Islam No.786 Means Krishna!!

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

I got to post this, I was wondering after this devotee found out 786 In Islam backwards is 'Om' anyway, I am excerting this..very interesting indeed [and funny]-

 

 

http://forums.gawaher.com/lofiversion/index.php/t6031.html

 

 

The innovation of writing '786' replacing 'Bismillaah al-Rahmaan al-Raheem' has been adopted for a long time and the majority of the Ummah is still indulged in it inadvertently.

 

Apart from the common folk, the scholars also heed no attention towards it and to avoid disrespect to the Holy Words they use it in their letters and documents. They adopt it as 'correct' and 'better' way to invite Allah's blessings and have also started replacing the Holy Words by this number on their houses, offices, buildings, etc. Unfortunately, this tendency is gradually gaining momentum.

 

But, do we see this number instead of the Holy Words in the Holy Qur'aan? Or, can we write it there as well? can we remove 'Bismillaah al-Rahmaan al-Raheem' from the top of Surah al-Faatiha and replace it with the number 786? Obviously not.

 

If we study the Qur'aan, we see it carries the holy words in a letter from Prophet Solomon (pbuh) to the Queen of Sheeba - Bilqis - who was an infidel at that time. Even Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in his letters to different heads of states and governments, used the holy words at the top.

 

Therefore, whosoever uses 786 with the intention to obtain Allah's blessings, is a misguided person and any attempt to justify it, is ignorance.

<font color="red"> More astonishing</font color> /images/graemlins/smirk.gif is that fact that '786' is an aggregation of the numbers of Hindu 'Lord Hari Krishna'.

H(a)iri Kr(i)shna

h-5, r-200, r-10, k-20, r-200, sh-300, n-50, a-1 = Aggregate of 786

Thus, the aggregate number of these letters (Hari Krishna) equals 786. This is also the case of 'Bismillaah al-Rahmaan al-Raheem'. Therefore, it is necessary to avoid using this number to avoid the danger of being indulging in infidelity.

Islam's foundation is laid on the belief in Tawheed (oneness of God). If we associate anyone with Allah's exalted names orally or practically, we would be committing infidelity which is an unpardonable sin.

 

[maadhav 0]

That does not make muslims love Hindus or krishna,

and the hindus should never thing islam (or muslim) is good for them.

 

any one who tolerates islam suffers badly.

Bharat/Hindus are teh living example.

that is the lesson from 1700 yers of history.

 

[Guest guest]

Where is that fello who pokes his nose when we say Hinduism is one unfied religion and cries foul that Hindus are trying to bring artificial unity between vaishnavas and other sects.

 

THis is a classic example of trying to bring an artificial unity between a vedic religious god and an abrahamoc religion that originated in a desert.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

I am now Muslim Vaishnava. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[maadhav 0]

good point. thanks.

 

he lives here. it would be nice if he understands what we are talking. but i have no hope.

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Pranam Maadhavji

 

i think he has got tired of us, he can not understand one simple fact in a large family we have different opinion but we are still one big family, or may be he does but does not want to accept.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

[Guest guest]

"Where is that fello who pokes his nose when we say Hinduism is one unfied religion and cries foul that Hindus are trying to bring artificial unity between vaishnavas and other sects.

THis is a classic example of trying to bring an artificial unity between a vedic religious god and an abrahamoc religion that originated in a desert. "

 

god is one.. but obviously, even if we can find some correlations, there's no possibility to equate vaishnavism with islamism.. they're both personalist/monotheist while many hindus are not in this way, but there's no doubt that they are different practices.

Surely if a muslim (or hindu, or christian, or buddhist) starts to chant harekrsna mahamantra on regular basis he's a gaudya vaishnava practitioneer and soon he finds unity with other vaishnavas

 

"Jai Ganesh

Pranam Maadhavji

i think he has got tired of us, he can not understand one simple fact in a large family we have different opinion but we are still one big family, or may be he does but does not want to accept."

 

the family are all living beings who are all servants of bhagavan sri krsna.. who works for bringing everyone's to krsna belongs to the same family..

 

hindus have not all this purpose, many have the opposite one.. to destroy krsna and put himself in his place

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(the family are all living beings who are all servants of bhagavan sri krsna.. who works for bringing everyone's to krsna belongs to the same family..)

 

great observation we are all living being.

Only you have a sectrain view who belongs, unfortunately you forget we are all living being.

 

Re

(hindus have not all this purpose, many have the opposite one.. to destroy krsna and put himself in his place)

 

You have a malicious imagination no Hindu seeks to destroy krasna.

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

"You have a malicious imagination no Hindu seeks to destroy krsna."

 

that's a hindu forum.. do some search

[maadhav 0]

<< hindus have not all this purpose, many have the opposite one.. to destroy krsna and put himself in his place >>

 

i wish that HKs do not replace krishna with chaitanya.

krishna follower will win over the terrorists,

chaitanya followers cannot win against ak-47s and granades.

 

[Guest guest]

The simple fact is all Hindus worship krishna as a god without exception.

You check your facts first.

Whether krishna is supreme or siva is supreme or Rama is supreme is immaterial. To hindus all of them are gods, and different sects call different gods as supreme gods.

[Guest guest]

"chaitanya followers cannot win against ak-47s and granades"

 

chaitanya followers win against maya, who's against chaitanya is against krsna

[Guest guest]

"The simple fact is all Hindus worship krishna as a god without exception."

 

so that's because vaishnavas are not hindus..

 

"Whether krishna is supreme or siva is supreme or Rama is supreme is immaterial. To hindus all of them are gods, and different sects call different gods as supreme gods. "

 

another difference... to be a hindu one have to negate the existence of the Lord.

No supreme lord, only gods and goddesses.. illogic and not attractive..

 

not dharmic

[Guest guest]

Dear Guest

 

Namaskaram I refer to you comments

 

"so that's because vaishnavas are not hindus.."

 

Are you the official spokesperson for all Vaishnava sects ?

 

"No supreme lord, only gods and goddesses.. illogic and not attractive.. not dharmic"

 

Please englighten me what Lord Krsna's means when He says

"rudraanam shankaras chaasmi"

"senaaneenam aham skandah" (BG Cpt 10, text 23/24)

 

Among the Rudras I am Shankara

Among generals I am Skandha (Murugan as the Tamils know Him)

 

Srimathe Ramanujaya namaha

 

Yetiraja Ramanuja dasan

 

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

I wish that HKs do not replace krishna with chaitanya. krishna follower will win over the terrorists,

chaitanya followers cannot win against ak-47s and granades.

 

 

In this Age everybody will fight for anything. Without reason or motivation there is fight. So Prabhupada by Krishna grace..

 

Introduced a method to get out of this. Based on Sastra.

 

You know very well how people are like, they don't accept anything. So Mahaprabhu said simply go on chanting.

 

Look at big picture. We are Vedantists. Most people don't know what day it is, we know what Yuga it is. I don't think right now the way to solve problems is fighting.

 

Ever heard of collective Karma?.. Its like I will kill you, next life you will kill me. Then family suffer because of this. The cycle moves on.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

"so that's because vaishnavas are not hindus.."

Are you the official spokesperson for all Vaishnava sects ?

--no, i am the president of USA.. you are a vaishnava, explain to me why you are hindu and how you are in the same religion with impersonalists and mayavadi

(we have to respect and to be peaceful with everyone, but belonging to a religion is a technical thing, there's to be common principles)

 

"No supreme lord, only gods and goddesses.. illogic and not attractive.. not dharmic"

Please englighten me what Lord Krsna's means when He says

"rudraanam shankaras chaasmi"

"senaaneenam aham skandah" (BG Cpt 10, text 23/24)

Among the Rudras I am Shankara

Among generals I am Skandha (Murugan as the Tamils know Him)

--that HE is the demigods, not that the demigods are him

[Guest guest]

Dear Tseug

 

Namaskaram,

 

There are 3 main vedic schools - advaita, visistadvaita and dvaita, all accepting the Prasthana trayam as their pramanam.

 

Of the 3 mentioned above, 2 are vaishnava sects. Please state if you have the authority to represent any of these 2 sampradayas ?

 

Regarding your question "why you are hindu"

I refer you to the following paper by a Sri Vaisnava scholar on the definition of Hindu.

 

http://www.dharmacentral.com/universalism.htm

 

"that HE is the demigods, not .. "

 

Thank you for the clarification.

 

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

 

Yetiraja Ramanuja dasan

[Guest guest]

 

 

There are 3 main vedic schools - advaita, visistadvaita and dvaita, all accepting the Prasthana trayam as their pramanam.

--i agree, but the fact that they all accept vedas is only formal, technical.. If i read the vedas, and i think that a personal, individual Lord is the supreme and that the absolute truth is full of individuality and features.. but another comes and he, reading the same vedas, believes that impersonal brahman is the absolute reality, that my individuality and lord's individuality are maya, it is manifest that we belong to opposite religions.

The fact that we both have in hands bhagavad gita, puranas,upanishads, itihasas, vedas and so on means nothing.. because we behave as we are reading totally different books..

 

.

that's what i have read in your linked page:

 

"a Hindu is an individual who accepts as authoritative the religious guidance of the Vedic scriptures, and who strives to live in accordance with Dharma, God’s divine laws as revealed in the Vedic scriptures. "

 

my opinion is the same...

 

"Of the 3 mentioned above, 2 are vaishnava sects. Please state if you have the authority to represent any of these 2 sampradayas ?"

---is it necessary to have some relevant ecclesiastic position to express an opinion? why you are giving your opinion freely and i need to show my identity card?

 

jaya sri krsna!! haribol!!

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

 

 

(("You have a malicious imagination no Hindu seeks to destroy krsna."))

Re

(that's a hindu forum.. do some search )

 

I do not need to search the forum, it is you who need to understand what Lord Krishna is saying or else you are the one who is denying Krishna(I will not use the word Killing)

 

 

Chapter 9. The Most Confidential Knowledge

TEXT 15

jnana-yajnena capy anye

yajanto mam upasate

ekatvena prthaktvena

bahudha visvato-mukham

SYNONYMS

jnana-yajnena--by cultivation of knowledge; ca--also; api--certainly; anye--others; yajantah--worshiping; mam--Me; upasate--worship; ekatvena--in oneness; prthaktvena--in duality; bahudha--diversity; visvatah-mukham--in the universal form.

TRANSLATION

Others, who are engaged in the cultivation of knowledge, worship the Supreme Lord as the one without a second, diverse in many, and in the universal form.

 

Now read the purport(not my opinion)

 

PURPORT

This verse is the summary of the previous verses. The Lord tells Arjuna that those who are purely in Krsna consciousness and do not know anything other than Krsna are called mahatma; yet there are other persons who are not exactly in the position of mahatma but who worship Krsna also, in different ways. Some of them are already described as the distressed, the financially destitute, the inquisitive, and those who are engaged in the cultivation of knowledge. But there are others who are still lower, and these are divided into three: 1) he who worships himself as one with the Supreme Lord, 2) he who concocts some form of the Supreme Lord and worships that, and 3) he who accepts the universal form, the visvarupa of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and worships that. Out of the above three, the lowest, those who worship themselves as the Supreme Lord, thinking themselves to be monists, are most predominant. Such people think themselves to be the Supreme Lord, and in this mentality they worship themselves. This is also a type of God worship, for they can understand that they are not the material body but are actually spiritual soul; at least, such a sense is prominent. Generally the impersonalists worship the Supreme Lord in this way. The second class includes the worshipers of the demigods, those who by imagination consider any form to be the form of the Supreme Lord. And the third class includes those who cannot conceive of anything beyond the manifestation of this material universe. They consider the universe to be the supreme organism or entity and worship that. The universe is also a form of the Lord.

 

 

Also read this.

 

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)

 

Self-realization is more difficult for those who fix their mind on the formless Brahman, because the comprehension of the unmanifest Brahman by the average embodied human being is very difficult. (12.05)

 

Now I am not advocating anything but you will have to deny the lord in order to matain your position. You will also have to deny Lord Chatanya for accepting Sanyas from an advait sanyasi you certainly have to denounce Adi Sankra.

Go do some soul searching you might realize we are all but one big family.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

the fact that who worship something is actually worshipping krsna in a way or another is not in discussion, as it is not in discussion that maya is also an indirect aspect of krsna.

 

a different matter is how to cathegorize and classificate these worshippers... so if you want to say that all the kinds of religious practitioneers in the 9.15's comment are the same religion, i accept it, and again the name "hinduism" becames useless. if there's no difference between christianism, islamism, hinduism, buddhism and so on.. so everyone of these names is useless.

 

(obviously you do not consider that bhagavad gita is speaking of religious experiences born only in india (that did not exist at the times of gita, pandavas were kings of all the world) and you can see these features in the religions all over the world)

 

--

You will also have to deny Lord Chatanya for accepting Sanyas from an advait sanyasi

--chaitanya mahaprabhu did not think that advaitist were of the same his religion, otherwise he would have not converted them to gaudya vaishnavism in so great number

 

you certainly have to denounce Adi Sankra

--he's an avatar, like buddha... they had their purpose.. to create something different to appeal some kind of men. I do not know if they did want to unite with vaishnavas in a common religion.

 

your purpose is politic... if you feel right to unite various religions against islamism it is your business, simply do not try to sell us that there's already a unity to be more strong and effective in your propaganda

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(the fact that who worship something is actually worshipping krsna in a way or another is not in discussion, as it is not in discussion that maya is also an indirect aspect of krsna.)

 

i am afraid you are loosing the plot check what you said and why you asked me to search, we can continue with the rest if you wish after.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Tseug

 

Namaskaram

 

The contention of this discussion is your statement

 

"so that's because vaishnavas are not hindus.."

 

I am glad you "agreed" and your "opinion is the same"

 

"is it necessary to have some relevant ecclesiastic position to express an opinion?"

 

Yes, if you resort to rhetorics such as :

 

"so that's because vaishnavas are not hindus.."

"not dharmic"

"not that the demigods are in Him"

 

If you are expressing your opinions in a Hindu Forum, then you should validate it with the authoritative pramananms.

 

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

 

Yetiraja Ramanuja dasan

 

[Guest guest]

"If you are expressing your opinions in a Hindu Forum, then you should validate it with the authoritative pramananms."

 

there's no word hindu in vedic scriptures.. so you are bringing out a new, not authoritative, non traditional thing, not mine..

 

so better speak by logic..

 

you said and you brought a link saying that hinduism is a real and unique religion because all hindus read the same books, i said that this is a not valid definition because among the hindus these books are interpreted in at least three opposite ways..

 

religions have often variety inside, but also a common and precise agreement on the nature of the absolute

 

ask to 100 muslims "who's god" and you'll have one answer

 

ask to 100 hindus "who's god" and you'll have many different answers, maybe opposite

 

that's the fact

 

[Guest guest]

If you call it hinduism, or sanathana dharma or vaidhica dharma, there is no second opinion among the followers of hinduism that, Lord Krishna is an avatar of vishnu himself.

 

He is in everything and he is everything.

 

As I have been repeating, you are artificially trying to create a divide that is not there at all.

 

Yours is not the position held by the great acharyas of hinduism.

 

If some brainwashed half baked so called acharys, just to bring western christians under his control tries to equate chirst with krishna or allah with krishna, that is sacrilageous. I dont understand how a vedic god can be equated. And even a school child knows the dasaavatharam...

 

You are nobody to comment on the unity of hinduism.

Even in sciences, depending upon the period the interpretations have been made, the theories have been entirely different. Same way, different acharyas, depnding on the time they were born and depnding on the condition of the society they were in, interpreted the scriptures in different way.

 

Even now, I see some books like Bhagavat Gita for Executives... the authour tries to apply the concept of gita to the modern business executive to achieve excellence.

 

So , if a vaishnava executive prefers to read it, you mean to say he is not a vaishnava anymore or a hindu anymore, or just because the author prefers to interpret it, he is not a hindu anymore?

 

[Guest guest]

If you call it hinduism, or sanathana dharma or vaidhica dharma, there is no second opinion among the followers of hinduism that, Lord Krishna is an avatar of vishnu himself.

--many thinks that vishnu is a krsna's avatara

 

Yours is not the position held by the great acharyas of hinduism.

---of course, but from many great acharyas of vaishnavism

 

If some brainwashed half baked so called acharys, just to bring western christians under his control tries to equate chirst with krishna or allah with krishna, that is sacrilageous.

---i do not know any acharya who's equating krsna with christ

 

You are nobody to comment on the unity of hinduism.

--you're less then mine if this is your only argument

 

Same way, different acharyas, depnding on the time they were born and depnding on the condition of the society they were in, interpreted the scriptures in different way.

--so different groups, different denominations.. traditional denominations... where's the problem?

 

the authour tries to apply the concept of gita to the modern business executive to achieve excellence.

--so what's the use of it? the purpose of bhagavat gita is to know the words of krsna, not the concepts of the author about business, excellence, and so on

 

So , if a vaishnava executive prefers to read it, you mean to say he is not a vaishnava anymore or a hindu anymore, or just because the author prefers to interpret it, he is not a hindu anymore?

--no.. i mean to say that the vaishnava if he's sincere he will soon find a purest bhagavad gita edition and that the author is an asura.. rascal..