Sonic Yogi Posted March 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 My point with this topic is to show that even though Srila Prabhupada gave all respect to Jesus, Mohammad and Buddha, he gives NO respect or credibility to the pseudo-religions that go on in their names. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisersose Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 My point with this topic is to show that even though Srila Prabhupada gave all respect to Jesus, Mohammad and Buddha, he gives NO respect or credibility to the pseudo-religions that go on in their names. So what's new? That is an age old tactic of separating the founder from everything around him, with the objective of criticism. The Buddha was a super-duper guy, but Buddhism is false. Shankara was an avatar, but his religion is false. People who folllow his teachings are evil. Jesus was a pure Vaishnava, but his followers are hell bound.. Prabhupada was a wonder, but his organization is corrupt... In my opinion, this separation is rooted in cowardice (aka fear of Aparadha). Lacking guts to criticize the founder for he has attained celebrity status, this separation is a little cunning trick. But it doesn't fool anyone. Criticizing Christians is no different from criticizing Jesus and criticizing the evil Mayavadins is the same as criticizing Shankara. If anyone was fooled by this trick, he should take go take an IQ test and enroll in special ed. And finally, how is this thread any different from the countless "holier than thou" threads started on this forum by fanatic Hare Krishnas in the past? Theist used to lead this pack, but as he has disappeared for sometime now, others are taking his place. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted April 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 So what's new? That is an age old tactic of separating the founder from everything around him, with the objective of criticism. The Buddha was a super-duper guy, but Buddhism is false. Shankara was an avatar, but his religion is false. People who folllow his teachings are evil. Jesus was a pure Vaishnava, but his followers are hell bound.. Prabhupada was a wonder, but his organization is corrupt... In my opinion, this separation is rooted in cowardice (aka fear of Aparadha). Lacking guts to criticize the founder for he has attained celebrity status, this separation is a little cunning trick. But it doesn't fool anyone. Criticizing Christians is no different from criticizing Jesus and criticizing the evil Mayavadins is the same as criticizing Shankara. If anyone was fooled by this trick, he should take go take an IQ test and enroll in special ed. And finally, how is this thread any different from the countless "holier than thou" threads started on this forum by fanatic Hare Krishnas in the past? Theist used to lead this pack, but as he has disappeared for sometime now, others are taking his place. Cheers Theist never lead any pack. His is a relative unknown who never really committed to ISKCON or got initiated. I gave 8 years of my life to the mission of Krishna consciousness missionary work. What is your background? What have you done in your life in the cause of spiritual culture, or are you just some big mouth armchair philosopher who never did anything except casually intrude into spiritual matters that are way over your pointed head? What is your favorite beer? Cheers................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 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 __________________ really nice . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 So what's new? That is an age old tactic of separating the founder from everything around him, with the objective of criticism. The Buddha was a super-duper guy, but Buddhism is false. Shankara was an avatar, but his religion is false. People who folllow his teachings are evil. Jesus was a pure Vaishnava, but his followers are hell bound.. Prabhupada was a wonder, but his organization is corrupt... In my opinion, this separation is rooted in cowardice (aka fear of Aparadha). Lacking guts to criticize the founder for he has attained celebrity status, this separation is a little cunning trick. But it doesn't fool anyone. great analyzation ............ correct Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 What is your background?What have you done in your life in the cause of spiritual culture, or are you just some big mouth armchair philosopher who never did anything except casually intrude into spiritual matters that are way over your pointed head? leading "the cause of spiritual culture" is perhaps not that easy . im just thinking of a very practical proverb in bengal which means that in order to teach religion to others one must practice it himself . i dont mean to suggest that you dont !! i only wish to mention that preaching religion is possible only by uchha adhikari's who have had god realization . not having reached that stage and still preaching and instructing people would not fall short of hypocrisy .......think rationally !!! this is what ramakrishna said of such incidents . " there was a village pond where all villagers would gather to fetch water and take a bath etc . now it so happened that certain individuals were commiting nuisance near its bank everyday early in the morning hours . later when people gathered for bath they used to protest and shout . but no avail .... things continued as before . finally one day a police came there and stuck a notice -- commit no nuisance on the banks . from the next day everything stopped . one must have the authority to preach if he wants people to follow it . " and you can see the results of ineffective preaching all over the globe . crumbling religions , decaying religious organisations , lack to followers etc etc . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amlesh Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Theist never lead any pack.His is a relative unknown who never really committed to ISKCON or got initiated. Me too.. so tell what is the parameter to be so-called qualified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 What Is God According To U Sambhya JI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gadadhara dasa (rus) Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 I gave 8 years of my life to the mission of Krishna consciousness missionary work. That's not a small thing, this means a lot of dedication to your Guru. Did this make you better? Did it help to grow your Krishna-bhakti? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gadadhara dasa (rus) Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 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. This is not a geniune idea of offering foodstuff to God. This sounds like using your ista-devata as some karma-free food production facility. So your comparison may not be justified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 hare krsna, better to eat blubber than to become blubber. mahak very good post, mahak prabhu... Eskimos used to thank animals they killed for sacrificing themselves to sustain their clan, inviting their spirits to take birth among their tribe. Reincarnation was a fact of life for them, and when a new child was born they were looking for clues as to which departed member of the tribe took birth again among them. Memory of past lives was common among eskimo children, and while they sometimes were born as animals, it was not because they ate meat, but because they aspired to lead a life of such creatures. The ignorance and arrogance of many Hare Krsnas is often very painful to see but Krsna is definitely teaching us all a lesson. The surplus of blubber on many of our 'sannyasi' members is not the worst thing that happened to our movement. You can look at this forum and see it first hand: Scores of voices questioning the bogus interpretations of shastra by so many of our members. People are not stupid and especially people who know shastra can not be fooled easily by pompous pretenders. Our movement has very little credibility in the outside world. If you add to this all the inside tensions and controversies, we will be lucky if our movement survives the next 50 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Quote: <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by bhaktajan 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? </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> kaisersose responded: 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 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Bhaktajan's response to kaisersose: Pardon my response and the wholly intended insult to your presence on these forums: "YOU DO NOT BELONG HERE!" I'm sure you have many good traits, but that is not the point --if you do have differing opinions --that would be welcomed and considered very interesting, but . . . But, your "contrarian" opinions do not arise from ordinary petty grevances. Your "contrarian" opinions are obtrusive and overbearing in there faux credibility. You are simply contradicting everything --and seeming to pass it off as 'intellectual' musings. You think that I, a bonefide Hare Krishna Chanting vegetarian Krishna Loving Bhagavad-gita reading Vaishnava servant devotee of devotee, since 1980, who is a sincere fallen fool, cannot recognise bull dung when you speak it? You think that I, after 29 years, do not know I have studied the BONEFIDE ways of Karma, reincarnation, religiosity, dharma, penance, Vedic scholarship, temple/ashram life, how to recognise a 'holy man' and a 'Holy movement' and the difference between that and the sensationalism of daily tabloid's propagandaising stool brain inspiried adverts? Go save your economy and leave work that is suitable to learned brains to do their thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 There is a spiritual sky. There is another nature, which is beyond manifestation and nonmanifestation. But how will you know that there is a sky where the planets and inhabitants are eternal? All this knowledge is there, but how will you make experiments? It is not possible. Therefore you have to take the assistance of the Vedas. This is called Vedic knowledge. In our Krishna consciousness movement we are accepting knowledge from the highest authority, <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comKrishna</st1:place>. <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> is accepted as the highest authority by all classes of men. I am speaking first of the two classes of transcendentalists. One class of transcendentalists is called impersonalistic, Mayavadi. They are generally known as Vedantists, led by Sankaracarya. And there is another class of transcendentalists, called Vaisnavas, like Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnu-svami. Both the Sankara-sampradaya (disciplic succession) and the Vaisnava-sampradaya (disciplic succession) have accepted <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Sankaracarya is supposed to be an impersonalist who preached impersonalism, impersonal Brahman, but it is a fact that he is a covered personalist. In his commentary on the Bhagavad-gita he wrote, “Narayana, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is beyond this cosmic manifestation.” And then again he confirmed, “That Supreme Personality of Godhead, Narayana, is <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place>. He has come as the son of Devaki and Vasudeva.” He particularly mentioned the names of His father and mother. So <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead by all transcendentalists. There is no doubt about it. Our source of knowledge in Krishna consciousness is the Bhagavad-gita, which comes directly from <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place>. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 What Is God According To U Sambhya JI the answer would be -- i dont know yet . if only i could !!!!!! but yes !! i can give you an idea from as much as i have read in the books and scriptures and essentially as per my understanding . obviously there can be no two gods , for such a concept would instantly render the entire concept of god as bogus . now who is this true god ? well , not going into other faiths if we concentrate on sanatana dharma , or hinduism as we put it today , we shall see that this position is allotted to a phenomeneon named brahman which can never be described in totality . he is everything , simply everything . then what about all these dieties ? ans-- if god cannot be two then all of them must be the same brahman also . but then why is this difference ? ans--thats because one perieves brahman as he wants to percieve . to a devotee of krishna brahman is none other than krishna . and so on with other dieties . so is brahman nirakaar nirguna or saakar saguna ? ans--as per my readings he is both as any point of time . he is as much nirakaar as much he is saakar . and to call him only saakar or only niraakaar would limit him . this in turn would make the infinite finite and hence not god . so brahman must be both simultaneously . the problem arises when the advaitists try to proclaim that brahman is only niraakaar or vaishnavs try to proclaim that brahman is only saakaar or hare krishnas try to proclaim that brahmaan is but a kind bodily effulgence of krishna !! but then are we suppose to pray to all these deities ? ans-- no !!! we dedicate our lives only to that deity towards whom we find our natural attraction since childhood . and if we dont have any amount of natural acttraction for any deity whatsoever then i guess its not time to turn spiritual !! this is called ones ishta or chosen deity . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 but krishna says in geeta he is base of brahman besides if god is brahman we are also brahman as written in geeta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 This is not a geniune idea of offering foodstuff to God. This sounds like using your ista-devata as some karma-free food production facility. So your comparison may not be justified. oh really ? how do you explain the four set of jagannath deities sitting there inside the hot kitchen and consecrating tonnes of rice and other foodstuffs two times daily in the four main dinner halls of mayapur dham iskcon headquarters ???????????? isnt this transcendental kitchen duty ??!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 but krishna says in geeta he is base of brahman besides if god is brahman we are also brahman as written in geeta couldnt get you properly !!! anyways , what the problem there ? its perfectly true . just as i said saakaar and niraakaar are just two different sides of the same brahman . so why cant the niraakaar brahman be a part of saakar brahman(brahman part of krishna) ? there is absolutely no contradiction !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 ya i got it thanx but what im trying to say itsthat atman elf is brahman and advait says that everything is brahman so wheres the god. shakt and shaiva are advait so according to them one becomes brahman after you get moksh according to this path am i right? but krishna bhakts enter into lila with krishna they say that we are originally soulmates with krishna andou have forgotten r condition. according to shaiva you become part of the collective consciousness. so claiming shiva or shakti to be god is as good as claiming ourselves to be god? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 although an advaitin believes that everything is god in its true state he does not strive to become god , as preached by some vaishnav gurus . his concern remains self realization . and 'everthing god' is at the last stage . one shouldnt go on shouting it as a sadhak . as regards to shakta and shaivas they do believe in advaita .but they do not normally care to strive for nirvana or brahmagyan . most shaiva or shakta devotees remain deep rooted in songs , archana , kirtan , japa all their lives without caring for brahmagyan . however unlike vaishnavas they do not disbelieve or disrespect brahmangyan . it something like -- " i'll do my bhakti , i'll play with my mother(devi) and try to love her even more . i dont care whether i get nirvana in the process or not . to have a clear understanding of shakta bhakti refer to my thread on 'shaaymaa sangeet-devotional songs to kali ' . same can be said of shaiva bhaktas also . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 wahts the point in shaiva and shakt bhakti is done for moksh and shaiva texts and devi texts always talk about brahman niraakar formless ultimately god is that for them but 'krishna bhakti' itself is the fruit. and krishna is god and bases for brahman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 to have a clear understanding?? HA HA! Humility man! Humility man! For God's sake learn humility! :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Mundaka Upanisad (2.2.10–12): “In the spiritual realm, beyond the material covering, is the unlimited Brahman effulgence, which is free from material contamination. That effulgent white light is understood by transcendentalists to be the light of all lights. In that realm there is no need of sunshine, moonshine, fire or electricity for illumination. Indeed, whatever illumination appears in the material world is only a reflection of that supreme illumination. That Brahman is in front and in back, in the north, south, east and west, and also overhead and below. In other words, that supreme Brahman effulgence spreads throughout both the material and spiritual skies.” ................................................................................. Perfect knowledge means knowing Krishna. In Srimad-Bhagavatam, the author, Srila Vyasadeva, has established that one will describe the Supreme Truth as Brahman, Paramatma or Bhagavan according to one’s realization of Him. Srila Vyasadeva never states that the Supreme Truth is a jiva, an ordinary living entity. The living entity should never be considered the all-powerful Supreme Truth. If he were the Supreme, he would not need to pray to the Lord to remove His dazzling cover so that the living entity could see His real face. The conclusion is that one who has no knowledge of the potencies of the Supreme Truth will realize the impersonal Brahman. Similarly, when one realizes the material potencies of the Lord but has little or no information of the spiritual potencies, he attains Paramatma realization. Thus both Brahman and Paramatma realization of the Absolute Truth are partial realizations. However, when one realizes the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna, in full potency after the removal of the hiranmaya-patra, one realizes vasudevaù sarvam iti: [bg. 7.19] Lord Sri Krishna, who is known as Vasudeva, is everything—Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan. He is Bhagavan, the root, and Brahman and Paramatma are His branches. In the Bhagavad-gita (6.46–47) there is a comparative analysis of the three types of transcendentalists—the worshipers of the impersonal Brahman (jnanis), the worshipers of the Paramatma feature (yogis) and the devotees of Lord Sri Krishna (bhaktas). It is stated there that the jnanis, those who have cultivated Vedic knowledge, are better than ordinary fruitive workers, that the yogis are still greater than the jnanis, and that among all yogis, those who constantly serve the Lord with all their energies are the topmost. In summary, a philosopher is better than a laboring man, a mystic is superior to a philosopher, and of all the mystic yogis, he who follows bhakti-yoga, constantly engaging in the service of the Lord, is the highest. The Vedas directs us toward this perfection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 wahts the pointin shaiva and shakt bhakti is done for moksh and shaiva texts and devi texts always talk about brahman niraakar formless ultimately god is that for them but 'krishna bhakti' itself is the fruit. and krishna is god and bases for brahman whats the point if all men look the same ? male female all !!! can human race continue ? no!! same can be said of animals plants and nature . it is this inherent diversity that sustains creation . and as with evrything religion also has its diversity which is the sustaining strentgh of religion as a whole . each religion manifests in itself a particular bhava or way of reaching god . advaita is the intellectual way to reach god krishna bahkti shows the highest manifestation of ahaituki prema bhakti. shakta bhakti shows the highest manifestation of motherhood of god etc etc . each thought has something unique in itself , something to convey in this big world , something inherently its own . the day that bhava or thought disaapears the need of that religion extinguishes too . try and realize this inherent truth and beuty of all faiths ....... if you try to drag all beliefs into one single cast , you can be rest assured that you've begun your journey with failure . just like the numeorus prophets , sons of gods and avatars all through the pages of history . there cant be one single religion !! thats it !! either accept it and try to see the beauty in them or hate all others and be hated yourself . unfortunely , these are the only two paths available my friend ............... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 no but you said that shakts do bhakti just like that without caring brahmgyan how can you say that choose any god to worship. if it is brahman alone why worship any deity Besides this doing bhakti without caring for nirvana is vaishnav philosophy.As their main purpose is serve/love the lord as it is ones ultimate duty/nature but why would you want to serve kali or shiva when you become brahman after death an become their equal and if god is brahman only why not serve him the brahman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Smabya, sant is not referring to the "rights to marriage of homosexuals". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 now answer me do shakt texts not say that ultimately god is brahman and the brahman is more powerful than kali roop or shiva roop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.