Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, and Mohammed. Who among them is the true personality of God?

[Priitaa 0]

Angekela

 

Thank you for your kind, and sincere reply. I will try to answer your questions as well as I can. And don't worry that your faith is weak. That will change. Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with your choices, it will change merely because you are sincerely looking.

 

The first point I should probably tell you is that I do not practice what fits in the category of "Hinduism." Some who do, also understand Krishna to be God, but others believe Shiva is God, others worship demi-gods such as Durga, and even there are other paths. Whereas what I practice is transcendental Krishna consciousness. More on this later, but thought I should clear that up. And now you have something else to add to your list. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

 

"On the other hand, I am confused about the teachings of Krishna. There is no evident/factual basis of His appearance in this world."

 

Actually there is much evidence (physical and historical) of Krishna's presence in this world. Just that, for whatever reason, the focus has not gone in that direction. It is why I am going to make a web page on the topic, sort of. But it will take months to do, and I also need time for research. Time I dont have. Thats why it will require months. But here is one to start you out with. In India there is physical evidence of the city of Dwarka, where Lord Krishna lived. It tells us in Srimad Bhagavatam that this city ultimately ended up under the water. And guess where they found this city in India? You guessed it. Under the water!

 

Oh, and one that comes to mind are the NASA pictures that appear to be the bridge built by Hauman - a pastime of Lord Rama (an incarnation of Krishna)! They are on this message board, soemwhere.

 

This is just the tip of the ice burg. There is much more!

 

"Unlike Jesus, History of the world is parallel to his existence. In the Bible, there are numerous names of ancient Kings that were mentioned and it is exactly named if we match it is world history. "

 

Glad you pointed this out. In my reasearch I have discovred, for example, many names of Christian or even Jewish lineages have their roots in Sanskrit names. For example, Jew and Yadu dynasty are considered by some to be connected. Purity and proper following are another topic, but the example is there. And when God told Jesus where to find the Promised Land, the names He gave are almost identical, and most are identical, with names of beautiful lands in Kashmir India. Again, this is only the tip of the iceburg and I just haven't had time to do more research. But I plan on it.

 

"I don't have any knowledge about the proof/facts about Hinduism."

 

Well, as touched on above, I do not practice Hinduism. Some who are Hindu know Krishna is God, but others do not. But I can answer most questions about Hindism. To start with it is more of a modern word, at least when we compare it to ancient texts. It is not to be found in any Sanskrit Vedic literatutes and most Hindus will agree here. I have put a web page together trying to explain the difference between Krishna consciousness and Hinduism, which is meant with all due repsect to those Hindus that know who God is. Simply, this questions gets asked over and over, so it's time it gets answered.

 

Difference Between Hinduism & Krishna Consciousness

http://www.geocities.com/priitaa108/difference_between_hinduism_kc.htm

 

It should be noted that not all Hindus practice the same thing, believe the same way, even various Hindu culutres are differ from one another. I have done my best to clear it up, but if there are any 'significant' mistakes, any Hindus could politely inform me. Not referring to things they themselves differ over, where one Hindu follows it but they dont. No. Just something "no" Hindu follows.

 

"Does really Hanuman ever lived?"

 

Yes, and still does! /images/graemlins/smile.gif The NASA picture may help in this way too. But his race, highly intelligent moneky species, no longer exists. He is only alive due to his transcendental nature, and he's staying away from kali yuga people, living up in the Himalaya's.

 

"There are also lots of god to be worshipped. My idea is, if we can't please, follow, love with all our hearts only one God, why have more? For God is a jealous God, He don't want His people to praise other non-existent/mind created beings...."

 

God is not jealous, that is a human quality, or lack thereof. However you are correct that there is only One God. Prabhupada clearly explains demi-god worship is for the less intelligent and/or for the materialistic persons who want to recieve some material benefit, so this is who they approach. But God can give anything, so even then, one should approach Krishna with their desires. Better of course, to just worship and serve Him, but everyone has to act according to what they can handle.

 

"I have found a list of characteristics of a False religion. I know this is not 100% true but just as the guide to see if you are in the group...

 

 

The following statements, compiled by Dr. Michael Langone, editor of Cultic Studies Journal, often characterize manipulative groups."

 

 

I have also been thinking how I should do some research on what is a cult and what is not. But as of yet, have not. (Though I do know a little.) So my answers will be based more on personal experience and scripture.

 

(1) The group is focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment.

 

A- I agree here, though the exception is when someone as great as Christ, Prabhupada or Mohammed walks the earth, as these are all pure devotees of Krishna. They merely had different assignments or missions from God/Krishna. Although when the pure devotee tells you to do something, you just are so fortunate! But even then, Prabhupada always pointed out how this is a voluntary process, something I suspect some of his followers (not all) seem to have missed or minimize.

 

(2) The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

 

A- The word 'preoccupied' is what makes all the difference in the world. There is nothing wrong with brining in new members, and after all, how will others find out about it if on one tells them? But if they are preoccupied thats almost like obsessive addictive behavior, and therein lies the problem. Devotees of Krishna engage in a variety of activies and not just this. Though preaching is an important part of our philosophy, its not the all-in-all. Matter of fact, it is often said that we should focus on ourselves first, try to become more and more Krisna conscious ourselves. Then we can share it better anyway. We also engage in worship, serving and other activites, including serving the devotees.

 

(3) The group is preoccupied with making money.

 

A- I agree 100% here. As we have jokingly said/complained 'Money's the Honey.' :-)

 

(4) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

 

A- Srila Prabhupada encrouaged us to ask, ask, ask. At the end of his classes too, he always had a period of questions or even comments.

 

(5) Mind-numbing techniques (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, debilitating work routines) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

 

A- I dont know whether to laugh or cry over this one, because to put meditatoin in the same category as 'mind-numbing' is rahter cult like too. ha That is, its alsmost as if he is saying we must stop any form of connecting with God and instead surrender unto him & his understandings. Just because he cannot see or comprehend what goes on with those who are (genuinely) experiencing something spirutal, invisible and wonderful in a meditative state, he therefore tries to debunk what his material vision is blind to. ha However, when it comes to speaking in tongues or engaging in debiliting work, I will agree with him here. Now, I don't know what denunciation sessions are. Guess I never went through one. ha

 

(6) The leadership dictates sometimes in great detail how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, get married; leaders may prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth).

 

A-What even many devotees don't know is that when it comes to marriage, or who to assciate with (date) for future spouse, this is one area the guru does not have to be involved in. He can be if you want, but scriptures do not say it is a must. Regarding clothes, I almost agree. But if a spiriutal leader (qualified!) is explaining we should not be a show off with our bodies but instead to wear chaste clothes, and these days men are not left out of this category, I have no problem with such an instruction and do not see it as cult-like at all. I know many devotees who prefer devotional clothing, and others who don't. But all dress like ladies and gentlemen. Of course, when going to the temple, most of us wear traditional saree or dhoti, but again, we long ago made a personal choice and have a desire for this. No one is forcing, its what we want. I love sarees! :-)

 

I am going to post this and edit to finish, cuz it looks like my electricity may shut down with the upcoming storm! brb.

 

(7) The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity).

 

A- I see this as mixed. What to do when one actually 'does' bump into the association of a pure devotee or an Avatar? I am not saying there are any current Avatars, just replying to the theory presented. So rather than Dr. Langone expressing it the way he did above in #7, he maybe should first be capable of pointing out "how" to recognize the difference between either an incarnation (Avatar) of God, or how to be able to know (qualities) who is a pure deovtee of God. Since he is not able to do that, I tend to question his motivation. But anyway, the bottom line would be, if someone is following a false prophet or false God, they should know how to recnogize this and from that point, renounce it. If on the other hand it is a bona fide path, I can't imagine why on earth Dr. Michael Langone would want them to cease and desist from saving others, unless he's on a missoin of his own. ha I remember the Jehovah Witnesses coming to my door regularly as a child growing up. All my parents did was shut the lights, pull down the curtains, and phone the nighbors to warn them. :-) They were annoying, but no one called them a cult. They could be, but still, their spiriutal belief should at least be respected.

 

(8) The group has a polarized us- versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.

 

A- Again, I see it as mixed. If there is anything I find disrespectful, its when devotees look down their noses at the nondevotee. After all, we were all nondevotees once, unless born in Vrndavana India (Holy Land). Yet, since a person goes out of their way to give up sinful activity, it does change them and help them find their higher self. It will cause them to be different from those who are not trying. But if they loose their humility, well, they should not stop trying, but must realize this is only very first step if they must puff themselvs up in order to continue spiritually. Every soul is child of Krishna. Just that some get the realization (or mercy) sooner than others.

 

(9) The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations).

 

A- With the exception of those who fit in the category of a pure deovtee, I agree here. Spiriutal people (monks, etc) are still 'people' and at risk of fall down at any point in time. Matter of fact, what helps them avoid fall down is when they DO have someone to answer up to. So this is good for them, not bad. If they avoid, then look out! But when Jesus walked the earth there was no fear he would fall down. He actually did have the connection with God that not only made him accountable, but also lead to no interest in material life anyhow. Similarly Prabhupada also behaved in the most spiriutal ways. Actually at that time, when he came to America, many gurus were also coming. And they were living in big fancy hotels or in various similar ways, reaping the material benefits of their American disciples. Prabhupada lived with his disciples, he even served them prasadam (food)!

 

(10) The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities).

 

A- LOL Sorry, but that hits home. Again, Prabhupadas disciples do not always do what he says. Letter after letter, Prabhupada tells us to be honest in such matters.

 

(11) The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them.

 

A- I tend to think we (devotees) drag our Xtian and Jewish backgrounds with us into the movement. I have had deovtees try to guilt and shame me into doing this or that, but such methodology cannot be found anywhere in Prabhupadas books, etc. Those who were there, we all know we followed Prabhupada because he INSPIRED us. He brought to us such wonderful, transcendental feelings we never before experienced in our entire life! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

(12) Members' subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family and friends, and to give up personal goals and activities that were of interest before joining the group.

 

A- Again, mixed. After I joined, I phoned my parents weekly, wrote them letters, and visited. Whereas all my friends wrote ME off! (And I thought they were open minded. What a surprise.) Yet even the Catholic church, the nuns for example, must completely renounce all family ties , even friends and personal goals. Of course what Dr. Michael Langone is not accepting is that joining the Catholic church as a nun or monk IS their personal goal. Therefore he is denying them too. ha It seems that anything spiriutal, he fault finds with. Tho not to misunderstand. I do feel we all must look into what is a cult and what is not, and apply it. But everyone who writes about cults (or has a 'position' in their anti-cult 'group' hehe) is not always accurate, tho often some of what they say may be correct, and some is mistaken.

 

(13) Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group.

 

A- Again, that brings me back to the Catholic church idea. If anyone wants to dedicate their life to any religion at all, such committment should not automatically be stuck in a category of 'cult.' That in iteself is cult mentality. But I do agree it should be a voluntary process. Also, in the Krishna consciousnness movement there are different ashramas. If one does not want to give up as much time, or cannot, they can be householders. Householders have independence. Whereas in any religion, Buddhism, any, if one makes the personal choice to fully give their all, they can become monks and do like that. They know what they are getting into. Its not like they made such a choice out of ignorance. If they did, that would be different. In which case I would tell them, "Get an education before making major, life altering choices." Its just common sense really. Tho in this age, many have lost common sense. :-)

 

(14) Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members

 

A- I have yet to see any religion that does not prefer association with others of their own faith. However, it is not restricted to that. Unless one is a monk or nun. Again, they have made a conscious choice to live that type of lifestyle, and I dont think it should be criticized (I know you are not doing this, just that Dr. Michael Langone is). It seems he has used different angles to ask make the same point over and over. But I hope I answered everything well enough. Feel free to ask any questions. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Myra 0]

 

Sisters and brothers,

 

There is no such thing as a perfect religion. Religion cannot save us. They are just their to guide and lead our way to the right path. Also, they only "claims". Always remember, don't judge the religion by it's people, but by it's scriptures. If you are still seaching and finding which is which, you will be running out of time. The true religion is shown between the relationship of an individual and with God. So concentrate on finding your path. Seek it first, once you find, go and let be the light to others too. Be a good model to them.

 

We are all given the measure of faith and most of us grew up in a different tradition and belief. Respect each other's belief, not to condemn or judge them, only the Lord God knows each and everyone's hearts.

 

God has always the way to enter each others heart, though something there is no visible way in the eyes of man. We are all sinners, and becasue of that we tend to see the negative side of each group. I pray that the good Lord will purify our hearts, so that we will see through His eyes, Hear through His ears, and speak through His Lips. We can only do that if we let the Lord God reside in our hearts, like the heart that holds the blood and circulate throughout the body, God will also make a new meaning into our lives and show us the right way of living.

 

 

[Myra 0]

You sound so well versed with the Hare Krishna community. Can you please give me more insights about it? I will be most grateful.

 

I am also a servant of the Lord, but outside your community.

 

Thank you in advance.

 

God Bless!

[theist 1]

Much wisdom there. Thanks for sharing that.

 

It's true when God controls our senses instead of wordly lust, he will cause us to see clearly the truth in others outside of our paticular group and religion.

 

It is very individual and personal.

[Priitaa 0]

Hi Myra,

 

Well, thank you for the kind words, tho not sure what insights you are looking for. I am just a struggling devotee like anyone else. :-) Simply I have really good resources. ha So anything you want to ask, I can usually look up.

 

It doesn't matter that you live outside the community, one can develop their God consciousness anywhere.

[Guest guest]

 

NO OTHER THAN JESUS CHRIST.

 

Why do you people question His Identity? Isn't it enough that He died in the cross for your sake? Ask yourself, is there any of your "Gods" can do this? They are just the partial God..the Moon? River? Water? Fire? They are also creations! Fool you! You worshipped Idols that can't hear, can't eat, can't hold you, can't help you. You are wasting your time. You are just wasting the gifts of God for that Idols. Better give the milk to the needy, it's more pleasing to the Lord.

 

Don't waste your time, Life is short.

 

Proverbs 21:2 says, Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the Lord pondereth the hearts. In Proverbs 16:25 we find, There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

 

I can never find the sayings in your book to bathe the Idols with milk or worshipped them!

[yasodanandana 0]

jesus does not want you to be so fanatic, and he does not want that you believe that his father is limited by boundaries and he comes only in palestine...

 

so respect the other ways that god uses to save us

 

or

 

if you want to criticize a religion, study it very well, and explain with precision that we are wrong

 

in this way you only can make us laugh or get angry, if you are right and we are wrong in this way you do not save us, because no one is ready to change his beliefs if the one who's criticizing is not expert, serious, friendly and compassionate

 

your way of speak and preach only increases your pleasure to believe yourself superior to everyone... fanaticism

 

jesus surely does not agree ... so be humble, study and speak with care if you want to save us from hell

[Guest guest]

 

The Hare Krishna devotees, such as myself, believe that Krishna is the One Supreme God, Buddha is an incarnation of Krishna who advented to stop meat eating in the name of the Vedas, and Mohammed was sent by Krishna to preach to an assigned group of people and elevate them so in time they could come to the level of accepting Krishna consciousness. Jesus too fits in this (last) category.

 

 

 

I agree with the first two points, about Krishna being the Supreme God and Buddha being an incarnation who appeared to stop the abuse of the Vedas.

 

But what is the basis for saying that Mohammed "was sent by Krishna to preach to an assigned group of people and elevate them so in time they could come to the level of accepting Krishna consciousness"?

 

 

 

[Priitaa 0]

 

I agree with the first two points, about Krishna being the Supreme God and Buddha being an incarnation who appeared to stop the abuse of the Vedas.

 

But what is the basis for saying that Mohammed "was sent by Krishna to preach to an assigned group of people and elevate them so in time they could come to the level of accepting Krishna consciousness"?

 

 

This is to be found in Srila Prabhupada's books. He explains how Mohammed was a shaktyavesa avatara, and that he preached to stop the abominations that were going on, therefore elevating the people.

[Guest guest]

 

Mohammed lived a thousand of years prior to your Prabhupada. Where did he got his authority to speak of Mohammed? He only based his claims of the writings about Mohammed also. Or maybe Prabhupada is the reincarnation of Mohammed? Ha ha ha...just kidding...(half meant)

[Priitaa 0]

 

Mohammed lived a thousand of years prior to your Prabhupada. Where did he got his authority to speak of Mohammed? He only based his claims of the writings about Mohammed also. Or maybe Prabhupada is the reincarnation of Mohammed? Ha ha ha...just kidding...(half meant)

 

 

Do NOT make fun of Srila Prabhupada, not in any way, shape or form, or I guarantee you not only will I let into you like a ton of bricks, many on this message board will also. If you dont accept him as your guru thats your business, but he is mine and many others here, so how dare you challenge him, his knowledge, his purity, or whatever else. If you have no faith in him, then what is the purpose of your post but to put him down. If you have a sincere question, I suggest you ask it in that manner (sincerely). Yet I find it foolish for Hindu to argue with deovtees of Prabhupada's Hare Krishna movement when we have much in common, and there are so many Xtians and Muslems you all ready argue with.

 

Please back off, and show respect, before you commit a mad elephant offense due to fault finding with a pure devotee of Krishna.

[Guest guest]

 

This is to be found in Srila Prabhupada's books. He explains how Mohammed was a shaktyavesa avatara, and that he preached to stop the abominations that were going on, therefore elevating the people.

 

 

 

Please quote the exact source from Prabhupada's books wherein he says that Mohammed is a "shaktyavesa avatara" and that "he preached to stop the abominations that were going on," etc. I would most appreciate this.

 

Thanks in advance

 

[Guest guest]

 

Do NOT make fun of Srila Prabhupada, not in any way, shape or form, or I guarantee you not only will I let into you like a ton of bricks, many on this message board will also. If you dont accept him as your guru thats your business, but he is mine and many others here, so how dare you challenge him, his knowledge, his purity, or whatever else.

 

 

 

Is this kind of threatening necessary? Come on. Stay peaceful. That guy was obviously joking.

 

But his first question was relevant - what is the source of Prabhupada's authority on Mohammed? Was he a scholar of religious studies or Islam during his secular life? Or did he somehow study Islamic religion and history at some point? It's a fair question.

[Guest guest]

1)prabhupada lived in calcutta in a situation of mutual respect with muslims, for example he say that muslims very often did partecipate at hindu festivals and the hindu did the same... so it is not unlikely that srila prabhupada knows very well muslim religion

 

2)due to our studies, to our practice of krishna consciousness, due to the opinion of all the authorities in gaudya vaishnava sampradaya, due to comparing Him to the sadhus of our and other's tradition and reading what are the features of a pure bhakta in the shastras... we consider Srila bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada as a pure devotee, trasparent medium of the Krishna consciousness

 

in my personal opinion i have a not so little experience of koran readings, i have faith in srila prabhupada and my spiritual master who is a representative of him

 

and i have also the experience of how many people gets better and better in happiness and consciousness following if they follow srila prabhupada's teaching

 

i consider an authority who gives to me a complete picture of the spiritual and material life... i require nothing more or nothing less if i want to learn about spiritual practice

 

spirit is culture, life and practice, not erudition..

[Guest guest]

 

prabhupada lived in calcutta in a situation of mutual respect with muslims, for example he say that muslims very often did partecipate at hindu festivals and the hindu did the same... so it is not unlikely that srila prabhupada knows very well muslim religion

 

 

 

The same could be said of Gandhi. He leaved almong Muslims and Christians and theorized that Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism were all the same religion. One can't help but sympathize with his attempts to create order and amity, but from an evidence-based perspective, his views are difficult to accept though they might otherwise be motivated by the best of intentions.

 

 

due to our studies, to our practice of krishna consciousness, due to the opinion of all the authorities in gaudya vaishnava sampradaya, due to comparing Him to the sadhus of our and other's tradition and reading what are the features of a pure bhakta in the shastras... we consider Srila bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada as a pure devotee, trasparent medium of the Krishna consciousness

 

 

 

The question however, is why Mohammed is considered a "shaktyavesa avatara" sent by God. On what basis is this statement made? If it is objectively true, is there objective evidence (Vedas, Puranas?) to support it?

[Guest guest]

why you want to demonstrate that islam is false? what is your purpose?

 

-karim

[theist 1]

I believe Srila Prabhupada was quoting Bhatisiddhanta when he said Mohommad was an empowered by God.

[Guest guest]

 

why you want to demonstrate that islam is false? what is your purpose?

 

 

 

I don't know if Islam is "false," and frankly I don't care. I just want to know why some Caitanya followers call Mohammed a "saktyavesa avatara" and say that he had a specific mission assigned to him by Vishnu. Is there some evidence for this, or is it one of those things you have to accept on faith when you join a certain society?

 

Incidentally, in another thread, one Gary Stevason was quoted as saying:

 

 

who does she think she prays to? If it is Siva then you will be okay. If it is Allah, then ...... [too horrible to describe here]

 

 

 

This seems to indicate a certain internal conflict or ambivalence of Hare Krishna devotees vis-a-vis Islam. On one hand, Mohammed is a genuine avatar, but on the other hand his god is not to be worshipped. An interesting range of views on the subject.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

simply not all pratictioners knows wery well the doctrine. and it is very easy to find quotes of our spiritual master about this subject

 

it is also possible to say that it is not a fundamental subject, a spiritualist is not too interested in finding faults in doctrines or judge people as cathegories

 

we judge on personal basis, you can identify your self as an hare krishna and be a terrible and irreligious person ... and the opposite

 

this HK vs Muslim is basically and Indian problem, many indians who sincerely live bad moments with the muslims, bombarded by news, with the increasing indian nationalism and hindu integralism find very difficult to discriminate and to surrender to the non sectarian words of the pure devotees

 

i am not american

 

but sincerely speaking i have not heard one new yorker devotee, after the famous twin tower tragedy, stretching desperately the philosophy to be justified to speak and shout fanatically about an entire people, race and religion as many hindu and hk indian practitioner do with great ease

 

of course there's not a western HK vs indian HK war... these are only my impression mainly received reading this forum

[Guest guest]

I used to ask myself the same question, however I have come to the conclusion that there is no "true" religion. One persons truth is anothers non-truth, just as there is no right and wrong, there just "is".

 

There is only one TRUTH, we all can agree on that I'm sure. That is the true "religion".

 

If you put a jew,christian, moslem, hindu,buddhist in a room and told them to figure out the true religion, i guarantee you it will be the last one standing in the room will dictate the true religion!!

 

If you added a non believer, say a tribesman from australia, or american indian, and observed, the truth would be very obvious to a neutral observer. The purity of these "natural" people, not ruled by dogma, and historical faction fighting, money etc would prove that no religion is the best religion.

 

Religion was created by man for man, nature was created by God for man.

 

My humbe opinion

 

Ex Christian...don't need religion anymore

 

Sean

 

[Guest guest]

 

Is this kind of threatening necessary? Come on. Stay peaceful. That guy was obviously joking.

 

But his first question was relevant - what is the source of Prabhupada's authority on Mohammed? Was he a scholar of religious studies or Islam during his secular life? Or did he somehow study Islamic religion and history at some point? It's a fair question.

 

 

I have incredible patience for those who genuinely ask about our path even if they don't want to take to it. But mutal respect must be shown.

 

Peace can only be obtained when we stick up for truth, otherwise it is 'selfish peace.' I found his comment and "intended" offense and not a mere joke, tho even a joke, it was a form of 'making fun of.' Reread that part 'without' the rest and maybe you will see my point. I do agree I ran out of patience that night though, but why must I (or all devotees) have to remain perfect and equpoised while they can say anything they want, even fault find with the pure deovtee, and if we chastize them or let them know where we stand, we get chastized instead? They get away with it by hiding behind a joke.

 

Sure, if the question is sincere it can be answered, but my point was to also ask it sincerely or to clear that up, leaving out the sarcasm and put down. But why would a Hindu ask such a challenege question of our spiriutal master, this is the question that came to mind. I don't run around putting down their gurus/teachers. I would have been 'less' offended had a Christian or Muslim said it.

 

YS,

Prtha dd

[Guest guest]

I don't think getting offended serves any purpose, even if the other person really is offensive. And I'm still waiting for answers to my questions.

 

thanks

 

 

[gHari 0]

And do you deserve answers? We are not your servants.

 

God hides for a reason. No one can betray His privacy, even if they wanted to.

 

You must ask why you are here, asking these questions. Is your motivation proper? If not, then you can't expect to get anything more than is appropriate for your level of sincerity. Intellectual curiosity doesn't buy much in this market. Ridicule, sarcasm, and disrespect disqualify the client, for the only currency accepted here is proper desire.

 

Do you really want to know? Why?

 

[Priitaa 0]

 

I don't think getting offended serves any purpose, even if the other person really is offensive. And I'm still waiting for answers to my questions.

 

thanks

 

 

I am not offended anymore, nor was it so much on a personal level in the first place. Maybe somewhat because I am not perfect, or possibly because I have a right to my feelings even if they are not vox populi. However, it was more about my spiriutal master, who is perfect and therefore no one has the right to even jokingly criticize.

 

Now with that said, I have too often run into those who think they can speak anything, and everyone 'must' respond bright eyed and bushy tailed, otherwise they are not "spiritual." This is not taking responsibility for what one puts out there. I'm not suggesting to go the other extreme, simply that you can not, or at least have not, owned your contribution in this.

 

As far as answering your question, it has all ready been answered by Thiest. My suspicion is you reject his answer or you wouldn't be saying it had not been answered. All I can do is suggest you read Prabhupada's books for yourself and see they are indeed, pure, and that he is as well.

 

And thanks gH, you have verbalized exactly what I was picking up on.

[Guest guest]

 

And do you deserve answers? We are not your servants.

 

 

 

I am sorry if I said anything to imply that any of you are my servants or in any way obligated to answer my questions.

 

As to whether or not I "deserve" an answer -- I don't know. Honestly, it never occured to me to ask such a question of myself because, in the information age with information being so readily available, it seems that most people should not be pained to share information.

 

A common Sanskrit aphorism holds that knowledge should be given out freely (the idea being that hiding it away as brahmins are stereotypically thought to do is neither good nor proper).

 

As my questions were fairly straightforward, it never occurred to me that there was something wrong with them.

 

 

God hides for a reason. No one can betray His privacy, even if they wanted to.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what is meant by this. I'm not trying to "betray God's privacy." I just wanted to know the rationale for calling Mohammed an avatar.

 

 

You must ask why you are here, asking these questions. Is your motivation proper? If not, then you can't expect to get anything more than is appropriate for your level of sincerity. Intellectual curiosity doesn't buy much in this market. Ridicule, sarcasm, and disrespect disqualify the client, for the only currency accepted here is proper desire.

 

 

I have not ridiculed anyone. All I did was ask the question - three times now. Couldn't it be that perhaps you are overreacting a little?

 

 

Do you really want to know? Why?

 

 

 

I just want to know if it is true. It seems hard to believe, given the differences between Islam and Hinduism, but obviously if the evidence is compelling then one has to accept it in spite of this.