Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Religions With No Meaning

Rate this topic


Sonic Yogi

Recommended Posts

Srila Prabhupada:

 

S.B 8.8.21

 

 

We actually see that there are many Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists and religionists of other cults who adhere to their religious principles very nicely but are not equal to all living entities. Indeed, although they profess to be very religious, they kill poor animals. Such religion has no meaning.

 

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 8.8.21

 

dharmaḥ kvacit tatra na bhūta-sauhṛdaḿ

 

tyāgaḥ kvacit tatra na mukti-kāraṇam

 

vīryaḿ na puḿso 'sty aja-vega-niṣkṛtaḿ

 

na hi dvitīyo guṇa-sańga-varjitaḥ

 

SYNONYMS

 

dharmaḥ — religion; kvacit — one may have full knowledge of; tatra — therein; na — not; bhūta-sauhṛdam — friendship with other living entities; tyāgaḥ — renunciation; kvacit — one may possess; tatra — therein; na — not; mukti-kāraṇam — the cause of liberation; vīryam — power; na — not; puḿsaḥ — of any person; asti — there may be; aja-vega-niṣkṛtam — no release from the power of time; na — nor; hi — indeed; dvitīyaḥ — the second one; guṇa-sańga-varjitaḥ — completely freed from the contamination of the modes of nature.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Someone may possess full knowledge of religion but still not be kind to all living entities. In someone, whether human or demigod, there may be renunciation, but that is not the cause of liberation. Someone may possess great power and yet be unable to check the power of eternal time. Someone else may have renounced attachment to the material world, yet he cannot compare to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore, no one is completely freed from the influence of the material modes of nature.

 

 

 

 

The statement dharmaḥ kvacit tatra na bhūta-sauhṛdam is very important in this verse. We actually see that there are many Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists and religionists of other cults who adhere to their religious principles very nicely but are not equal to all living entities. Indeed, although they profess to be very religious, they kill poor animals. Such religion has no meaning. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.2.8) says:

 

dharmaḥ svanuṣṭhitaḥ puḿsāḿ

 

viṣvaksena-kathāsu yaḥ

 

notpādayed yadi ratiḿ

 

śrama eva hi kevalam

 

One may be very expert in following the religious principles of his own sect, but if he has no tendency to love the Supreme Personality of Godhead, his observance of religious principles is simply a waste of time. One must develop a sense of loving Vāsudeva (vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti sa mahātmā sudurlabhaḥ [bg. 7.19]). The sign of a devotee is that he is a friend to everyone (suhṛdaḿ sarva-bhūtānām). A devotee will never allow a poor animal to be killed in the name of religion. This is the difference between a superficially religious person and a devotee of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

except god all things in this cosmos are relative , including our own sensory perceptions .concepts such as being 'meaningful' or 'meaningless' are also our own sensory perceptions which is heavily influenced by our society ,cultural values , age of understanding , degree of intelligence and numerous other factors.

 

what is meaningfull to us maybe meaningless to some other cultures . an eskimo survives by hunting seals and living on flesh for there is hardly any vegetation to thrive on except dry lichens in their area . naturally going vegetarian would be absurd and meanigless to them .

 

these things vary from place to place ....... there can never be an universal denominator of what is meaning full and what not .

 

 

this is my personal understanding with due respect to all acharyas......:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

except god all things in this cosmos are relative , including our own sensory perceptions .concepts such as being 'meaningful' or 'meaningless' are also our own sensory perceptions which is heavily influenced by our society ,cultural values , age of understanding , degree of intelligence and numerous other factors.

 

what is meaningfull to us maybe meaningless to some other cultures . an eskimo survives by hunting seals and living on flesh for there is hardly any vegetation to thrive on except dry lichens in their area . naturally going vegetarian would be absurd and meanigless to them .

 

these things vary from place to place ....... there can never be an universal denominator of what is meaning full and what not .

 

 

this is my personal understanding with due respect to all acharyas......:)

 

Sure, but that isn't going to stop the Eskimo from becoming a seal in his next life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

except god all things in this cosmos are relative , including our own sensory perceptions .concepts such as being 'meaningful' or 'meaningless' are also our own sensory perceptions which is heavily influenced by our society ,cultural values , age of understanding , degree of intelligence and numerous other factors.

 

what is meaningfull to us maybe meaningless to some other cultures . an eskimo survives by hunting seals and living on flesh for there is hardly any vegetation to thrive on except dry lichens in their area . naturally going vegetarian would be absurd and meanigless to them .

 

these things vary from place to place ....... there can never be an universal denominator of what is meaning full and what not .

 

 

this is my personal understanding with due respect to all acharyas......:)

 

There happens to a perfect,faultless law called the law of Karma,governed by the Supersoul Who is seated within every living entity.Now,this Supersoul,being Himself Infinte and omniscient and omnipotent,allots the various bodies to the living entities according to their karma.If you do not accept this,you must join the 'evolutionists' ranks.

 

If you DO accept this,an eskimo being compelled to eat meat is justified.Relativity has absolutely nothing to do with this.Infact,the position of the various living entities are solely dependent on their sanchit karma.A limited person like you or me may only view it as random,but actually,it is a consequential and fair system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sure, but that isn't going to stop the Eskimo from becoming a seal in his next life.

 

And that is a problem, why?

 

Anyway, I ate an orange this morning. Am i becoming an orange in my next life?

 

Meat eaters generally eat different types of meats, poultry, seafood, etc - all in a single lifetime. If x ate a chicken, a goat, a pig and a fish, which one of these is he becoming in his next life? If there is a BG verse addressing this question, please quote.

 

Simpler to say, any religion that does not align with my own beliefs has "no meaning". The funny thing is, all those "meaningless" religions also make the same criticism about other religions, including the OPs.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And that is a problem, why?

 

 

It's not a problem for me, because I don't eat seals and fish.

I am on the path to immortality.

I am not interested in becoming a seal, walrus or Polar bear in my next life.

 

There is no karma in taking an orange off the tree because the tree is not harmed.

You don't have to kill the tree to take the orange.

You don't kill the grain to get the grain. The grain plant is already dead at harvest time.

 

So, karma is a bitch and violence to animals is BAD karma that I want NOTHING to do with.

 

Being a seal is no fun.

Maybe you think it is a nice and happy life, but that is just ignorant.

 

It's not about what you eat that determines your next life, but how much violence and bloodshed that you practice in sustaining your life.

 

Violence to animals will come back on you and in your next life you will become the animal that you killed for the satisfaction of an out of control tongue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is no karma in taking an orange off the tree because the tree is not harmed.

You don't have to kill the tree to take the orange.

You don't kill the grain to get the grain. The grain plant is already dead at harvest time.

 

i think thats not a proper answer ........

 

how do you understand of plants which are eaten whole ? like spinach for example . in india there are an innumerable variety of similar edible plants which are uprooted and cooked to be served with steaming rice . what about them ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

i think thats not a proper answer ........

 

how do you understand of plants which are eaten whole ? like spinach for example . in india there are an innumerable variety of similar edible plants which are uprooted and cooked to be served with steaming rice . what about them ?

 

That is where we turn to the shastra for guidance.

In shastra it is given that fruit, vegetables, milk, beans and grains etc. are the foods that mankind can offer to Krishna and take as their food.

What ever Krishna says is acceptable is our guideline.

 

Krishna does not accept meat, fish or eggs.

It is well known in the Vaishnava culture what foods can be offered to God and taken as food.

 

Krishna does not accept meat.

So, meat is not an acceptable food lest severe karma will ensue.

 

God has given certain foods for human consumption and it is well described in shastra.

Mankind can prepare and offer these foods to Krishna and eat them without karmic penalty and in fact make spiritual advancement by taking the remnants of food offered to Krishna.

 

God decides the diet of mankind and we are supposed to eat the foods that God (Krishna) has ordained.

He accepts the plants and vegetables and relieves the person who offers these foods from any karma involved in killing the plant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by sambya

"there can never be an universal denominator of what is meaning full and what not ."

 

This is definitively False!

 

There is universal denominators for EVERYTHING--not just in science and arithmatics.

 

But, subjectively you can claim anything you'd like to --but, you still have to pay your taxes and die. Hey, some pay their taxes and then are executed.

 

Yet, Liberty is allowed in countries that deem liberty a universal denominator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That is where we turn to the shastra for guidance.

In shastra it is given that fruit, vegetables, milk, beans and grains etc. are the foods that mankind can offer to Krishna and take as their food.

What ever Krishna says is acceptable is our guideline.

 

Krishna does not accept meat, fish or eggs.

It is well known in the Vaishnava culture what foods can be offered to God and taken as food.

 

 

yes i know that .

 

killing plants for sake of eating would also produce bad karma . however in order to erase its ill effects we first offer this to krishna and take the prasadam . the underlying thought is somewhat like remembering the creator before consuming the created .

 

so what if a person offers some goat to devi in sacrifice and takes the remmnants as prasadam . here also the underlying thought remains the same . that is - he want to eat meat but is unable to do so for the fear of accumulating bad karma . so he remembers his creator in form of devi and accepts her consecrated food which can no longer affect him with bad karma .

 

if the karma dosha of killing vegetables and plants are eradicated by simply offering it to supreme purusha as krishna , why cant the karma dosha of killing animals be eradicated by offering it to the supreme prakriti as devi ?

 

and specially when sacrifice is in accordance with shastric norms ( not vaishnav shastra norms ) .

 

i would like to mention that personally im a vegetarian .........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

so he remembers his creator in form of devi and accepts her consecrated food which can no longer affect him with bad karma .

 

 

But, it does produce karma.

In the goat offering to Kali, the ritual is for her satisfaction alone and the person who sacrifices the goat is not supposed to eat the flesh of the goat.

 

The idea of sacrificing the goat to Kali for the purposes of eating the meat will render the sacrifice as ineffective.

Kali will not accept that offering if it is offered with ulterior motives of personal meat eating.

So, in other words, most offerings to Kali are unsuccessful and the eaters of the goat meat all suffer the Karma.

 

Slaughterhouses posing as Kali prasad distributors are purely a fraud.

 

Kali does not accept such impure offerings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In the goat offering to Kali, the ritual is for her satisfaction alone and the person who sacrifices the goat is not supposed to eat the flesh of the goat.

 

the vast majority of shakta texts like kalika purana etc and tantras call this meat mahaprasad which should be dealt with utmost reverence .

 

 

 

The idea of sacrificing the goat to Kali for the purposes of eating the meat will render the sacrifice as ineffective.

Kali will not accept that offering if it is offered with ulterior motives of personal meat eating.

 

this is not the case both in practice and shakta scriptures and tantra .

 

 

Slaughterhouses posing as Kali prasad distributors are purely a fraud.

 

Kali does not accept such impure offerings.

 

this is very true !!!

 

in calcutta you do run a chance to come across a meat shop with a deity of kali inside to give the customers a false impression that this meat is prasadi meat .

 

in any case , im not concerned with such cases .

here i was speaking of genuine puja offerings ......

 

 

but all this didnt provide an explanation to my doubt ---

if the karma dosha of killing vegetables and plants are eradicated by simply offering it to supreme purusha as krishna , why cant the karma dosha of killing animals be eradicated by offering it to the supreme prakriti as devi ?

 

ultimately the thought behind the two is the same !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are swallowing and killing countless bacteris with every breath you take. By your logic, you should be born as bacteria for your next million lives.

 

 

Krishna does not accept meat, fish or eggs.

 

Where did he say that?

 

 

It is well known in the Vaishnava culture what foods can be offered to God and taken as food.

 

There are Vaishnava cultures which do not accept beets as valid food. Onion, garlic, etc., etc.,...the list of unacceptable foods is long.

 

Now show me where Krishna said he does not accept eggs, beets, onions, etc. There is a world of difference between "Krishna said so" and "some Guru in my line said so".

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You are swallowing and killing countless bacteris with every breath you take. By your logic, you should be born as bacteria for your next million lives.

 

 

 

Where did he say that?

 

 

 

There are Vaishnava cultures which do not accept beets as valid food. Onion, garlic, etc., etc.,...the list of unacceptable foods is long.

 

Now show me where Krishna said he does not accept eggs, beets, onions, etc. There is a world of difference between "Krishna said so" and "some Guru in my line said so".

 

Cheers

 

If I supplied all good answers to your questions you still would not accept it, so I am not going to bother.

You aren't looking for answers, you are looking for argument.

 

I see no reason to try and supply you with good answers.

It would be a futile waste of my time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Shazam, Sarge!

 

If I supplied all good answers to your questions you still would not accept it, so I am not going to bother.

You aren't looking for answers, you are looking for argument.

 

The sad thing is that Sambya & Kaisersose thing WE are STUPID . . . now why is that?

 

Thanks for the question. I'll explain why.

 

The number of reasons are obviously too many, so pardon me for mentioning only a few (in no specific order).

 

1) For opening threads titled "meaningless religions", "Mayavada is false", "Hinduism is not a religion", etc... in a general spiritual forum.

2) For not being able to grasp the simple fact that similar criticisms can and do render your own religion as "meaningless".

3) For not realizing that, there is absolutely no benefit in nit-picking on others by starting such dumb threads.

4) For making up stuff as you go along that Krishna does not accept eggs, etc., without evidence and failing to realize that you are kidding yourself more than anyone else.

5) For believing without evidence that the eskimo will be born as a seal in his next life.

 

All these are reasons from this thread alone. Now imagine how long the list would be, if we were to begin inspecting other threads!

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silly topic, so far. But the title got me, so here goes. The eskimo religion is just as valid as even those who profess hare krsna-ism. Both are suggested to give up all varieties of such religions and surrender to god. So we may even have one having a useless religion (hare krsna) who cannot give up religiosity even though his main shastra tells him to do so, and a blubber eating devotee eskimo who has given up his religion in favor of surrendering to the supreme lord.

 

There is no limit to kali's influence on religion in this age. The gold standard is well described in the chapter where King Pariksit faces off with the personality of kali yuga. Religions are largely based on the gold standard, thus useless. My experiances with hare krsna directly was fully involved with gold, and we see how that pollution led to the other horrors that are associated with it, the drugs, the sexual deviancy, the dishonesty associated with gambling, and the eating of karma laced food (not whale blubber, which is eaten to sustain life, rather, the gobs of so-called prasadam which turned many a sanyassi into blobs of blubber themselves. Eating to live is basically karma free, because we are provided with what we need. If one lives on ice year around, why should I get on a fanatic binge and call him hell bound because he doesnt eat sweet rice and gulabjamins? But many a so-called devotee lives to eat, his whole life is based on how he satisfies the tongue, and no amount of criticizing others will remove the stain of hypocricy from his heart. Makes me think even more of how Lord jesus admonished his disciples' food fanaticism, saying "It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles the man, it is what comes out of the mouth."

 

Srila Prabhupada required many things from his disciples, which also included avoiding certain types of food not fit for offering to Krsna. Goats, blubber, cows, bloodmeal, not good for his disciples, not because of karma associated with procuring such food, rather it does not meet the standard as to what is accepted by Krsna. Besides, freedom from karma is not what the movement is about anyway, because if one says the name of Krsna just once, without offense, all karma is gone anyway.

 

Religion is for rascals, and hare krsna religionists are no different than Islamic jihadists, right wing anti-christians, chosen people zionists, and hindus who think the whole world is going to animal life because they refuse to follow them. Religion means a demand to follow human beings, thus God tells Arjuna to abandon such MANipulation and simply surrender to Him. Tell ya honestly, the highest devotees Ive met are abos (indigenous peoples from all cultures), and Im apalled at the slamming they take from so-called vaisnavas who have no mercy, no compassion, just exclusive religiosity.

 

hare krsna, better to eat blubber than to become blubber. mahak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

silly topic, so far. But the title got me, so here goes. The eskimo religion is just as valid as even those who profess hare krsna-ism. Both are suggested to give up all varieties of such religions and surrender to god. So we may even have one having a useless religion (hare krsna) who cannot give up religiosity even though his main shastra tells him to do so, and a blubber eating devotee eskimo who has given up his religion in favor of surrendering to the supreme lord.

 

There is no limit to kali's influence on religion in this age. The gold standard is well described in the chapter where King Pariksit faces off with the personality of kali yuga. Religions are largely based on the gold standard, thus useless. My experiances with hare krsna directly was fully involved with gold, and we see how that pollution led to the other horrors that are associated with it, the drugs, the sexual deviancy, the dishonesty associated with gambling, and the eating of karma laced food (not whale blubber, which is eaten to sustain life, rather, the gobs of so-called prasadam which turned many a sanyassi into blobs of blubber themselves. Eating to live is basically karma free, because we are provided with what we need. If one lives on ice year around, why should I get on a fanatic binge and call him hell bound because he doesnt eat sweet rice and gulabjamins? But many a so-called devotee lives to eat, his whole life is based on how he satisfies the tongue, and no amount of criticizing others will remove the stain of hypocricy from his heart. Makes me think even more of how Lord jesus admonished his disciples' food fanaticism, saying "It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles the man, it is what comes out of the mouth."

 

Srila Prabhupada required many things from his disciples, which also included avoiding certain types of food not fit for offering to Krsna. Goats, blubber, cows, bloodmeal, not good for his disciples, not because of karma associated with procuring such food, rather it does not meet the standard as to what is accepted by Krsna. Besides, freedom from karma is not what the movement is about anyway, because if one says the name of Krsna just once, without offense, all karma is gone anyway.

 

Religion is for rascals, and hare krsna religionists are no different than Islamic jihadists, right wing anti-christians, chosen people zionists, and hindus who think the whole world is going to animal life because they refuse to follow them. Religion means a demand to follow human beings, thus God tells Arjuna to abandon such MANipulation and simply surrender to Him. Tell ya honestly, the highest devotees Ive met are abos (indigenous peoples from all cultures), and Im apalled at the slamming they take from so-called vaisnavas who have no mercy, no compassion, just exclusive religiosity.

 

hare krsna, better to eat blubber than to become blubber. mahak

Sounds like a lot of speculation with no shastric basis.

I guess some people think that guru, sadhu and shastra are irrelevant and whatever our mind spits out is the reality of the day.

 

I started the topic with quotes from Srila Prabhupada an acharya of the Gaudiya sampradaya.

You call it silly and go on a mental rant with all sorts of speculation.

 

Sorry, but I still consider guru, sadhu and shastra superior to mental speculation and frivolous thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

IndiaDivine Telegram Group IndiaDivine WhatsApp Group


×
×
  • Create New...