Why do People fight here?

Ganeshprasad · June 10, 2004

Jai Ganesh

Re

(... With my best tolerance i do not find any common way)

Have a look at the meaning in dictionary.

There is no need for tolerance when one is in agreement.

Re

(.so if there's not a common principle, on wich basis the union is done if not on compromises?)

you will not understand the (Vedic) family bond it is not always based on common opinion.

Dharma is based on 4 common principles, satya,tap,pavitrata and daya and no hindu will deny these.

No court of law will punish anyone for having a different belief.

People are judged by their actions.

Lord Shree Krishna speaks of many paths in Bhagvat Gita, you can deny if you like that is your choice.

Re

(..you have to demonstrate that all the "rainbow" of hinduism comes from only one white light (=concept)

One supreme lord gave us the Vedas, the same lord gave us Buddha, and the sankracharya revived the Vedas

All different concept is derived from the same scripture.

Re

(..beauty is also an objective reality.. if you are not a mayavadi. And there's nothing bad in being a mayavadi, but where's the need to unite with people who consider that "all is maya" is not true?)

Be coherent in your argument if there is nothing bad in being a mayavadi why call them irreligious?

((Vedas says quite clearly by protecting the Dharma, the Dharma will protect you))

Re

(..so let us follow it.. the scriptures where we learn the dharma do not talk about any hinduism and any need to unite opposite beliefs in a non existent one)

Stick to the point this is what you said and my answer to that followed;

Q

(.to protect dharma you have to respect the varnashrama dharma, if you twist it to fight some adharma, you have two adharmas fighting each other. Whoever wins is a disgrace)

A

To protect Dharma is every ones duty physically intellectually or otherwise. Vedas says quite clearly by protecting the Dharma, the Dharma will protect you, it is you who is bringing a new twist to this meaning and calling it adhrma. In the end truth always triumphs, and it’s never a disgrace

But now you change the point of discussion

Weather you like it or not we will talk of Hindu Dharma, and we do not need to unite when it is already united.

Re

(..if someone promotes this idea with violence and illegality the police has the duty to punish him. Other considerations are useless)

If a rapist is about you will be failing in your duty if you do not try and protect your child.

Re

(..the thing that i do not understand is what do you care for.. a non hindu is converted in a non hindu.. what's to care? )

With your kind of attitude we soon will have Islam majority in Vedic land.

Jai Shree Krishna

June 10, 2004

There is no need for tolerance when one is in agreement.

..again, there's no question of tolerance.. Classifications are made by common features. By common features you identify kinds of vehicles (airplanes, cars, bycicles), foods (fried, boiled, salty, sweet and so on).. so we are discussing if among the schools that someone says that they belong to hinduism there's some common important feature to put them in the same denomination, cathegory, group, federation, type and so on.

you will not understand the (Vedic) family bond it is not always based on common opinion.

Dharma is based on 4 common principles, satya,tap,pavitrata and daya and no hindu will deny these.

..you must have a common opinion of these common principles.. for example satya means "truth". Vaishnavas say that absolute truth is krsna and brahman is subordinate, advaitins says that absolute truth is brahman and the form of krsna is a material body. Wich satya is the one who can reunite these two opposite positions?

No court of law will punish anyone for having a different belief.

..who wants to punish whom?

Lord Shree Krishna speaks of many paths in Bhagvat Gita

..no paths of bhagavad gita is about denying the personal aspect of sri krsna, If anyone thinks the opposite, no problem, it is not our discussion, If one thinks that bhagavad gita teachs the surrender to krsna, if another thinks that bhagavad gita is not spoken by krsna but by someone else.. they are both free, but they are not in the same dharma

One supreme lord gave us the Vedas, the same lord gave us Buddha, and the sankracharya revived the Vedas

..so why buddist are buddist and not hindu? and knowing that all religions come from vedas, why muslims or christians or hebrew are not hindu? if you make discriminations you have to make them in the right way. Everything is hindu? i do not think so.. so find the common principles and features

All different concept is derived from the same scripture.

..the different schools do not think like that.. when there's opposition they think that other's opinion are concoctions, not variety.. see the example of who's krsna for vaishnavas and advaitins. They think that the other one is absolutely wrong, adharmic

Be coherent in your argument if there is nothing bad in being a mayavadi why call them irreligious?

..what i call or believe it is not in discussion.. we are speaking if there's common principles between, for example, mayavadis and vaishnavas to put them under the same flag.. i do not think so, and the real followers of these two schools do not think so

Vedas says quite clearly by protecting the Dharma, the Dharma will protect you, it is you who is bringing a new twist to this meaning and calling it adhrma

..it is your opinion that i am twisting, it is my opinion that you are twisting... i have given explanation and you are saying it dogmatically

Weather you like it or not we will talk of Hindu Dharma, and we do not need to unite when it is already united.

..my liking is not in discussion.. my opinion is that there's no union, that some union is based on nothing, that the majority who now wants to unite they are doing it to increase kali yuga, war, problems, fanaticism and so on.. or they are ingenuosly following who wants it

If a rapist is about you will be failing in your duty if you do not try and protect your child.

..a rapist has to be punished and children has to be protected.. what this has to do with religion? protect your child from the rapist and that's all

(..the thing that i do not understand is what do you care for.. a non hindu is converted in a non hindu.. what's to care? )

With your kind of attitude we soon will have Islam majority in Vedic land.

..if you concoct some fantastic undiscriminated union we soon will have complete adharma in a no more vedic land

spread the dharma and the adharma will automatically go away

Ganeshprasad · June 11, 2004

Jai Ganesh

RE

(..again, there's no question of tolerance..)

Of course for you, it is quite obvious from your post you don’t see the need for tolerance, every other view seems to bother you except your own.

Re

(Classifications are made by common features. By common features you identify kinds of vehicles (airplanes, cars, bycicles), foods (fried, boiled, salty, sweet and so on).. so we are discussing if among the schools that someone says that they belong to hinduism there's some common important feature to put them in the same denomination, cathegory, group, federation, type and so on.)

You are simply going round in circle discussing what you want to discuss.

You pull the sentence out of context and change the point of discussion

RE

(..you must have a common opinion of these common principles.. for example satya means "truth". Vaishnavas say that absolute truth is krsna and brahman is subordinate, advaitins says that absolute truth is brahman and the form of krsna is a material body. Wich satya is the one who can reunite these two opposite positions?)

Dharma is in acharan (action) follow the path of truthfullness, perform tapsya, tolorance is one of the virtue, remain pure in heart and in our action, have mercy these are the fudamental principles one must abide on the path of self realization. Since the knowledge about the absolute is unlimited, god and brahman are nondifferent and the realization of the supreme is unlimited therefor the concept of the lord are also many, do not try and class the many opinions of the creator as irreligious

RE

(..who wants to punish whom?)

You are calling the hindus irreligious.

Re

(..no paths of bhagavad gita is about denying the personal aspect of sri krsna, If anyone thinks the opposite, no problem, it is not our discussion, If one thinks that bhagavad gita teachs the surrender to krsna, if another thinks that bhagavad gita is not spoken by krsna but by someone else.. they are both free, but they are not in the same dharma)

No problem, so what if someone is a karma margi a bhakta or a gaynani

Re

(..so why buddist are buddist and not hindu? and knowing that all religions come from vedas, why muslims or christians or hebrew are not hindu? if you make discriminations you have to make them in the right way. Everything is hindu? i do not think so.. so find the common principles and features)

We say Buddhist is a branch of Hindu, Christians and others have their own books and worship and we respect that, but they are anti Vedic we do not judge their worship but their actions.

Re

(..the different schools do not think like that.. when there's opposition they think that other's opinion are concoctions, not variety.. see the example of who's krsna for vaishnavas and advaitins. They think that the other one is absolutely wrong, adharmic)

You are misrepresenting the advaita; I have never known anyone calling a Bhakta adharmic. You are making this up as you go along.

Re

(..what i call or believe it is not in discussion.. we are speaking if there's common principles between, for example, mayavadis and vaishnavas to put them under the same flag.. i do not think so, and the real followers of these two schools do not think so)

Ha, you make opposite statements and suddenly it is not under discussion.

You find it difficult to understand what we Hindu accept without any problem the different concept of god derived from same scriptures. Respect and tolerance escapes you. We like to live by the Dharma and not get bogged down in concept only. You can’t even respect us and call us irreligious.

Vedas says quite clearly by protecting the Dharma, the Dharma will protect you, it is you who is bringing a new twist to this meaning and calling it adhrma

(..it is your opinion that i am twisting, it is my opinion that you are twisting... i have given explanation and you are saying it dogmatically)

I have only stated what vedas says. Prove me wrong.

Re

(..my liking is not in discussion.. my opinion is that there's no union, that some union is based on nothing, that the majority who now wants to unite they are doing it to increase kali yuga, war, problems, fanaticism and so on.. or they are ingenuosly following who wants it)

Your liking is same as your opinion and as such have no meaning to us.

Re

(..a rapist has to be punished and children has to be protected.. what this has to do with religion? protect your child from the rapist and that's all)

Please try and read in which context the statements are made

Here read Your statement

(..if someone promotes this idea with violence and illegality the police has the duty to punish him. Other considerations are useless)

My answer

If a rapist is about you will be failing in your duty if you do not try and protect your child.

Are you going to wait for police to do the job?

Same way we should not let the outsiders to rape the Vedic land

Re

(..if you concoct some fantastic undiscriminated union we soon will have complete adharma in a no more vedic land)

Your accusation is completely unfounded, you are insulting Hindus here.

Re

(spread the dharma and the adharma will automatically go away)

Better to live by the Dharma and die by it, be an example for others in our actions.

Spreading is what the Muslims and Christians do indiscriminatly.

Krishna says inquire and learn and then speak to someone who wants to know

Jai Shree Krishna

June 12, 2004

Of course for you, it is quite obvious from your post you don’t see the need for tolerance, every other view seems to bother you except your own.

..probably you are joking... everyone must be tolerant, but we are speaking of something else. I do not advocate intolerance.

You are simply going round in circle discussing what you want to discuss.

..this is the discussion.. you are saying that some philosophies must be reunited under the same denomination. I do not agree and i am giving explanations. And you are joking with the fact if intolerance that has nothing to do with our discussion

Dharma is in acharan (action)

..if this action respects the principles of dharma

follow the path of truthfullness

..again the fact that truthfullness means different things for any school

perform tapsya,

..tapasya means coherence.. where's the principle on wich all (so called) hindu schools are coherently agree?

tolorance is one of the virtue, remain pure in heart and in our action, have mercy these are the fudamental principles one must abide on the path of self realization.

..these principles are in every religion and in some atheist philosophies, and they are relatively marginal in comparison with the concept of the existence and god..

god and brahman are nondifferent

..inside hinduism many thinks that they're different, many thinks also that brahman is the only reality and god is maya.... so your principle is not commonly accepted.

the realization of the supreme is unlimited therefor the concept of the lord are also many

..but many concept are, in comparison with other ones, incompatible.. bhagavad gita admits many approaches, but none of these approaches has to be a negation of krsna's existence as eternal personality. So mayavadis cannot put in the same group with vaishnavas.. they are more close to the buddists

do not try and class the many opinions of the creator as irreligious

..again you are joking.. we are not speaking of my judgement about a path or another, i am only saying that they are not compatible

You are calling the hindus irreligious

..hindu people? why? i am saying that every hindu group consider the other group different and sometimes opposite, so adharmic and irreligious. So wanting to unite for some materialist pride purpose what it is conceptually incompatible is a sin

No problem, so what if someone is a karma margi a bhakta or a gaynani

..no problem... but no one of these paths is considered dharmic by the gita if there's negation of krsna's personality.. you are free to prefere brahman, but if you say that krsna is not eternal and he has a material body because only impersonal brahman is sat, cit, ananda you are not following a path admitted by gita. If you believes the opposite, for example that krsna and arjuna are only allegori of some our mind's status or whatever else.. no problem.. we do not belong to the same group even if we externally read the same scripture

We say Buddhist is a branch of Hindu, Christians and others have their own books

..also buddhist have their own book and it is very strange that someone consider the buddhist as hindus.. surely without their agreeing

but they are anti Vedic we do not judge their worship but their actions.

..the actions can be good or bad, moral or immoral... and they have to with single people, not with them reunited in religions. So we are not speaking of actions, we are speaking of beliefs... or which beliefs make one a hindu..

You are misrepresenting the advaita; I have never known anyone calling a Bhakta adharmic.

..we are not speaking of behaving in a bad manner or being fanatical and so on.. if someone follows a dharma, he necessarily thinks that opposite conceptions are adharmic. But again, no problem, if someone thinks that also opposite dharmas can be reunited under the same name, he cannot surely being reunite with the ones who do not agree on this kind of lack of discrimination.

You find it difficult to understand what we Hindu accept without any problem the different concept of god derived from same scriptures

..again there's no question of acceptation.. i accept everyone because if he's doing like that he's directly or indirectly doing the will of god. Said this, to be or not to be grouped with him is another matter. You are attempting to put this subject on the plane of tolerance who is not in discussion. I love and tolerate russians, but i am not russian.. i love and tolerate women, but i am not a woman.. i love and tolerate buddhist, but i am not buddhist.. Please understand that the discussion is on classification, grouping, identification.. not on the need to be tolerant each other

We like to live by the Dharma and not get bogged down in concept only.

..hinduism is a concept, not a car or a food.. so if you are not bogged in concepts, how can you speak of it?

You can’t even respect us and call us irreligious.

..you are searching an easy way to win a debate.. no one is calling you irreligious.. if you enjoy to discuss in this way do it, if you want to exchange ideas better if you do not joke like that

I have only stated what vedas says. Prove me wrong.

..i have proved that you are right in sayng that if i protect dharma he will protect me, but i have also proved that among the so called hinduists there's opposite concepts of dharma. So hinduism is not a dharma and he has not accepted a common dharma, so what is it and what is his common vedic root? If you want to make a group you have to find a common feature

Your liking is same as your opinion

..it requires a big scientist to come to this conclusion... that i like my opinions.. very clever

and as such have no meaning to us

..you are not forced to believe me.. but you are also not forced to discuss with me

Please try and read in which context the statements are made

..the context is that you consider the member of a particular religion all guilty or potentially guilty.. and it is adharmic, yamaraja judges one by one and karma ultimately is personal.

If a rapist is about you will be failing in your duty if you do not try and protect your child.

Are you going to wait for police to do the job?

..i do not wait.. but the action has to be real and manifest. you are attempting to justify the fact that you want to punish peoples who has not done anything bad, but they are guilty to belong to some religion

Same way we should not let the outsiders to rape the Vedic land

..outsiders? all indian muslims are born in india.. inside indian boundaries

Your accusation is completely unfounded, you are insulting Hindus here.

..again your attempt to twist the meanings... "if you concoct .. "is not an accusation.. it is an eventuality. it is like to say : "if i steal i am a stealer..". My advice is that if you have some problem you have to face it in the right way.. not creating problems bigger than the first one

(spread the dharma and the adharma will automatically go away)

Better to live by the Dharma and die by it

..it is called giving the example.. if you give the example of a dharmic and happy person, everyone will follow. Do not make easy games with words, i am not suggesting some fanatical proselitizing

Spreading is what the Muslims and Christians do indiscriminatly.

..so why are you spreading hinduism?

Krishna says inquire and learn and then speak to someone who wants to know

..who says the opposite?

Ganeshprasad · June 12, 2004

Jai Ganesh

Re

(..probably you are joking... everyone must be tolerant, but we are speaking of something else. I do not advocate intolerance.

Not really, you accused us hindus of irreligious simply because we tolorate different pratices that exit in vedic Hindu dharma.

RE

(..this is the discussion.. you are saying that some philosophies must be reunited under the same denomination. I do not agree and i am giving explanations. And you are joking with the fact if intolerance that has nothing to do with our discussion)

I have never said any where that the philosophies must be united, but you delibrately fail to see in a family when we come together is out of love of each other and don’t ask me to look for common princple.

Re

Dharma is in acharan (action)

(..if this action respects the principles of dharma)

There is no if and buts here.

Re

(..again the fact that truthfullness means different things for any school)

Just be truthful

Re

(..tapasya means coherence.. where's the principle on wich all (so called) hindu schools are coherently agree?)

Tapasya means austirity

tolorance is one of the virtue, remain pure in heart and in our action, have mercy these are the fudamental principles one must abide on the path of self realization.

Re

(..these principles are in every religion and in some atheist philosophies, and they are relatively marginal in comparison with the concept of the existence and god..)

good so if everyone follows then we would have very peaceful existance, the cloud of ignorance will disappear

what you call marginal, try put in to pratice,you might find the meaning of tapasya

RE

god and brahman are nondifferent

(..inside hinduism many thinks that they're different, many thinks also that brahman is the only reality and god is maya.... so your principle is not commonly accepted.)

So there is brahman, parmatma and bhagvan realization it does not bother me, and do not forget, to realize this concept we all have to follow this four princples which you so flippantly call marginal

Re

do not try and class the many opinions of the creator as irreligious

(..again you are joking.. we are not speaking of my judgement about a path or another, i am only saying that they are not compatible)

You are making a statement and I reply to it and you call me joker?

Where have I said all prctices are compatiable with each other?

In the eyes of the lord these are all worships he accepts.

Re

You are calling the hindus irreligious

(..hindu people? why? i am saying that every hindu group consider the other group different and sometimes opposite, so adharmic and irreligious. So wanting to unite for some materialist pride purpose what it is conceptually incompatible is a sin)

I will have to ignore your opinion, we are not adharmic, we strive to be noble, we live by our dharma, most of us do not belong to any group and we are free to choose if we want. Ultimatley we are all individual and resposiable for our own actions. People know us as hindu, I would not mind if they call us vedic, it means same to us

Re

(we are speaking of beliefs... or which beliefs make one a hindu..)

Anyone path coming from vedas, more importantly living by the laws of scriptures.

Re

You are misrepresenting the advaita; I have never known anyone calling a Bhakta adharmic.

(..we are not speaking of behaving in a bad manner or being fanatical and so on.. if someone follows a dharma, he necessarily thinks that opposite conceptions are adharmic. But again, no problem, if someone thinks that also opposite dharmas can be reunited under the same name, he cannot surely being reunite with the ones who do not agree on this kind of lack of discrimination.)

You do not understand the meaning of dharma, dharma of fire is heat of ice is cold this does not make them adharmic. Dharma of humans is in behaviour

Re

(.. Please understand that the discussion is on classification, grouping, identification.. not on the need to be tolerant each other)

May be you care to read the title of this thread, you will find the tolorance is very important.

Re

(..hinduism is a concept, not a car or a food.. so if you are not bogged in concepts, how can you speak of it?)

Hinduism is a way of life we live by it.

RE

You can’t even respect us and call us irreligious.

(..you are searching an easy way to win a debate.. no one is calling you irreligious.. if you enjoy to discuss in this way do it, if you want to exchange ideas better if you do not joke like that)

I have no desire to win a debate, only reason I entered this debate is to ask you why you call us hindus irreligious? Now you have changed your mind.

I have no reason to joke.

Re

(..the context is that you consider the member of a particular religion all guilty or potentially guilty.. and it is adharmic, yamaraja judges one by one and karma ultimately is personal.)

No that was not the context, but I am not arguing, again I do not doubt the yamaraja.

But I do not prescribe to your passive stand, if a personal karma is encroaching your freedom you have to protect yourself.

Re

(you are attempting to justify the fact that you want to punish peoples who has not done anything bad, but they are guilty to belong to some religion)

I have no such desire, but I have a concern about their intentions.

Re

Spreading is what the Muslims and Christians do indiscriminatly.

(..so why are you spreading hinduism?)

Am I? I am in a hindu forum

Krishna says inquire and learn and then speak to someone who wants to know

..who says the opposite?

Spreading was your choice of word I said what I said in relation to above

Jai Shree Krishna

atanu · June 12, 2004

Regards to Ganshprasad ji and Guest ji

June 12, 2004

Not really, you accused us hindus of irreligious simply because we tolorate different pratices that exit in vedic Hindu dharma.

..you are completely missing the point 1)a civil man have to be peaceful and tolerant.... 2)i do not recognize a hindu dharma because dharma is constitued by some common principles. And no one says to me wich are the common, identificative principles of hinduism........ 3)the discussion is on classification, i do not hate chineses, but if you tell me that i am chinese i have to say that you're wrong. And it is not intolerance

I have never said any where that the philosophies must be united

..you are saying that all together they form hinduism..

but you delibrately fail to see in a family when we come together is out of love of each other and don’t ask me to look for common princple.

..in a family there's many common principles... the parents, the grand parents... you love that boy who lives in your house because a common principle unites both you, you are brothers because you have the same father. If you enter in a house of another family in your town and you say "i love you all, you are my family.." they ask you wich relative you have in common with them

Dharma is in acharan (action)

(..if this action respects the principles of dharma)

There is no if and buts here.

..no... there's a million of if and buts... an action is dharmic if it follows dharma's rules. Not because someone says or believes that's dharmic.

(..again the fact that truthfullness means different things for any school)

Just be truthful

...so find a common truth if you think that there's one! i am truthful in saying that there's not

(..tapasya means coherence.. where's the principle on wich all (so called) hindu schools are coherently agree?)

Tapasya means austirity

..tapasya means coherence in performing austerities for a lifetime. But the most important thing is to understand what is the real goal of the austerity. Otherwise it is better not to do it and it is not a value at all. There's austerities in satya, rajas and tamas.. and in transcendence. Austerity in itself is not a value

tolorance is one of the virtue, remain pure in heart and in our action, have mercy these are the fudamental principles one must abide on the path of self realization.

..alle these values can have infinite meanings.. a vaishnava can judge intolerant a mayavadi who cannot tolerate the supremacy of krsna/vishnu. So there's not a common concept of hindu tolerance

good so if everyone follows then we would have very peaceful existance, the cloud of ignorance will disappear

..i completely agree.. a form of ignorance is wanting to reunite for our interest some things that cannot be reunited

what you call marginal, try put in to pratice,you might find the meaning of tapasya

..you do not know me personally... and tapasya means nothing if you do not find a right reason to do it. Everyone does some form of austerity, there's people who work hard everyday of the life to buy drugs, meat, alcohol, to go with prostitutes and so on... there's some terrorist who do the great tapasya of giving their life making themeselves explode for their cause.. which is the value of these tapasyas? less than zero?

So there is brahman, parmatma and bhagvan realization it does not bother me

..so how can you speak of these matters? where's your hindu appreciaion of all the paths?

and do not forget, to realize this concept we all have to follow this four princples which you so flippantly call marginal

..an easy but useless joke... marginal in classification, not in achieving spiritual realization? are you short of arguments?

Where have I said all prctices are compatiable with each other?

..so why want to unite them under the same name if you do not find them compatible?

In the eyes of the lord these are all worships he accepts.

..some worshippers think that the other group of worshippers are not worshipping but blaspheming.. and the opposite. Our discussion is how can we put all of them under the same name

I will have to ignore your opinion, we are not adharmic, we strive to be noble, we live by our dharma,

..that you are a good or bad peson is not in discussion, and that indians are also like that.. we are speaking if there's a common indian concept of dharma to decide if the so called hindu dharma exists or not

most of us do not belong to any group and we are free to choose if we want

..so why you want to create other groups to belong? because you do not want to go deeper on somehing who is already existing and it is traditional? the hindu name grants to you an appartenence without really accepting no duties (=tapasyas)?

(we are speaking of beliefs... or which beliefs make one a hindu..)

Anyone path coming from vedas, more importantly living by the laws of scriptures.

..it would be enough if there'd be an agreement on the meaning of the vedas, the scriptures and laws

You do not understand the meaning of dharma, dharma of fire is heat of ice is cold

..on these dharmas everyone agrees.. on the dharmas that should be parts of hindu dharma there's opposite opinions.. this is our subject

Dharma of humans is in behaviour

..behaviour comes by concepts.. if you want to speak about hindu behaviour you have to speak about hindu concepts

(.. Please understand that the discussion is on classification, grouping, identification.. not on the need to be tolerant each other)

May be you care to read the title of this thread, you will find the tolorance is very important.

..it is simply a trick to divert the discussion... we are speaking from days of that other subject. Tolerance is not in discussion, we are tolerating ourselves, we are speaking not fighting with guns

Hinduism is a way of life we live by it.

..what's the common way of life between all so called hindu roups that make them belonging to this hindu way? this is the discussion

But I do not prescribe to your passive stand, if a personal karma is encroaching your freedom you have to protect yourself.

..the idea that i am passively standing it is completely yours.. if one attacks me, my relatives, my friends, you... i defend. But his has nothing to do with attacking someone because he belongs to the religion of some who invaded my country some centuries ago

I have no such desire, but I have a concern about their intentions.

..and you are concocting a new hindu religion, twisting freely religious values and meanings because you are concerned with muslims? is it a good remedy?

(..so why are you spreading hinduism?)

Am I? I am in a hindu forum

..so partecipating you are spreading, propagandizing.. or helping in doing it.. there's nothing bad

Krishna says inquire and learn and then speak to someone who wants to know

..who says the opposite?

Spreading was your choice of word I said what I said in relation to above

...what have you said is exactly spreading.. some one wants to know something of krsna and you spread the message that you already know..

Ganeshprasad · June 13, 2004

Jai Ganesh

Re

(..you are completely missing the point 1)a civil man have to be peaceful and tolerant.... 2)i do not recognize a hindu dharma because dharma is constitued by some common principles. And no one says to me wich are the common, identificative principles of hinduism........ 3)the discussion is on classification, i do not hate chineses, but if you tell me that i am chinese i have to say that you're wrong. And it is not intolerance)

May be I am missing your point and you mine. 1) anyone who is peaceful and tolerant is a noble person I salute his dharma. I do not need to ask his classification. 2) that is your choice, everyone else have no problem, we have discussed this many times but it is not understood by you, I can not force you.3) why would I identify you as chinese, one is a person and other is a various concept of dharma coming from vedas.

Chapter 15: The Supreme Lord said: They (or the wise) speak of the eternal Ashvattha tree having its origin above (in unmanifest Brahman) and its branches below (in the cosmos) whose leaves are the (Vedic) hymns. One who understands this is a knower of the Vedas. (15.01)

The branches (of this world tree of Maya) spread below and above (or all over the cosmos). The tree is nourished by the Gunas; sense pleasures are its sprouts; and its roots (of ego and desires) stretch below in the human world causing Karmic bondage. (15.02)

Neither its (real) form nor its beginning, neither its end nor its existence is perceptible here on the earth. Having cut these firm roots of the Ashvattha tree by the mighty ax of (Jnana and) Vairaagya or detachment; (15.03)

The goal (of nirvana) should be sought reaching which one does not come back; thus thinking: In that very primal spirit I take refuge from which this primal manifestation comes forth. (15.04)

Those who are free from pride and delusion, who have conquered the evil of attachment, who are constantly dwelling in the Supreme Self with all Kaama completely stilled, who are free from the dualities known as pleasure and pain; such undeluded persons reach the eternal goal. (15.05)

Now you tell me where should I begin what branch should I tell you off?

Re

(..you are saying that all together they form hinduism..)

No all this different paths are known as Hindu call it Vedic if you want, there is a subtle difference it does not form in to hindu but it is known as hindu dharma.

Re

(..in a family there's many common principles... the parents, the grand parents... you love that boy who lives in your house because a common principle unites both you, you are brothers because you have the same father. If you enter in a house of another family in your town and you say "i love you all, you are my family.." they ask you wich relative you have in common with them)

Yes so in our vedic family we see different paths as our brothers and sisters given by our creator, and if a vedic family enters another house of worship we also say to them we are all one extended family because there is no other creator only we call them by different name.

Re

There is no if and buts here.

(..no... there's a million of if and buts... an action is dharmic if it follows dharma's rules. Not because someone says or believes that's dharmic.)

Where did i say otherwise, I said 4 basic principle

Therefore, let the scripture be your authority in determining what should be done and what should not be done. You should perform your duty following the scriptural injunction. (16.24)

Re

(...so find a common truth if you think that there's one! i am truthful in saying that there's not)

If your opinion is truth then fine live by it the lord will be please with you.

Re

(..tapasya means coherence in performing austerities for a lifetime. But the most important thing is to understand what is the real goal of the austerity. Otherwise it is better not to do it and it is not a value at all. There's austerities in satya, rajas and tamas.. and in transcendence. Austerity in itself is not a value

..alle these values can have infinite meanings.. a vaishnava can judge intolerant a mayavadi who cannot tolerate the supremacy of krsna/vishnu. So there's not a common concept of hindu tolerance)

The worship of Devas, Braahmana, guru, and the wise; purity, honesty, celibacy, and nonviolence; these are said to be the austerity of deed. (17.14)

Speech that is not offensive, truthful, pleasant, beneficial, and is used for the regular reading of scriptures is called the austerity of word. (17.15)

The serenity of mind, gentleness, silence, self-restraint, and the purity of mind are called the austerity of thought. (17.16)

Threefold austerity (of thought, word, and deed) practiced by yogis with supreme faith, without a desire for the fruit, is said to be Saattvika austerity. (17.17)

Austerity that is done for gaining respect, honor, reverence, and for show, is said to be Raajasika, unsteady, and impermanent. (17.18)

Austerity performed without proper understanding, or with self-torture, or for harming others, is declared as Taamasika austerity. (17.19)

Charity that is given as a matter of duty, to a deserving candidate who does nothing in return, at the right place and time, is called a Saattvika charity. (17.20)

Charity that is given unwillingly, or to get something in return, or looking for some fruit, is called Raajasika charity. (17.21)

Charity that is given at a wrong place and time, to unworthy persons, without paying respect or with contempt, is said to be Taamasika charity. (17.22)

"OM TAT SAT" is said to be the threefold name of Brahman. The Braahmana, the Vedas, and the Yajna were created from this in the ancient time. (17.23)

Therefore, acts of sacrifice, charity, and austerity prescribed in the scriptures are always commenced by uttering "OM" by the knowers of Brahman. (17.24)

Various types of sacrifice, charity, and austerity are performed by the seekers of nirvana by uttering "TAT" (or He is all) without seeking a reward. (17.25)

Yes austerity by itself has no value but I never said it was.

Re

(what you call marginal, try put in to pratice,you might find the meaning of tapasya

..you do not know me personally... and tapasya means nothing if you do not find a right reason to do it. Everyone does some form of austerity, there's people who work hard everyday of the life to buy drugs, meat, alcohol, to go with prostitutes and so on... there's some terrorist who do the great tapasya of giving their life making themeselves explode for their cause.. which is the value of these tapasyas? less than zero?)

Nor do you know me personally, and if you think, when I mention this 4 principles, to mean the above mentioned acts then you do not know me at all, even after having had hours of debate with you.

RE

(..an easy but useless joke... marginal in classification, not in achieving spiritual realization? are you short of arguments?)

Perhaps you can tell me what is so funny?

Re

(..so why want to unite them under the same name if you do not find them compatible?)

I have not tried to unite them, we are off the same tree with different branches.

In the eyes of the lord these are all worships he accepts.

..some worshippers think that the other group of worshippers are not worshipping but blaspheming.. and the opposite. Our discussion is how can we put all of them under the same name

I can not think for others, nor am I trying to put them under the same name, but we are sitting on the same tree all being on a different branch.

Re

(..that you are a good or bad peson is not in discussion, and that indians are also like that.. we are speaking if there's a common indian concept of dharma to decide if the so called hindu dharma exists or not)

O it exists no doubt.

Re

(..so why you want to create other groups to belong? because you do not want to go deeper on somehing who is already existing and it is traditional? the hindu name grants to you an appartenence without really accepting no duties (=tapasyas)?)

I do not want to create other group, how deep I want to go will depend on my desires, you have no idea what that is. Looks like you have very low opinion of hindus.

Re

(..it would be enough if there'd be an agreement on the meaning of the vedas, the scriptures and laws)

Agreement on whose standard yours?

Re

(..it is simply a trick to divert the discussion... we are speaking from days of that other subject. Tolerance is not in discussion, we are tolerating ourselves, we are speaking not fighting with guns)

Not really simply pointing out the relevance of tolerance

Re

(..the idea that i am passively standing it is completely yours.. if one attacks me, my relatives, my friends, you... i defend. But his has nothing to do with attacking someone because he belongs to the religion of some who invaded my country some centuries ago)

I have no desire to attack anyone, but I see a wrong and that wrong will destroy us if we do not stand up and protect.

Re

(..and you are concocting a new hindu religion, twisting freely religious values and meanings because you are concerned with muslims? is it a good remedy?)

I have no capacity to form new religion, Hindu Dharma existed well before me, rest is your vivid imagination

Jai Shree Krishna

June 13, 2004

1) anyone who is peaceful and tolerant is a noble person I salute his dharma. I do not need to ask his classification

..so if you do not care for classification, why the need to defend or struggle for a classification.. hinduism?

we have discussed this many times but it is not understood by you,

..maybe there's a little presumption.. honestly i think that you are not giving any demonstration and i am not for blind beliefs

why would I identify you as chinese, one is a person and other is a various concept of dharma coming from vedas.

..the "chinese" was to explain that my opinion to be precise with discrimination is not caused by lack of respect.. actually it is for respecting more

Now you tell me where should I begin what branch should I tell you off?

..your citations are very clear and well known.. they simply show an impersonalist side of the truth. And there's no problem for me. But, for bhagavad gita, an approach like that is bona fide and compatible with all authorized vedic faiths if there's no envy for the personal aspect of sri krsna bhagavan. Or, if anyone uses this quotations to demonstrate that krsna is not the supreme or that he belongs to the material world or maya, he's out in my opinion from the vedic path and he cannot be grouped for example with vaishnavas who think exactly the opposite. Friendship and tolerance are not problems.. the problem is that no grouping is possible between schools so opposite and different

(..you are saying that all together they form hinduism..)

No all this different paths are known as Hindu call it Vedic if you want, there is a subtle difference it does not form in to hindu but it is known as hindu dharma.

..there's no problem in wich name you want to use.. my opinion is that, until one does not give an explanation, hindu dharma does not exist and that many of the dharmas included in hinduism are not compatible. Another fact is that the majority of the serious followers of the single schools do not care and do not want any grouping under some denomination. They are serious and they know that the differences are to be respected to not give damage and bad propaganda to the single faiths

Yes so in our vedic family we see different paths as our brothers and sisters given by our creator

..there's "hindu" schools who think that creator is a person, others say that creator is an energy and who believe in the person is in maya, there's hindu schools that are completely atheists and some others who think that not only god is an illusion, but all the existence is an illusion... some other believe that everyone is god. Who is this common creator of the hindu family? (i have no problem with different names.. but if you change names you wil discover that some hindu paths are more close to other religions than to some other "hindus"

Therefore, let the scripture be your authority in determining what should be done and what should not be done. You should perform your duty following the scriptural injunction. (16.24)

..also in this citations there's millions of "ifs" and "buts"... the meaning of scriptures, the concept of authority, the real duty, the interpretation of the scriptural injunction are very different in some of the "hindu" religions

If your opinion is truth then fine live by it the lord will be please with you.

..it is not a game or a war.. i am discussing ready to change my opinion if you bring something that i can judge valuable to do it

Yes austerity by itself has no value but I never said it was.

..so to identify a religion or a common religious, dharmic concept the fact that austerity si required is not enough.. every religion asks some austerity to his followers.. and not only religions, if you want to obtain some result from life you have to struggle.. this is not hinduist, this is universal

Nor do you know me personally, and if you think, when I mention this 4 principles, to mean the above mentioned acts then you do not know me at all, even after having had hours of debate with you.

..so you are thinking that i believe that you take as austerity the struggle for gross material gratification? i do not believe it... you know very well that i made an example to say that austerity is a neutral concept and it cannot be used to identify an ideology or a dharma

I have not tried to unite them, we are off the same tree with different branches.

..many thinks that many branches are cut and that they do not belong anymore to the tree... the differences are so huge that there's no agreement on what was that tree, this is my (and many other's) point

I can not think for others, nor am I trying to put them under the same name, but we are sitting on the same tree all being on a different branch.

..first there's the need to definite the tree, then there's to check if anyone has cut his tree and now it is fallen in the ground. You are using many nice allegories, but the fact is that you do not give a definition of what's hinduism and how can hinduism unificate many religions that have opposite fundamental and constituent ideologies

Looks like you have very low opinion of hindus.

..a cheap way to discredite my opinions... playing the same game i can say that you are the enemy of hinduism making it something cheap without no common feature, no common doctrine and so on.... but i do not think like that, it is only a demonstration that this way to relationate can be also against yourself

Not really simply pointing out the relevance of tolerance

..ok tolerance has main importance.. subject closed.. speak of what is hinduism

I have no desire to attack anyone, but I see a wrong and that wrong will destroy us if we do not stand up and protect.

..so you have no idea of what hinduism is or can be... but your main interest is to create an "anti-muslim" religion to make people think that they have to fight against muslims..

why can you promote your "anti muslim" theories without twisting religion? promote and do not speak of religion, dharmas and so on. To twist religion for our interest is... adharma

Hindu Dharma existed well before me, rest is your vivid imagination

..i have to use my imagination because you have not given any valid explanation on what hinduism is and how can it unite so different beliefs who, speaking of the most serious practitioneers, have no intention to unite under the same flag with people with opposite beliefs

Ganeshprasad · June 13, 2004

Jai Ganesh

Re

(..so if you do not care for classification, why the need to defend or struggle for a classification.. hinduism?)

By this classification that is already there, you have accused us of being irreligious then it becomes my duty to defend. Vedic (Hindu) way teaches us to be noble.

Re

(..maybe there's a little presumption.. honestly i think that you are not giving any demonstration and i am not for blind beliefs)

I am not presuming you have come here with preconceived idea with a mission, I want be able to sell you gold for free.

Re

(..your citations are very clear and well known.. they simply show an impersonalist side of the truth. And there's no problem for me. But, for bhagavad gita, an approach like that is bona fide and compatible with all authorized vedic faiths if there's no envy for the personal aspect of sri krsna bhagavan. Or, if anyone uses this quotations to demonstrate that krsna is not the supreme or that he belongs to the material world or maya, he's out in my opinion from the vedic path and he cannot be grouped for example with vaishnavas who think exactly the opposite. Friendship and tolerance are not problems.. the problem is that no grouping is possible between schools so opposite and different)

Problems only happens when people form groups, entrenches their position and accuse others who do not conform of being irreligious.

Lord Krishna clearly cites different paths. Hindu do not denote any single path, tree is big with many branches.

Re

(..there's no problem in wich name you want to use.. my opinion is that, until one does not give an explanation, hindu dharma does not exist and that many of the dharmas included in hinduism are not compatible.)

the statement;

“it does not exist and many dharmas included in hinduism” is in itself incompatible.

Re

(Another fact is that the majority of the serious followers of the single schools do not care and do not want any grouping under some denomination. They are serious and they know that the differences are to be respected to not give damage and bad propaganda to the single faiths)

And we respect that, the highest amongst all is a sanyasi who do not belong to any group but we can not imitate them, try and put this sanyasi in a strange place or country and he becomes an object of ridicule while a Hindu offers his pranam.

Re

(..there's "hindu" schools who think that creator is a person, others say that creator is an energy and who believe in the person is in maya, there's hindu schools that are completely atheists and some others who think that not only god is an illusion, but all the existence is an illusion... some other believe that everyone is god. Who is this common creator of the hindu family? (i have no problem with different names.. but if you change names you wil discover that some hindu paths are more close to other religions than to some other "hindus")

Never said all the concept of the supreme is the same.

Therefore, let the scripture be your authority in determining what should be done and what should not be done. You should perform your duty following the scriptural injunction. (16.24)

Re

(..also in this citations there's millions of "ifs" and "buts"... the meaning of scriptures, the concept of authority, the real duty, the interpretation of the scriptural injunction are very different in some of the "hindu" religions)

these are matter of opinions and path chosen.

Re

(..it is not a game or a war.. i am discussing ready to change my opinion if you bring something that i can judge valuable to do it)

very noble.

Re

(..many thinks that many branches are cut and that they do not belong anymore to the tree... the differences are so huge that there's no agreement on what was that tree, this is my (and many other's) point)

yes this is what some might try and do cut the branches, until non may be left.

Those branches that fall, rots and diappear, the fact that it survives is in itself a testimony of its eternity.

Re

(..first there's the need to definite the tree, then there's to check if anyone has cut his tree and now it is fallen in the ground. You are using many nice allegories, but the fact is that you do not give a definition of what's hinduism and how can hinduism unificate many religions that have opposite fundamental and constituent ideologies)

The tree I talked of is the one lord Krishna spoke off, fallen branches do not survive,

nor can I or want to stick all the branches together. You can not call that a tree.

Re

(..ok tolerance has main importance.. subject closed.. speak of what is hinduism)

stop patronizing me.

Re

(..so you have no idea of what hinduism is or can be... but your main interest is to create an "anti-muslim" religion to make people think that they have to fight against muslims.. )

I am ignorant and you can also call me ignorant it does not hurt. but It is ridicules to suggest my main interest is to create anti muslim religion, so I made a statement, protect your dharma dharma will protect you, and you misconstrue this as anti muslim or my main interest.

Re

(. To twist religion for our interest is... adharma)

to protect dharma is never adharma.

Jai Shree Krishna

June 13, 2004

you have accused us of being irreligious then it becomes my duty to defend.

..you have understood very well what i am saying but you are attempting to discredit me sayng that i am insulting you

Vedic (Hindu) way teaches us to be noble.

..so be truthful, do not say that i am offending

Problems only happens when people form groups, entrenches their position and accuse others who do not conform of being irreligious.

..if you have a so clear idea on this subject demonstrate that my objections are false.. to say that someone can be fanatic is not a great new

Lord Krishna clearly cites different paths.

..and i have already said that none of thise paths are negating the personal aspects of sri krsna.. sowho is negating is another dharma, not bhagavad gita, and it is irreligious to put him together with the others

tree is big with many branches.

..if you find a common tree there's no problem

“it does not exist and many dharmas included in hinduism” is in itself incompatible.

..word jugglery.... you are putting some things together that are incompatible, not me

try and put this sanyasi in a strange place or country and he becomes an object of ridicule while a Hindu offers his pranam

..and that's a nice thing... so it is up to you to find some very important and costitutive principle who makes hinduism something real and dharmic

Never said all the concept of the supreme is the same.

..so how can you group them in the same dharma?

these are matter of opinions and path chosen.

..many opinions and many paths... how can they belong to the same dharma?

Those branches that fall, rots and diappear, the fact that it survives is in itself a testimony of its eternity

..hinduism is not eternal, it is a relatively new thing and some branches are also new...

The tree I talked of is the one lord Krishna spoke

..there's a krsna's tree and many "hinduist" branches who do not belong to any krsna's teaching about bhakti, jnana, yoga... or they have an opposite opinion with the meaning of these teaching... so where's the union?

(..ok tolerance has main importance.. subject closed.. speak of what is hinduism)

stop patronizing me.

..if you want to have a serious dialogue you have to be honest and speak of the subject, tolerance is not in discussion

but It is ridicules to suggest my main interest is to create anti muslim religion

..because this is essentially how your messages are going on... : "whai is hinduism?".. "i don't know but there's to unite against "aggressors""

protect your dharma dharma will protect you

..there's so many opinions on what's dharma.. so there's no possibility to have a real hindu dharma

(. To twist religion for our interest is... adharma)

to protect dharma is never adharma.

..attempting to twist the meaning of dharma is adharma

Ganeshprasad · June 13, 2004

Jai Ganesh

RE

(..you have understood very well what i am saying but you are attempting to discredit me sayng that i am insulting you)

May be, but language like irreligious, non existing of hindu dharma does not help, I have nothing to gain by discrediting you I respect you all the same.

Re

Vedic (Hindu) way teaches us to be noble.

(..so be truthful, do not say that i am offending)

By debating you on the points you make and you feel I am offending you I apologize, I am sorry.

Problems only happens when people form groups, entrenches their position and accuse others who do not conform of being irreligious.

Re

(..if you have a so clear idea on this subject demonstrate that my objections are false.. to say that someone can be fanatic is not a great new)

what? Clear idea on my statement above or your objection on many concepts?

Re

(..and i have already said that none of thise paths are negating the personal aspects of sri krsna.. sowho is negating is another dharma, not bhagavad gita, and it is irreligious to put him together with the others)

When Krishna speaks off many different paths he allows the negation brahman realization is realization of impersonal realization of god, how can this become irreligious when he says this himself?

Re

(..if you find a common tree there's no problem)

There is only one tree we are talking about you know this the one I quoted from bg.15

Re

(..and that's a nice thing... so it is up to you to find some very important and costitutive principle who makes hinduism something real and dharmic)

If it is nice receive the point gracefully no need to play the same record it is getting warn out.

RE

(..many opinions and many paths... how can they belong to the same dharma?)

You miss the point the lord is eternal, realization are unlimited, after all it the same creator we are searching using the medium of veda.

RE

(..hinduism is not eternal, it is a relatively new thing and some branches are also new... )

Vedas are eternal you said names are not important change your mind again? You also forget the tree is not dead new branches are coming.

Re

(..if you want to have a serious dialogue you have to be honest and speak of the subject, tolerance is not in discussion)

Again I point you to the title of this thread “why do people fight here?

I entered the discussion why you call hindu irreligious.

If tolerance is not important what is?

Re

.(.because this is essentially how your messages are going on... : "whai is hinduism?".. "i don't know but there's to unite against "aggressors"")

And you think I was insulting you, great have your way.

protect your dharma dharma will protect you

to protect dharma is never adharma.

(..attempting to twist the meaning of dharma is adharma )

I agree, I try to follow you sit on the fence and judge.

Jai Shree Krishna

atanu · June 13, 2004

(..many opinions and many paths... how can they belong to the same dharma?)

Well that is the strength and uniqueness. All paths are known and traversed.

And with onset of maturity all paths are respected and loved.

Since all paths are to One Lord who is the object and subject of LOVE.

Jaya Shri Ganesh Prasad Ji Jaya

Jaya Shri Guest Ji

June 13, 2004

but language like irreligious, non existing of hindu dharma does not help,

..they are opinions and not absolutely connected with single people.. and it is clear from the beginning of our discussion

When Krishna speaks off many different paths he allows the negation brahman realization is realization of impersonal realization of god, how can this become irreligious when he says this himself?

..read attentively the gita... krsna does not advocate realizations where there's misconceptions about his being the supreme personality of godhead. it is possible to prefere vishnu, varaha, mohini and even to try to get brahman impersonal realization. But nothing has effect if it is done believing that krsna is a common human or a ficticious character or a product of brahman subjected to maja. This is the current concept in the advaitin/mayavadi schools that someone consider reunite with vaishnavism or shaivism under the name hinduism

so.. all realizations are valid, even if the one of nirguna brahman is temporary, but not if there's envy and blasphemy of krsna

...

after all it the same creator we are searching using the medium of veda.

..many are not searching any creator, amny make distinctions between vedic literature, many give opposite meanings... so where's common points?

Vedas are eternal you said names are not important change your mind again?

..vedas are eternal, but not all schools are aternal and the idea of reunite all schools under the same denomination is not eternal

You also forget the tree is not dead new branches are coming.

..and you are forgetting that it is not enough to see that a branch is born in india to say that's vedic... even if his followers claim to be vedic. Or we must accept that many have opposite opinions on what's vedic

June 13, 2004

And with onset of maturity all paths are respected and loved.

..we are not speaking of respect and love.. respect and love has to be for everyone and everything. We are speaking of a more simple thing, to find a common principle that legitimates the union of so many opposite paths under the name hinduism. The only reason that is given is something like your: "Well that is the strength and uniqueness. All paths are known and traversed."

it seems that no one knows why soemone is called hindu, and that this fact (that no one knows) is considered a great feature of hinduism, sign of open mindness and tolerance

..

Since all paths are to One Lord who is the object and subject of LOVE.

..is there a general hindu agreement on the meaning of the words "One Lord", "object and subject", "love"... and also "paths"?

(i am happy that you are giving your opinion)

Ganeshprasad · June 13, 2004

Jai Ganesh

Re

(..they are opinions and not absolutely connected with single people.. and it is clear from the beginning of our discussion)

i can not read your mind, your words speks louder.

he's right, what interest you have to condemn people collectively?

criticize him only if he personally does something bad

i belive this is your statement in another thread if not i apologize

so you have different standard for us

Re

(..read attentively the gita... krsna does not advocate realizations where there's misconceptions about his being the supreme personality of godhead.

Scarcely one out of thousands of persons strives for perfection of Self-realization. Scarcely any one of the striving, or even the perfected persons, truly understands Me. (7.03)

perhapes this slok escaped you, or may be you give another meaning.

Re

( it is possible to prefere vishnu, varaha, mohini and even to try to get brahman impersonal realization. But nothing has effect if it is done believing that krsna is a common human or a ficticious character or a product of brahman subjected to maja. This is the current concept in the advaitin/mayavadi schools that someone consider reunite with vaishnavism or shaivism under the name hinduism)

yes Krashna actualy admit some think like this, and he calls them mudha but then not every one knows him.

advaita are not vaishnava, vaishnava are not shaiva, this is well understood by us hindus.

Re

(so.. all realizations are valid, even if the one of nirguna brahman is temporary, but not if there's envy and blasphemy of krsna)

so where is the problem.

Re

(..many are not searching any creator, amny make distinctions between vedic literature, many give opposite meanings... so where's common points?)

i like to know which one do not search for creator?

Re

(Vedas are eternal you said names are not important change your mind again?

(..vedas are eternal, but not all schools are aternal and the idea of reunite all schools under the same denomination is not eternal)

please stick to the point made, your answer is out of context.

Re

(..and you are forgetting that it is not enough to see that a branch is born in india to say that's vedic... even if his followers claim to be vedic. Or we must accept that many have opposite opinions on what's vedic)

we are talking of this tree that Shree Krishna mentions, tell me if it is dead, tell me if it is not possible for new branches.

Jai Shree Krishna

June 14, 2004

(..read attentively the gita... krsna does not advocate realizations where there's misconceptions about his being the supreme personality of godhead.

Scarcely one out of thousands of persons strives for perfection of Self-realization. Scarcely any one of the striving, or even the perfected persons, truly understands Me. (7.03)

perhapes this slok escaped you, or may be you give another meaning.

..is this shloka advocating spiritual realizations in negation of krsna's personality? this verse says that undertsanding krsna is a very rare thing...

yes Krashna actualy admit some think like this, and he calls them mudha but then not every one knows him.

..so where's a common principle with them to justify a union?

advaita are not vaishnava, vaishnava are not shaiva, this is well understood by us hindus.

..so where's the common feature to call all these schools with the same name?

(so.. all realizations are valid, even if the one of nirguna brahman is temporary, but not if there's envy and blasphemy of krsna)

so where is the problem.

...the problem is that who blasphemy krsna is not in the same dharma with whom is worshipping krsna

i like to know which one do not search for creator?

..advaitin and mayavadi

(Vedas are eternal you said names are not important change your mind again?

(..vedas are eternal, but not all schools are aternal and the idea of reunite all schools under the same denomination is not eternal)

please stick to the point made, your answer is out of context.

..so try to explain again the context and i will try to answer

we are talking of this tree that Shree Krishna mentions, tell me if it is dead, tell me if it is not possible for new branches.

..not all the branches that you feel they belongs to krsna's tree are really belonging to it. As i have already said i cannot consider krsa a common man or a ficticious charachter and simultaneously being on branch of his tree. If one feels differently, he's another tree... nothing bad, simply the denomination is different

i can not read your mind, your words speks louder.

..my words speak loud that i have nothing against single people and i have nothing against hinduism... simply there's no logic or scriptural concept behind him, there's not a common dharma between the various schools, that every school have a different or opposite opinion on what's sanatana dharma.. that is a new concept, not eternal

Ganeshprasad · June 14, 2004

Jai Ganesh

Re

(..is this shloka advocating spiritual realizations in negation of krsna's personality? this verse says that undertsanding krsna is a very rare thing...)

what one does not know become a subject of speculation.

If Lord Brahma who gave us Vedas get confused what chance us mere mortals?

Re

(..so where's a common principle with them to justify a union?)

spritual journey

Re

(..so where's the common feature to call all these schools with the same name?)

Study of Vedas. concepts aside, outwardly similar way of life.

Re

(...the problem is that who blasphemy krsna is not in the same dharma with whom is worshipping krsna)

in whose eye blasphemy,Krishna or Yours?

i like to know which one do not search for creator?

(..advaitin and mayavadi)

i do not know any group that goes by mayavadi name, it is simply name calling, does not befit a bhakta.

advaita you have to blame Sankracharya, or Lord Krishna

But those who worship the imperishable, the undefinable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent, the unthinkable, the unchanging, the immovable, and the eternal Brahman; (12.03)

Restraining all the senses, even minded under all circumstances, engaged in the welfare of all creatures, they also attain Me. (12.04)

Re

(..so try to explain again the context and i will try to answer)

go back to my post if you care.

we are talking of this tree that Shree Krishna mentions, tell me if it is dead, tell me if it is not possible for new branches.

Re

(..not all the branches that you feel they belongs to krsna's tree are really belonging to it. As i have already said i cannot consider krsa a common man or a ficticious charachter and simultaneously being on branch of his tree. If one feels differently, he's another tree... nothing bad, simply the denomination is different)

answer the question asked, if you please.

there is only one tree Krishna talks about;

The Supreme Lord said: They (or the wise) speak of the eternal Ashvattha tree having its origin above (in unmanifest Brahman) and its branches below (in the cosmos) whose leaves are the (Vedic) hymns. One who understands this is a knower of the Vedas. (15.01)

The branches (of this world tree of Maya) spread below and above (or all over the cosmos). The tree is nourished by the Gunas; sense pleasures are its sprouts; and its roots (of ego and desires) stretch below in the human world causing Karmic bondage. (15.02)

Re.

(..my words speak loud that i have nothing against single people and i have nothing against hinduism... simply there's no logic or scriptural concept behind him, there's not a common dharma between the various schools, that every school have a different or opposite opinion on what's sanatana dharma.. that is a new concept, not eternal)

if you have nothing against hinduism as you state, then stop here you can not have it both ways.

Jai Shree Krishna

June 14, 2004

(..is this shloka advocating spiritual realizations in negation of krsna's personality? this verse says that undertsanding krsna is a very rare thing...)

what one does not know become a subject of speculation.

••you have only to demonstrate it and save me from the mistake

(..so where's a common principle with them to justify a union?)

spritual journey

••coming from? going to? wich road? everyone makes a journey, is everyone hindu?

(..so where's the common feature to call all these schools with the same name?)

Study of Vedas. concepts aside, outwardly similar way of life.

•• .. a conceptual union made putting concepts aside?... and similar way of life about what? dressing? eating with the right hand and cleaning with the left? you reunite a billion people on things like that?

(...the problem is that who blasphemy krsna is not in the same dharma with whom is worshipping krsna)

in whose eye blasphemy,Krishna or Yours?

••krsna's... if you consider him a common human born and dead with a material body it is blasphemy

(..advaitin and mayavadi)

i do not know any group that goes by mayavadi name, it is simply name calling, does not befit a bhakta.

••mayavadi is not an insult, it is a definition of a school of thought.. but who cares? you asked me to find some "hindus" who do not believe in god and now you have the answer

advaita you have to blame Sankracharya, or Lord Krishna

••yes they have created advaita to give some spiritual relief also to materialists.. but our subject is not about judging a faith or another, this subject is about the opportunity to unite them under one denomination, and on what's the common feature, the common root and principle who makes them really united

But those who worship the imperishable, the undefinable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent, the unthinkable, the unchanging, the immovable, and the eternal Brahman; (12.03)

••of course krsna is also brahman.. go to preach to the ones who do not think that krsna is param brahman but a human

Restraining all the senses, even minded under all circumstances, engaged in the welfare of all creatures, they also attain Me. (12.04)

::if they're not negating the personal aspect

we are talking of this tree that Shree Krishna mentions, tell me if it is dead, tell me if it is not possible for new branches.

••the tree is eternal, the growing of new branches is eternal and unlimited.. but not everyone who claim to be a branch of krsna's tree says necessarily the truth. it has to be judged from his philosophy. but again it is not our subject. There's many difference of opinion on what is the krsna's tree, if there's a tree, if this tree is krsna's, who is krsna and so on. So there's no possibility of a real union on spiritual basis

there is only one tree Krishna talks about

••and there's people who do not belong to this tree and people who have different opinion about what's the tree and what is belonging to it.. so no common principle, no union

Ganeshprasad · June 16, 2004

Jai Ganesh

Re

(••coming from? going to? wich road? everyone makes a journey, is everyone hindu?)

From the creator, back to creator, all the paths mentioned in the scripture, yes, yes.

All of them--as they surrender unto Me--I reward accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Prtha.Bg.4-11

Re

(•• .. a conceptual union made putting concepts aside?... and similar way of life about what? dressing? eating with the right hand and cleaning with the left? you reunite a billion people on things like that?)

great insight.

Fact that the billion people do not find it difficult speaks volume.

Re

(••krsna's... if you consider him a common human born and dead with a material body it is blasphemy)

Well Krishna says people who do not know me thinks like this.

Think about it Krishna said this before the onset of Kaliyoug.

This is mrutiyulok what do you expect for people who do not know who Krishna is think?

Nor does the Supreme Spirit assume anyone's sinful or pious activities. Embodied beings, however, are bewildered because of the ignorance which covers their real knowledge.Bg.5-15

Re

(advaita you have to blame Sankracharya, or Lord Krishna

••yes they have created advaita to give some spiritual relief also to materialists.. but our subject is not about judging a faith or another, this subject is about the opportunity to unite them under one denomination, and on what's the common feature, the common root and principle who makes them really united)

it is your subject unity or the lack of it, Hindu does not deny either.

Re

(••of course krsna is also brahman.. go to preach to the ones who do not think that krsna is param brahman but a human)

problem is only if the other who think different, then for me to antagonize them.

Anyone who worship god can not think he is human or mortal.

Re

we are talking of this tree that Shree Krishna mentions, tell me if it is dead, tell me if it is not possible for new branches.

(••the tree is eternal, the growing of new branches is eternal and unlimited.. but not everyone who claim to be a branch of krsna's tree says necessarily the truth. it has to be judged from his philosophy. but again it is not our subject. There's many difference of opinion on what is the krsna's tree, if there's a tree, if this tree is krsna's, who is krsna and so on. So there's no possibility of a real union on spiritual basis)

There is only one tree, one god nothing can exist outside of him.

Re

(••and there's people who do not belong to this tree and people who have different opinion about what's the tree and what is belonging to it.. so no common principle, no union)

Weather we like it or not we belong to only one family.

Jai Shree Krishna

atanu · June 16, 2004

"••of course krsna is also brahman.. go to preach to the ones who do not think that krsna is param brahman but a human"

No Hindu thinks that krsna is a human who dies. Only some Bhaktas seek solace in His manifested form alone, forgetting His sthanu root which He reminds us again and again.

June 16, 2004

From the creator, back to creator, all the paths mentioned in the scripture, yes, yes.

All of them--as they surrender unto Me--I reward accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Prtha.Bg.4-11

••this verse indicates that also who follows maya is actually serving krsna, because maya is krsna's indirect energy. Anyway it seems you are saying that every religion in the world is hinduism.

Fact that the billion people do not find it difficult speaks volume.

••the majority of billion people simply do not care, when someone gets serious about religion, in any path, he does no more call himself hindu but vaishnava, advaita etc..

This is mrutiyulok what do you expect for people who do not know who Krishna is think?

••i have no problem.. i know something for krsna's mercy, not because i am intelligent.. it is only a classification problem. If there's no common feature in hinduism, there's no hinduism. We are speaking of this subject, not giving judgements on what people beliefs

it is your subject unity or the lack of it

••if you think that this is a useless discussion you are not forced...

Anyone who worship god can not think he is human or mortal.

••so.. being in hinduism many peoples and schools believing in that way, they simply cannot stay under the same "hindu" denominations together with the ones who tink the opposite

There is only one tree, one god nothing can exist outside of him.

••so the ones who agree on that cannot be reunited with those who think different and opposite

Weather we like it or not we belong to only one family.

••find first an agreement on who/what is the father

June 16, 2004

No Hindu thinks that krsna is a human who dies

••take some better information

Only some Bhaktas seek solace in His manifested form alone

••provided he does not think that krsna has manifested only that form (but also impersonal brahman, vishnu, varaha, narasimha, mohini and so on).. otherwise he's not a lover (=bhakta), but an offender

Ganeshprasad · June 17, 2004

Jai Ganesh

All of them--as they surrender unto Me--I reward accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Prtha.Bg.4-11

Re

(••this verse indicates that also who follows maya is actually serving krsna, because maya is krsna's indirect energy. Anyway it seems you are saying that every religion in the world is hinduism. )

You have right to think what you like. where is Krishna saying in this verse about maya.

Re

(••the majority of billion people simply do not care, when someone gets serious about religion, in any path, he does no more call himself hindu but vaishnava, advaita etc..)

i think you are begining to understnd, i do not go about advertising i am a Hindu, in the end the sanyasi gives up all the title.

Re

(••i have no problem.. i know something for krsna's mercy, not because i am intelligent.. it is only a classification problem. If there's no common feature in hinduism, there's no hinduism. We are speaking of this subject, not giving judgements on what people beliefs)

So if you are not judging the Hindus and their various belief what is it?

Re

(••if you think that this is a useless discussion you are not forced...)

are you getting bored?

Re

(••so.. being in hinduism many peoples and schools believing in that way, they simply cannot stay under the same "hindu" denominations together with the ones who tink the opposite)

you have a right to think what you like and still be a part of the family.

RE

(••find first an agreement on who/what is the father)

That is what most of us are surching.

Jai Shree Krishna

June 17, 2004

(••find first an agreement on who/what is the father)

That is what most of us are surching.

••so find an agreement on who's the father than decide if all belong to the same family.. you cannot be in search and having already decided

Sign In

Why do People fight here?

Recommended Posts

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest