai Shree Krishna

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?

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Pranam

 

 

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?

 

Please gets your facts right, it was Bhagvat Gita sloka you quated.

Sloka that had an error, besides it does not prove Deva means Half God.

and opinion on the said sloka does not constitue facts.

Please dont go hungry on my account. instead chant an extra round of Hari naam and pray that we dont make judgement on Devas whose position we have no right to question.

Learn that Deva doen not equate to Half God.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[cbrahma 0]

 

Pranam

 

 

 

Please gets your facts right, it was Bhagvat Gita sloka you quated.

Sloka that had an error, besides it does not prove Deva means Half God.

and opinion on the said sloka does not constitue facts.

Please dont go hungry on my account. instead chant an extra round of Hari naam and pray that we dont make judgement on Devas whose position we have no right to question.

Learn that Deva doen not equate to Half God.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

Yes since, Bhagavad Gita is Veda, then I have quoted Vedas. You have, in your infantile posturing questioned it and called it in error. The burden of proof (do you know what that means) rests on you to refute the acaryas translation. It is hardly an established fact that it is in error simply because you say so. Who are you?

[LoveroftheBhagavata 0]

 

Going by your ridiculous logic, christianity must be the greatest religion because it has got billion followers. Advaita is nothing in comparison to christianity, right? Dvaita is only for satvik souls. And because there are more number of taamasa-s in the kali yuga, it isn't surprising that tamasic religions like advaita, christianity etc. have the highest membership.

 

And speak of logic and advaita...don't make me laugh. Jayatirtha, the foremost amongst the dvaita scholars, has shown how the flaw called 'upajivya virodha' destroys the very foundation of advaita, thus making every other pathetic attempt of the advaitins immaterial. But I don't want to hurt your feelings by exposing more and more of advaita's weaknesses. Read the KanDaNa Traya of Madhvacharya to get a better idea on how fragile advaita is.

 

Wake up, tackleboy. Dvaita "saints" have never been able to convert more than a handful, and all this circular reasoning on your part is just a regurgitation of propaganda that only the marginalised Tattvavadis believe. The fact is, Dvaita rests on a minuscule fringe of India's religious landscape, and you can throw all that you've got at me, I shall repeat - personalism is for the babies. Maybe in your next life, you shall wake up as to what constitutes true dharma. Madhvacharya's opinion matters as much to me as the posterior of a rodent, hence whatever he may hold as valid gets no traction with me.

[LoveroftheBhagavata 0]

 

Yes since, Bhagavad Gita is Veda, then I have quoted Vedas. You have, in your infantile posturing questioned it and called it in error. The burden of proof (do you know what that means) rests on you to refute the acaryas translation. It is hardly an established fact that it is in error simply because you say so. Who are you?

 

Give it up, cbrahma. You don't have it in yourself to win this discussion, as poor and as limited as your spiritual knowledge is. Your arguments are like those of somebody who's never been to school. Ask your pal tackleberry to provide you with the link of the Maadhvas' review of Prabhupada's Gita and you will be in for a shock, that much I assure you. Grab authentic translations of the BG and Bhagavata and it will be plain to you that these scriptures actually convey meanings that are a far cry from the simplistic, puerile ISKCONian cultism. Then again, keep cogitating over truth and perhaps in your next birth, you will get in contact with a real satguru.

[LoveroftheBhagavata 0]

 

You have no idea of what I've read. You are a rank speculator and an offender at the lotus feet of a pure devotee, and I don't mean me. I have read Prabhupada's books which consist of far more than magazines. Your characterization is simplistic and childish.

 

I suppose that you must've heard of the innumerable mistakes in his books (I never referred to magazines), hence the need for his senior disciples to edit these works. Your posts are so preposterous, cbrahma, that this will be my last reply to you. You are just not worth having a conversation with. If real religion interests you, message me privately and I will educate you all about it.

[LoveroftheBhagavata 0]

 

If you are going to attack somebody's education - you are certainly begging for them to lay down their credentials. You have no problem making such attacks on this forum but you won't declare your claims to education, that you constantly infer? Your childish arrogance is only superceded by your illogic.

 

The substance of your attack, as thin as it is, is really directed to Srila Prabhupada, my siksa guru, whose words you essentially are condescending to call infantile. Nevertheless you have to do much better than that to be convincing.

 

You have so much homework to do, man. And from this piece from you, it is clear that you haven't got a clue on what I'm talking about. Being an armchair GV follower, you are completely unaware of the countless criticisms that Bhaktivedanta's writings have received from Sanskritists, and for you to hang on to your original position in typical bible-bashing style, you thereby display your lack of maturity and knowledge. Wake up and get a reality check.

[tackleberry 1]

 

Wake up, tackleboy. Dvaita "saints" have never been able to convert more than a handful, and all this circular reasoning on your part is just a regurgitation of propaganda that only the marginalised Tattvavadis believe. The fact is, Dvaita rests on a minuscule fringe of India's religious landscape, and you can throw all that you've got at me, I shall repeat - personalism is for the babies. Maybe in your next life, you shall wake up as to what constitutes true dharma. Madhvacharya's opinion matters as much to me as the posterior of a rodent, hence whatever he may hold as valid gets no traction with me.

 

You seem to be more interested in who's converting who, which means you must accept christianity as superior to advaita, hinduism. Right?

[Malati dasi 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

[tackleberry 1]

 

Madhvacharya's opinion matters as much to me as the posterior of a rodent, hence whatever he may hold as valid gets no traction with me.

And you're a lover of bhagavata??

[suchandra 1]

 

You seem to be more interested in who's converting who, which means you must accept christianity as superior to advaita, hinduism. Right?

 

The soul has ultimately only one identity, servant of God.

 

"The spirit soul does not evolve like the body. The body has got six transformations, namely, the body takes its birth, it grows, it remains for some time, it produces some by-products and it dwindles and then it vanishes. All these six changes of the body are not applicable to the soul. The soul is permanent. It has no development, no decrease, no destruction, nothing of the sort as compared with the body. The only difficulty of the soul is that in the conditioned state of material body, the soul is supposed to forget its identity; by chanting Hare Krishna gradually the soul revives its identity or it comes out from the forgetfulness. This is not exactly development, but it is reviving one's consciousness."

 

SP letter to Ballabhi, May 5, 67

[cbrahma 0]

 

Give it up, cbrahma. You don't have it in yourself to win this discussion, as poor and as limited as your spiritual knowledge is. Your arguments are like those of somebody who's never been to school. Ask your pal tackleberry to provide you with the link of the Maadhvas' review of Prabhupada's Gita and you will be in for a shock, that much I assure you. Grab authentic translations of the BG and Bhagavata and it will be plain to you that these scriptures actually convey meanings that are a far cry from the simplistic, puerile ISKCONian cultism. Then again, keep cogitating over truth and perhaps in your next birth, you will get in contact with a real satguru.

I am not an 'ISKCONite'. I have read Prabhupada's books however and know his qualifications for writing them. How much of the Srimad Bhagavatam have you read? Or Bhaktivinode Thakur's Sri Caitanya-siksamrta? How much of the Vedas have you translated?

So far you have displayed no knowledge at all. You simply make pompous ad hominem pronouncements based on speculations about my relationship with ISKCON. Takleberry is a self-proclaimed ISKCONite and yet you speak on his behalf.

Your pompous declarations prove nothing and furthermore one need only the Bhagavad Gita to refute the claim about worshiping the 'devatas'.

You don't even have the elementary school understanding of what you are debating.

[cbrahma 0]

 

I suppose that you must've heard of the innumerable mistakes in his books (I never referred to magazines), hence the need for his senior disciples to edit these works. Your posts are so preposterous, cbrahma, that this will be my last reply to you. You are just not worth having a conversation with. If real religion interests you, message me privately and I will educate you all about it.

You have not displayed the qualifications of a siksa. Why would I want to be tutored by you? You are all attitude and no substance.

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Pranam

 

 

Yes since, Bhagavad Gita is Veda, then I have quoted Vedas.

 

Hardly a proof coming from someone who can't tell difference between Gita and Bhagvat. you are not worth my time discussing something, as it is obvious you are incapable of understanding it.

 

 

You have, in your infantile posturing questioned it and called it in error.

 

Again you are twisting my words, what else can I expect from likes of you.

I can never question Bhagvat Gita nor did I call it an error. Are you able to tell the difference between me questioning your opinion and translation thereof and my actual holding Bhagvat Gita to highest esteem.

 

 

The burden of proof (do you know what that means) rests on you to refute the acaryas translation. It is hardly an established fact that it is in error simply because you say so. Who are you?

 

In that case be an adult and find me from the sloka that you provided that says FRUTIVE, and while you are at it quote from Vedas that devas are half God and remember that opinions are no proof.

 

Unless you can do this please do not expect me to respond, goodbye and be happy in your opinion.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[LoveroftheBhagavata 0]

 

I am not an 'ISKCONite'. I have read Prabhupada's books however and know his qualifications for writing them. How much of the Srimad Bhagavatam have you read? Or Bhaktivinode Thakur's Sri Caitanya-siksamrta? How much of the Vedas have you translated?

So far you have displayed no knowledge at all. You simply make pompous ad hominem pronouncements based on speculations about my relationship with ISKCON. Takleberry is a self-proclaimed ISKCONite and yet you speak on his behalf.

Your pompous declarations prove nothing and furthermore one need only the Bhagavad Gita to refute the claim about worshiping the 'devatas'.

You don't even have the elementary school understanding of what you are debating.

 

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.

[LoveroftheBhagavata 0]

[quoteAnd you're a lover of bhagavata??]