Hindu History

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Thanks Maadhav i will look at the link later

 

jai Shree Krishna

[Guest guest]

••mahaprabhu's byographies are easily available... chaitanya charitamrita is sold all over the world)

A biography written by advati would be different you are still missing the point; advaita is part of Vedic philosophy Sri Shakrachriya is testimony to that.

--no problem in different opinion.. only problem in too different opinions under the same artificial denomination

 

••krsna is also maya.. it is not that if a religion is existing , it is automatically vedic or dharmic)

it is not for you to decide

--i don't want to decide.. we are not speaking on who's right and who's wrong. We are speaking about reuniting all these opposite "right" under one artificial denomination

 

And if you able to function without the aid of your body let me know I will accept you as my guru.

••even if i were able to be guru, the etiquette is that the disciple brings the candidates to his guru, so i meet him in jagannath puri this summer.. if you want to come with me i am happy..

 

You have here accused other of being cheat for talking about oneness prove me you are spirit

••your body is not the same of yesterday, but you have assumed the same nickname and you have answered to my yesterday's message. So you think that your being "ganeshprasad", or the individual with that name, is not changed and he's still existing.

That's the prove that you believe in spirit.. if you feel to be a different individual why use the same name "ganeshprasad"?

Body changes every millisecond.. if you feel to be the body be coherent and change name and ideas every millisecond

 

for they do not fully understand the nature of the lord he is serva.

••who thinks that lord is SARVA he does not negate any aspect of god

 

Brahman is also form of the lord

••"also" is one religion.. "only" is a different religion

 

Before 1965 you would not find iskcon in any literatures let alone gaudya.

••iskcon is an english translation of "vaishnavism" made by an acharya.. hinduism is a new word coined by muslims.

but wich name is to use is not a great problem.. the problem is if opposite religions are to be called with the same name

 

••in my book is simply precision and truthfulness)

what being hypocrites?

--it is not the main problem.. philosophy and logic are there to judge the opportunity of reuniting opposite religions under one name.. and if in future i will call myself hindu for my advantage you will judge me hypochrit

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

 

Re

(--no problem in different opinion.. only problem in too different opinions under the same artificial denomination)

 

Debate has many opinions, it still is a debate, Hinduism is like that many opinion but the same goal to seek the truth to reach the lord.

Nothing is artificial about vedic(hindu) dharma,it has many stages of realization, one pointed realization of one does not hinder the other.

The respect and tolerance inherent in hindu mindset allows this, nothing you would say will break that

 

Re

(--i don't want to decide.. we are not speaking on who's right and who's wrong. We are speaking about reuniting all these opposite "right" under one artificial denomination)

 

Reuniting is if something is broken, we are talking of Hindu history (at least on this thread), many came to break us you are no match to those ugly invaders.

 

((And if you able to function without the aid of your body let me know I will accept you as my guru.))

Re

(••even if i were able to be guru, the etiquette is that the disciple brings the candidates to his guru, so i meet him in jagannath puri this summer.. if you want to come with me i am happy..)

 

Coditiopn was for you to function without the aid of your body, still I would not mind going to puri again, wish you all the best, I am planning to go to himalay this summer.

 

 

Re

(••your body is not the same of yesterday, but you have assumed the same nickname and you have answered to my yesterday's message. So you think that your being "ganeshprasad", or the individual with that name, is not changed and he's still existing.

That's the prove that you believe in spirit.. if you feel to be a different individual why use the same name "ganeshprasad"?

Body changes every millisecond.. if you feel to be the body be coherent and change name and ideas every millisecond)

 

I never said I am this body, at the same time you can not show me this spirit, but we talk about it.

 

Re

(••who thinks that lord is SARVA he does not negate any aspect of god)

 

Sure.

 

Re

Brahman is also form of the lord

(••"also" is one religion.. "only" is a different religion)

 

For a sadhak to reach a chosen goal in the beginning the the effort is single minded, when Drona asked Arjun what do you see? The answer was the eye. That was his target.

 

 

Re

(but wich name is to use is not a great problem.. the problem is if opposite religions are to be called with the same name)

 

If the lord was limited you would have a point.

 

((••in my book is simply precision and truthfulness)

what being hypocrites?))

Re

(--it is not the main problem.. philosophy and logic are there to judge the opportunity of reuniting opposite religions under one name.. and if in future i will call myself hindu for my advantage you will judge me hypochrit)

 

we will stick with hindu it is non sectarian vedic knowledge, only I am proper vedic follower is a dangerious notion.

To deny the name and than use it is for selfish advantage is being untruthful and very unvedic.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

Hinduism is like that many opinion but the same goal to seek the truth to reach the lord.

••no.. some hindus want to reach the lord, some hindus believe that the lord is to be rejected and that they are the lord, some hindus believe that nothing is real.. neither themselves nor the lord. Many opinion, opposite goals

 

Reuniting is if something is broken

••believing that this "something" were never existing as a real spiritual identity i do not know what's to be reunited

 

(••your body is not the same of yesterday, but you have assumed the same nickname and you have answered to my yesterday's message. So you think that your being "ganeshprasad", or the individual with that name, is not changed and he's still existing.

That's the prove that you believe in spirit.. if you feel to be a different individual why use the same name "ganeshprasad"?

Body changes every millisecond.. if you feel to be the body be coherent and change name and ideas every millisecond)

I never said I am this body, at the same time you can not show me this spirit, but we talk about it.

••many things are "seen"by the effects that they have in the reality. You do not see the bits and bytes running through the cable, but you know that they exist because internet is working and you can surf,write, read and so on...

So if it is undeniable that you live, and you realized that you are not the body, you can call this life "spirit" and his existence is demonstrated

 

(but wich name is to use is not a great problem.. the problem is if opposite religions are to be called with the same name)

If the lord was limited you would have a point.

••variety and variety of denominations are not a sign that god has limits

 

To deny the name and than use it is for selfish advantage is being untruthful and very unvedic.

••of course

[maadhav 0]

dear Ganeshprasad ji,

 

dhanyawad!

you have powerful ability to debate

with cool mind and solid facts.

 

praNam!

 

[Guest guest]

There was no division at all.

May be hinduism was a word coined by the invaders.

But the vedic religion existed since the beginning of time.

The vedic religion consists of all philosophies, and before the advent of shankara himself, ramanuja himself, madhva himself, the religion existed.

 

So you theory of artificial integration is baseless, as there was no division at all, and the religion existed even before these philosophers cames into picture.

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(••no.. some hindus want to reach the lord, some hindus believe that the lord is to be rejected and that they are the lord, some hindus believe that nothing is real.. neither themselves nor the lord. Many opinion, opposite goals)

 

All the hindus wants to reach the lord, same goal many opinion, belief has no bearing on realization.

 

 

((Reuniting is if something is broken))

Re

(••believing that this "something" were never existing as a real spiritual identity i do not know what's to be reunited)

 

Soul with the supersoul, Vedas(Hindu) mention many paths.

 

 

Re

(••many things are "seen"by the effects that they have in the reality. You do not see the bits and bytes running through the cable, but you know that they exist because internet is working and you can surf,write, read and so on...

So if it is undeniable that you live, and you realized that you are not the body, you can call this life "spirit" and his existence is demonstrated)

 

Yes but not seen or realized, advaiti also say the sprit pervades all, nothing can exist outside of the lord, he is sarva, so one ness to those who choose the path is valid even if not experienced, this was the point so how could you call them cheats?

 

Re

((If the lord was limited you would have a point.))

Re

(••variety and variety of denominations are not a sign that god has limits)

 

No it is a sign that god is limitless and thus the various realization.

 

 

((To deny the name and than use it is for selfish advantage is being untruthful and very unvedic.))

Re

(••of course)

 

How much evidence do you want me to provide that this has been the case for some organization.

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Pranam Maadhavji

 

dhanyawad! goes to you for your fighting spirit against

so much opposition.

 

thank you for your kind words god knows i do not deserve it.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Guest guest]

You gave the right answer:

 

"The vedic religion consists of all philosophies, and before the advent of shankara himself [....] the religion existed"

 

it is from the advent of shankaracharya (that i do not criticize, he's lord shiva and he had a valid reason to create his religion) that under the "vedic" label we have opposite theories

 

and if they are opposite, they cannot be all vedic or dharmic to be all called veda or (sanatana) dharma

 

dvaita is a religion, advaita is another religion, nihilisms are other religions..

 

 

[Guest guest]

All the hindus wants to reach the lord

••it is easy to demonstrate that's wrong

 

belief has no bearing on realization.

••desire is essential.. if i want krsna i go to krsna, if i negate krsna he leaves me where i am

 

Soul with the supersoul

••not all hindus believe that there's discrimination between soul and supersoul, and consequently a reunion between them

 

Yes but not seen or realized

••no..it is realized.. many things are realized without seeing them with eyes.

 

how could you call them cheats?

••because preaching is experiencing. If i preach a philosophy that does not negate individuality it is possible that i am authentic. Arjuna can say surely to be fully realized because krsna asked him to surrender, not to annihilate himself and merge. So arjuna is realized and able to communicate.

But if someone preachs a kind of realization where is necessary to lose individuality, he's obviously an hypochrit... who's no more an individual he cannot obviously preach. He is no more "himself", he cannot act, he has no objects of his preaching.. he's died.

 

No it is a sign that god is limitless and thus the various realization.

••various realizations = various names... vaishnava realization, advaita realization, christian realization, buddhist realization.. not "religious" realization.

Discrimination is essential

 

How much evidence do you want me to provide that this has been the case for some organization.

••i am not interested in discussing this subject. If i criticize the use of the "hinduism" name and i use it when i feel it useful i am a rascal.

When someone calls me hindu i am not at all offended, but when i can i explain better the situation for better understanding of vedic tradition

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

((All the hindus wants to reach the lord))

Re

(••it is easy to demonstrate that's wrong)

 

You will have to demonstrate Krishna is wrong.

 

 

((belief has no bearing on realization.))

Re

(••desire is essential.. if i want krsna i go to krsna, if i negate krsna he leaves me where i am)

 

They, whose wisdom has been carried away by various desires impelled by their own Sanskaara, resort to other gods (or deities) and practice various religious rites. (7.20)

Whosoever desires to worship whatever deity (using whatever name, form, and method) with faith, I make their faith steady in that very deity. (7.21)

 

Re

 

((Soul with the supersoul))

Re

(••not all hindus believe that there's discrimination between soul and supersoul, and consequently a reunion between them)

 

As I said belief has no bearing on realization, Brahman realization is not alien concept in Vedas.

 

Re

(••no..it is realized.. many things are realized without seeing them with eyes.)

 

Yes but the point is I am not realized soul,still I talk about my self trying reach that stage does that make me a cheat?

 

I do not know how and why I chose to leave spiritual realm still I speculate about it.

 

Re

(••because preaching is experiencing. If i preach a philosophy that does not negate individuality it is possible that i am authentic.)

 

And it is also possible becoming one with Brahman, since nothing can be outside of Brahman.

 

Re

( Arjuna can say surely to be fully realized because krsna asked him to surrender, not to annihilate himself and merge. So arjuna is realized and able to communicate.)

 

yes he communicated with his arrows.

 

Re

(But if someone preachs a kind of realization where is necessary to lose individuality, he's obviously an hypochrit...)

 

So Sankracharya is hypocrite?

 

( who's no more an individual he cannot obviously preach. He is no more "himself", he cannot act, he has no objects of his preaching.. he's died.)

 

preaching is only in duality oneness is their goal.

 

 

((No it is a sign that god is limitless and thus the various realization. ))

Re

(••various realizations = various names... vaishnava realization, advaita realization, christian realization, buddhist realization.. not "religious" realization.

Discrimination is essential)

 

Yes no one is denying that, weather you call this Hindu or vedic you still have this problem Vedas do not deny various realization. So even the name Vedic dharma will give you the same headache.

 

Re

(••i am not interested in discussing this subject. If i criticize the use of the "hinduism" name and i use it when i feel it useful i am a rascal.)

 

That is honest of you.

Re

(When someone calls me hindu i am not at all offended, but when i can i explain better the situation for better understanding of vedic tradition )

 

And within that vedic tradition you still have to explain the different paths, realy no different from calling it hindu.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

Whosoever desires to worship whatever deity (using whatever name, form, and method) with faith, I make their faith steady in that very deity. (7.21)

••right.... so muslims are left in islamism, christian are left in christianism, satan worshippers in satanism and so on... are they hindus?

 

Yes but the point is I am not realized soul,still I talk about my self trying reach that stage does that make me a cheat?

••you are honestly saying that you sometimes talk about things that you have learned and still not realized so you are a good and honest spiritualist. And if you follow a personalist path it will be possible to you to speak to the people without being a cheater, because personalist paths do not search for losing individual identity.

So a personalist preacher can be realized, an impersonalist preacher is a contraddiction in itself and he's a cheater

 

If i preach a philosophy that does not negate individuality it is possible that i am authentic.)

And it is also possible becoming one with Brahman, since nothing can be outside of Brahman.

•••i have made a writing mistake... the right version is "If i preach a philosophy that does not negate individuality it is NOT possible that i am authentic."

 

yes he communicated with his arrows.

••and words.. he made very intelligent question to sri krsna bhagavan

 

So Sankracharya is hypocrite?

••shankara acharya is lord shiva... he has the duty to make a little step to go beyond buddhism, he's cheating materialists for their own advantage.. otherwise they were atheist/nihilists/buddhists,

Advaita is more advanced than buddhism

 

And within that vedic tradition you still have to explain the different paths, realy no different from calling it hindu.

••i do not think that all so called hindu paths are really vedic paths... that's my point. So i do not speak of or propagandize hinduism

[Guest guest]

"If i preach a philosophy that does not negate individuality it is possible that i am authentic.)

And it is also possible becoming one with Brahman, since nothing can be outside of Brahman.

•••i have made a writing mistake... the right version is "If i preach a philosophy that does not negate individuality it is NOT possible that i am authentic.""

[[

 

sorry.. the old one was the right one

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

Re

(••right.... so muslims are left in islamism, christian are left in christianism, satan worshippers in satanism and so on... are they hindus?)

 

Vasudevkutumb, what can you say for those unfortunate spirit soul who did and does their best to destroy the Hindu culture, they do not follow Vedic scripture they have their own, but still does a mother disown own her child?

 

Re

( And if you follow a personalist path it will be possible to you to speak to the people without being a cheater, because personalist paths do not search for losing individual identity.)

 

So a personalist preacher can be realized, an impersonalist preacher is a contraddiction in itself and he's a cheater)

 

I see no contradiction, Brahman ralisation, parmatma and Bhagvan realization are a valid path given in Vedas, if someone is a cheat Krishna is a biggest cheater.

 

 

 

Re

So Sankracharya is hypocrite?

(••shankara acharya is lord shiva... he has the duty to make a little step to go beyond buddhism, he's cheating materialists for their own advantage.. otherwise they were atheist/nihilists/buddhists,

Advaita is more advanced than Buddhism)

 

How can you talk contradiction with the support of Vedas?

 

((And within that vedic tradition you still have to explain the different paths, realy no different from calling it hindu.))

Re

(••i do not think that all so called hindu paths are really vedic paths... that's my point. So i do not speak of or propagandize hinduism )

 

That is your parogative we Vedic Hindu have no problem, your following your chosen path humbly and sincerely is appreciated even if we get kicked in the teeth.

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

 

 

Re

[[

 

(sorry.. the old one was the right one)

 

No need to be, i thought your correction did not make sense so i did not answer anyway.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[maadhav 0]

thank you and praNam.

 

it would be nice if we could meet sometime, but it does not seem likely.

 

how could we exchage our private e-mail address without

letting the asuras know our e-mails?

 

it does not seem possible.

 

[Guest guest]

What I meant to say was, the religion existed in a unified form, even before the advent of the great acharyas, and philosophers.

 

DO you see the point?

 

 

[Guest guest]

i understand but i have explained that i do not agree

 

 

 

gita is 5000 yrs ago, but krsna says to arjuna that he has already spoken it to vivasvan in other yugas, so gita is eternal and a great part of hinduism is started with shankara's who's born in 788 ad..

 

shankara's religion is a reaction to buddhism, and it is a new thing

 

 

[Guest guest]

Shankara did not create any new religion.

Ramanuja did not create any new religion.

 

Dvaita, Advaita are various schools of thought of the same hindu religion.

 

And the fact that you do not agree does not matter. You can have your own view ( including writing and understanding inverted). I just want to say, you are not correct based on the above facts.

[Guest guest]

yes.. ramanuja acharya did not create anything.. vaishnavism was already there.... bhagavad gita is vaishnavism

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

thank you and praNam.

 

Re

(it would be nice if we could meet sometime, but it does not seem likely.)

 

If we try hard enough we can always find a way, are we not able to send a private message from this site ?

 

i try go to India every year may be we meet there i would also like to meet Atanu.

 

Re

(it does not seem possible.)

 

Do not give up.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

[maadhav 0]

<< Shankara did not create any new religion.

Ramanuja did not create any new religion.

 

Dvaita, Advaita are various schools of thought of the same hindu religion. >>

 

yes.

 

 

[maadhav 0]

<< are we not able to send a private message from this site ? >>

 

i do not know.

if you know it, try and send amessge to me.

 

when you tell anything about you on the forum,

the asuras also know it.

that does not help.

 

suppose you say, "let us meet at this place."

asuras know it too.

you never know who will come there and for what purpose.

 

ApaNi bhAshAmA thodi vAt thai shake.

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Pranam Bhai

Re

(ApaNi bhAshAmA thodi vAt thai shake.)

 

Kem nai kem che? se ni vatu karsu bhagvan ni ke utharatni?

kathivad ma kiyare bhula padvanu che?

apni bhasa ma paan asura janta hoi che

asura no bhai maadhav ne samjan nathi padti

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[maadhav 0]

<< se ni vatu karsu bhagvan ni ke utharatni? >>

 

kem mLAy teni vAto.

khAli bhagvAn nij vAto karashun

to te to potaano svArth sAdhvanu kAm thayun.

aakhaa hindu samaaj ne asuro ni samasyaa chhe

teni vaat na karie to te samasya bahu khsarrb pariNam laavase.

 

<< kathivad ma kiyare bhula padvanu che? >>

 

bek varah pachhi.

 

<< apni bhasa ma paan asura janta hoi che >>

 

chhe ne. ij upadi chhe.

 

<< asura no bhai maadhav ne samjan nathi padti >>

 

asur no bhai chhun em tamne laagechhe?

to to haji puri oLkhaan thai nathi.