New ABC Ten Commandments Movie...it's trash!

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

 

It came one fruitful day, when " The Man who became Pope" read Bhagavad-Gita As It Is and Srimad Bhagavatam given to him by this " Man who became Swamiji Jesus" whom Pope John Paul II in Vatican met in the person of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, which the Pope knew was the Avatar who began inundating the whole world with the love Krsna consciousness in the early 70s.

The song, " My Sweet Lord" composed and sang by Beatle George Harrison was probably written for Carol, the Man who became Pope.

 

Where do you get all this from? Srila Prabhupada didn't meet with John Paul II - if he did - could you present some proof?

 

We do need to stick to the facts...

 

YS,

 

BDM

[melvin 1]

Madana is a sanskrit word for meeting.

----

When Pope John Paul II received Srila Prabhupad`s books, opened and read the pages, that was "madana".

Remember that Srila Prabhupad is alive in his books as vani.Whereas, when his material body was still with us, it`s vapuh.

Each time we copy and paste Srila Prabhupad`s works inside this thread, it means they are alive or has become animated ,so to speak.

That`s precisely my POINT-His Divine Grace is alive and well and at this very moment continue to do what his spiritual Guru has started: inundate the globe with Love of God described as Krsna consciousness.

 

-----------says me"krsnaraja"---------

[melvin 1]

Mohana is a sanskrit word for separation.

-------

 

When Srila Prabhupad separates from us, it`s because he goes to another thread or forum.And how does His Divine Grace do it?Well, he teleports himself with this magic" 10.9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2.1..zzp!"

 

---------------says me"krsnaraja"---------------------------

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

 

Madana is a sanskrit word for meeting.

----

When Pope John Paul II received Srila Prabhupad`s books, opened and read the pages, that was "madana".

Remember that Srila Prabhupad is alive in his books as vani.Whereas, when his material body was still with us, it`s vapuh.

Each time we copy and paste Srila Prabhupad`s works inside this thread, it means they are alive or has become animated ,so to speak.

That`s precisely my POINT-His Divine Grace is alive and well and at this very moment continue to do what his spiritual Guru has started: inundate the globe with Love of God described as Krsna consciousness.

 

-----------says me"krsnaraja"---------

 

You didn't imply that [vani/vapu] in your original posting.

 

So you're saying that you know that he read Prabhupada's books?

 

Can that be verified objectively? How did you learn of this? As I'd love to read more about this.

 

YS,

 

BDM

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

 

Interesting.. my only question is: if this is true, why would he let the Jews think they alone were the chosen people on this planet, and the other tribes/people were non-elect gentiles, outside of covenant relationship with him? Do think it's possible that the Jews made that part up to become superior? Or perhaps none of the Torah was to be taken literally, and only an esoteric reading of it will suffice. If that is the case, some of H.P. Blavatsky's books are interesting in this regard.

Well this is an interesting point that has a simple explanation.

 

All peoples who have a scripture and an organized group think [or have thought] that they are the 'chosen'.

 

Even vaishnavas think that India was the 'chosen' land of Krishna.

 

We can all be the chosen of the Lord - each in his own way.

 

We can see that in terms of the peoples round about Israel God found these peoples had severe limitations in being able to turn away from false worship - it was the Hebrews who demonstrated that they could do that.

 

Thus when the Lord gave the Law to them - it was a special bestowment - one that the others couldn't enter into.

 

We can see that in the Torah they are told to accept the strangers who accept the Lord - so their exclusivity wasn't seminal.

 

In India we see diverse faiths from time immemorial - some of these faiths are enlightned some are not. One could say that in India the remnants of this ancient time still holds sway. That is why Krishna says that we are to know that whatever we sacrifice to 'other gods' is meant for Him - that He is the only enjoyer and object of sacrifice and to not recognize this is to fall down - He tells us that those who worship 'other gods' are not very intelligent - He goes further and says that we are to give up all sorts of religions and surrender to Him. He tells us that he alone can save us.

 

Thus we tend to think that we are 'the chosen' when we surrender to Him?

 

There are so many aspects to chosen and how this might be understood.

 

I think that we also have to see that God is going to enter into a covenant - with all flesh. At that time every nation shall have a place in the service of the Lord - and as we know - one trancendental service is not different from another - one who serves on the altar is as important to the Lord as he who sweeps the temple.

 

Thus on this brief explication ask - if the Hebrews really thought that they are the only chosen of God - they would not entertain these noted inclusive teachings.

 

Also H.P. Blavatsky was a crank - an opportunist of the spiritualist era - a 19th century fraud who had no right to comment on the things she did. Her first error? She thought that she was the authority!

 

YS,

 

 

BDM

[Guest guest]

 

Also H.P. Blavatsky was a crank - an opportunist of the spiritualist era - a 19th century fraud who had no right to comment on the things she did. Her first error? She thought that she was the authority!

 

Peter and Paul might have been frauds too? They claimed to be authorities as well.

 

Anyhow, Blavatsky might have not been perfect in her teachings/understanding or worse, but she was still the first introduction many in the west have gotten to eastern philosophy and metaphysics. A lot have became interested in Vedanta after reading her books. And then moved on to more specific vedic writings, apart from theosophy.

 

The theosophical society helped Indians and the westerners drawn to mysticism gain respect of vedanta. And for that at least they must be commended. They were instrumental in getting eastern spiritual teachings to be respected in the western esoteric community. This paved the way for Swamis and Gurus to begin to come to the west in the 20th century, including Vaisnavas.

 

I can't speak for all born hindus, but I reckon people born/raised Hindu don't care what the Torah/Bible says about anything. The Torah/Bible will only be important to ex-Christians/Jews who have converted to an eastern tradition like Vaisnavism, and are still struggling to make sense of the old things they were taught. But since it's not part of the vedic accepted writings, no need to bible-thump followers of hindu sects.

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

 

Peter and Paul might have been frauds too? They claimed to be authorities as well.

 

Anyhow, Blavatsky might have not been perfect in her teachings/understanding or worse, but she was still the first introduction many in the west have gotten to eastern philosophy and metaphysics. A lot have became interested in Vedanta after reading her books. And then moved on to more specific vedic writings, apart from theosophy.

 

The theosophical society helped Indians and the westerners drawn to mysticism gain respect of vedanta. And for that at least they must be commended. They were instrumental in getting eastern spiritual teachings to be respected in the western esoteric community. This paved the way for Swamis and Gurus to begin to come to the west in the 20th century, including Vaisnavas.

 

I can't speak for all born hindus, but I reckon people born/raised Hindu don't care what the Torah/Bible says about anything. The Torah/Bible will only be important to ex-Christians/Jews who have converted to an eastern tradition like Vaisnavism, and are still struggling to make sense of the old things they were taught. But since it's not part of the vedic accepted writings, no need to bible-thump followers of hindu sects.

 

...if you think that that's up to you - but she hasn't really helped anyone - really - and - what were her views on God?

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

 

Peter and Paul might have been frauds too? They claimed to be authorities as well.

 

Maybe they were - or - maybe someone re-wrote them after the fact - as is happening to Srila Prabhupada...

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

 

I can't speak for all born hindus, but I reckon people born/raised Hindu don't care what the Torah/Bible says about anything. The Torah/Bible will only be important to ex-Christians/Jews who have converted to an eastern tradition like Vaisnavism, and are still struggling to make sense of the old things they were taught. But since it's not part of the vedic accepted writings, no need to bible-thump followers of hindu sects.

"...Us and - them and - after all - we're only ordinary men..."

 

I'm not bible thumping anyone - I'm trying to get a point through - a point that Srila Prabhupada very often mentions - that God is O-N-E.

 

Also the fact is I'm trying to help individuals - such as your good self - understand that these traditions have more in common than not.

 

How can you expect people of the other faiths to become more inclusive if you yourself are not willing to extend the same respects?

 

Our world has come to an untenable situation.

 

Why do we expect that people should try to understand things and - to work together to stave off quarrels and all the sequential realities which surround quarrel?

 

You're seemingly angry at the so-called orthodox followers within biblical faiths - in that light you're casting aspersions on entire traditions.

 

I'm asking you to try to be a little broad minded and to learn these things so that when for instance you meet with these followers or their theories you've something to reply with.

 

For instance - it is commonly thought that the bible regards animals as having no soul - however the fact is otherwise - as a proper reading of the words in many texts show.

 

It is also widely taught that Jesus espouced that he was the only way for everyone for all time and - study of the original words in the greek texts show that there is a mistranslation in that verse [John 14.6].

 

The practice of 'sacrifices' - as noted in the 'old testement' - are also not a part of the orignal teachings - these were introduced later and - even as one of the greatest teachers of Torah has well noted - 'the sacrifices were not so much ordained by God as there were tolerated - that it was for themselves that they did this' - there are many texts all through the torah and other books of the bible - to this end. Have you read any of them?

 

Don't be like those opposite you - when you are confronted with these issues take each thing for what it really is and you'll see that you can indeed help people to open up to a better understanding.

 

Isn't that what you should do? Try to help anyone and - everyone possible understand God better - to bring a keener interest forward in their minds about these various points?

 

YS,

 

BDM

[Guest guest]

 

...if you think that that's up to you - but she hasn't really helped anyone - really - and - what were her views on God?

 

what were Buddha's views on God? what about the Dalia Lama? have they helped anyone?

 

I thought you were about uniting not dividing, so why are you blasting theosophists? They aren't the ones trying to convert everyone, and send missionaries to unsuspecting villages to convert people to their religion. They aren't the ones declaring jihad on people of other religions; or claiming only their religion can save. If you want to promote Unity with non-vedic religions, the least you could do is start with people who are friendly toward vedic thought.

 

Theosophists no matter what their faults, were instrumental in launching respect for the Vedas in the western world. Not to mention helping many Indians respect and preserve their own spiritual heritage.

 

 

"After a study of some forty years and more of the great religions of the world, I find none so perfect , none so scientific, none so philosophical and none so spiritual than the great religion known by the name of Hinduism. Make no mistake, without Hinduism, India has no future. Hinduism is the soil in to which India's roots are stuck and torn out of that she will inevitably wither as a tree torn out from its place. And if Hindus do not maintain Hinduism who shall save it? If India's own children do not cling to her faith who shall guard it. India alone can save India and India and Hinduism are one."

 

~ Annie Besant (President of the Theosophical Society)

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

 

what were Buddha's views on God? what about the Dalia Lama? have they helped anyone?

 

I thought you were about uniting not dividing, so why are you blasting theosophists? They aren't the ones trying to convert everyone, and send missionaries to unsuspecting villages to convert people to their religion. They aren't the ones declaring jihad on people of other religions; or claiming only their religion can save. If you want to promote Unity with non-vedic religions, the least you could do is start with people who are friendly toward vedic thought.

 

Theosophists no matter what their faults, were instrumental in launching respect for the Vedas in the western world. Not to mention helping many Indians respect and preserve their own spiritual heritage.

 

Well that's all well and good and - in the program of inclusion it would be naive to think that everything can be included.

 

Of course as I see it - Theosophists tend to make people think in an impersonal fashion about God - taking the all is one pantheistic approach - they also gave rise to the modern new age movements - which movements are of course 'helping' some people to open to the unseen [though not always spiritually healthy in expression] this thinking tends to promote that we don't need to have a personal relationship with God - instead making the seeker think that they are God.

 

Would I ban these groups? Well of course not! Would I encourage people to stay within them? No.

 

I take your point about those who accept that there was no God - to compare Buddha though is off-key.

 

He had a specific mission and - He knew there was a God.

 

To say that He didn't accept that - is incorrect.

 

He preached against the vedas to stop animal sacrifices and - you know that.

 

As for the Dali Lama - one could say that he doesn't believe in God - yet on the other hand one could say that he does in a sense.

 

I have no quarrel with mayavadi Buddhists - do they have a quarrel with personalists? Sometimes.

 

As for the ones converting villages as noted - I think that is wrong too.

 

That other point - They [Theosophists] aren't the ones declaring jihad on people of other religions - the trash they [jihadis] are goes without saying.

 

There is only one way to counter that and that is a widespread education program about these issues - people must be made aware of the facts - and not in a way that makes them dislike others as a result.

 

Ys,

 

BDM

[Guest guest]

 

Well that's all well and good and - in the program of inclusion it would be naive to think that everything can be included.

 

Of course as I see it - Theosophists tend to make people think in an impersonal fashion about God - taking the all is one pantheistic approach - they also gave rise to the modern new age movements - which is of course are 'helping' some people to open to the unseen [though not always spiritually healthy in expression] this thinking tends to promote that we don't need to have a personal relationship with God - instead making the seeker think that they are God.

 

Well, I was not defending theosophical doctrines, just giving them props for what good they did do in creating awareness of the depth of spiritual knowledge that is found in east. For that we can thank them, while maintaining our differences with some of their teachings.

 

I am not an expert in theosophy, but I think they are mainly impersonalists. Their highest view of the Supreme is a lot like the Jewish Kabbalists. In the Kabbalah, the Unmanifest God is described in descending form as Ain (No-thing), Ain Soph (One without End), and Ain Soph Aur (Limitless Light). For the sake of creation he eminates personal features (Sephiroth), but in his umanifest state he is impersonal and formless. This would contradict Vaisnavas and other personalists.

 

My biggest problem with mahayana/theravada buddhism is their total denial of the Self (there is no atman they say). Not even the mayavidis go this far. I don't see how they can seemingly be so spiritual, meditating all the time and engaged in spiritual practices designed to reach enlightening states of Awareness, and yet they do not have any Soul-realization. None. Nor do they ever discover God-within as the Paramatma during their deep states of meditation. It is amazing and tragically sad to me.

 

As to the New Age movement, it's a good start for outer seekers coming out of fundamentalist religions. We should not totally castigate it. It serves its purpose. And many western people will dip their toes in the water, and start reading about the possibility of reincarnation, and other such teachings in those circles. Then if they seek deeper understanding and awareness they can find wisdom traditions of more depth.

 

Remember how the Hippy movement was all about seeking for understanding/enlightenment outside the western religious and materalistic system. And it was that inner desire that led many hippies to seek a Guru (like Prabhupada). So we can see how the Hippy movement served its purpose and likewise other so called free-spirited spiritual movements can likewise serve to lead sincere devotees to more sincere and better forms of expression.

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

 

Well, I was not defending theosophical doctrines, just giving them props for what good they did do in creating awareness of the depth of spiritual knowledge that is found in east. For that we can thank them, while maintaining our differences with some of their teachings.

 

I am not an expert in theosophy, but I think they are mainly impersonalists. Their highest view of the Supreme is a lot like the Jewish Kabbalists. In the Kabbalah, the Unmanifest God is described in descending form as Ain (No-thing), Ain Soph (One without End), and Ain Soph Aur (Limitless Light). For the sake of creation he eminates personal features (Sephiroth), but in his umanifest state he is impersonal and formless. This would contradict Vaisnavas and other personalists.

 

My biggest problem with mahayana/theravada buddhism is their total denial of the Self (there is no atman they say). Not even the mayavidis go this far. I don't see how they can seemingly be so spiritual, meditating all the time and engaged in spiritual practices designed to reach enlightening states of Awareness, and yet they do not have any Soul-realization. None. Nor do they ever discover God-within as the Paramatma during their deep states of meditation. It is amazing and tragically sad to me.

 

As to the New Age movement, it's a good start for outer seekers coming out of fundamentalist religions. We should not totally castigate it. It serves its purpose. And many western people will dip their toes in the water, and start reading about the possibility of reincarnation, and other such teachings in those circles. Then if they seek deeper understanding and awareness they can find wisdom traditions of more depth.

 

Remember how the Hippy movement was all about seeking for understanding/enlightenment outside the western religious and materalistic system. And it was that inner desire that led many hippies to seek a Guru (like Prabhupada). So we can see how the Hippy movement served its purpose and likewise other so called free-spirited spiritual movements can likewise serve to lead sincere devotees to more sincere and better forms of expression.

 

Their highest view of the Supreme is a lot like the Jewish Kabbalists. In the Kabbalah, the Unmanifest God is described in descending form as Ain (No-thing), Ain Soph (One without End), and Ain Soph Aur (Limitless Light). For the sake of creation he eminates personal features (Sephiroth), but in his umanifest state he is impersonal and formless. This would contradict Vaisnavas and other personalists.

 

Well actually as you know there are certian factors in considering who is a mayavadi.

 

The mayavadi like the Buddhist doesn't really accept that we are eternally individual souls. For them seperate identity is a product of maya - their ultimate goal is to merge into the impersonal effulgence of the 'whole' [which is of course one aspect of God] - this 'merging' Srila Prabhupada equates with spiritual suicide - this 'merging' is something very undesirable for a personalist.

 

Of course this merging isn't easy to attain nor is it permanent as we learn from Krishna. In fact this 'merging' is a version of 'heaven' for those who are in enmity with God!

 

The other major factor is that a mayavadi thinks that God has no identity - that that too is ascribed as a product of illusion or maya.

 

So for true mayavadis the form and identity of God are no more real than that of the Jiva or the soul. They teach that God or the supreme takes its form based on the mindset and attachments of the seeker.

 

There are so many points that are not logical in their ideas - like how this impersonal one force becomes us and gods - how we and these 'gods' can interact with some seeming sense of seperate identity. So anyway their ideas are not logical.

 

So the Buddhist ideas of God and soul are much the same - [as I understand it] they think that there is a one all pervasive force that has been divided into these seperate beings [and this world] - they teach that we are possesing a skanda - a sort of psychotropic imprint of the lives of other beings - that these skandas after death - imprint a new being's identity - very odd idea really.

 

For them too God isn't any person nor does He have any individual attributes - of any kind - spiritual or otherwise - they are thinking that 'God' is a result of our attachments and illusions.

 

As for the Hebrew and other biblical faiths - one cannot say that they are impersonalists - they don't ascribe to these core mayavadi ideas regarding the impersonal nature of all things and along with the concept that God and the soul have identity only as a result of our illusion or ignorance.

 

As practiced in today's world it would seem that the biblical faiths have centered on the so-called formless aspect of God - which isn't necessarily impersonal - in the mayavadi sense.

 

However - in the bible there are myriad of texts mentioning God's form and attributes - these have come to be regarded as metaphors or allegory but - that is a matter of opinion.

 

I can present some of these verses sometime - if you like.

 

Also in the biblical tradition there is an understanding of the soul as being an individual and being like God in quality. As we accept. There are even references to pre-existence. One must be careful about making conclusions from the 'Kabbalah' and it's information - it is very much a mystical allegory.

 

So in the short end of it - I pretty much agree with your posting - except as noted.

 

 

YS,

 

BDM

[Guest guest]

 

Their highest view of the Supreme is a lot like the Jewish Kabbalists. In the Kabbalah, the Unmanifest God is described in descending form as Ain (No-thing), Ain Soph (One without End), and Ain Soph Aur (Limitless Light). For the sake of creation he eminates personal features (Sephiroth), but in his umanifest state he is impersonal and formless. This would contradict Vaisnavas and other personalists.

 

Well actually as you know there are certian factors in considering who is a mayavadi.

 

The mayavadi like the Buddhist doesn't really accept that we are eternally individual souls. For them seperate identity is a product of maya - their ultimate goal is to merge into the impersonal effulgence of the 'whole' [which is of course God] - this Srila Prabhupada equates with spiritual suicide - this 'merging' is something very undesirable for a personalist.

 

Of course this merging isn't easy to attain nor is it permanent as we learn from Krishna.

 

The other major factor is that a mayavadi thinks that God has no identity - that that too is ascribed as a product of illusion or maya.

 

So for true mayavadis the form and identity of God are no more real than that of the Jiva or the soul. They teach that God or the supreme takes its form based on the mindset and attachments of the seeker.

 

There are so many points that are not logical in their ideas - like how this impersonal one force becomes us and gods - how we and these 'gods' can interact with some seeming sense of seperate identity. So anyway their ideas are not logical.

 

So the Buddhist ideas of God and soul are much the same - [as I understand it] they think that there is a one all pervasive force that has been divided into these seperate beings [and this world] - they teach that we are possesing a skanda - a sort of psychotropic imprint of the lives of other beings - that these skandas after death - imprint a new being's identity - very odd idea really.

 

For them too God isn't any person nor does He have any individual attributes - of any kind - spiritual or otherwise - they are thinking that 'God' is a result of our attachments and illusions.

 

As for the Hebrew and other biblical faiths - one cannot say that they are impersonalists - they don't ascribe to these core mayavadi ideas regarding the impersonal nature of all things and along with the concept that God and the soul have identity only as a result of our illusion or ignorance.

 

As practiced in today's world it would seem that the biblical faiths have centered on the so-called formless aspect of God - which isn't necessarily impersonal - in the mayavadi sense.

 

However - in the bible there are myriad of texts mentioning God's form and attributes - these have come to be regarded as metaphors or allegory but - that is a matter of opinion.

 

I can present some of these verses sometime - if you like.

 

Also in the biblical tradition there is an understanding of the soul as being an individual and being like God in quality. As we accept. There are even references to pre-existence. Be careful about the 'Kabbalah' and it's information - it is very much remez or allegory.

 

So in the short end of it - I pretty much agree with your posting - except as noted.

 

 

YS,

 

BDM

 

Hi Don,

I have never understood why the mayavidis are so excited to give up personal identity to merge into some soup of idistinguisable oneness. Sometimes depending on the mayavidi speaker, it seems as they might mean something more mystical when they 'say merge', than their analogy actually gives off, but because of the vagueness of their analogy, it can be hard to tell. You are right though that God is impersonal to them.

 

Kabbalah seems to speak more about "individual souls" than Advaita. At least the Lurianic Kabbalah, which I have studied a little. Isaac Luria's whole teaching on the 5 parts (or aspects) of the Soul I've found interesting. One thing (and please correct me if I am wrong) is Kabbalists seem to believe the soul was created or sparked at one fixed point in time? This is said to have happened with the creation of the Primordial Man (Adam Kadmon or Adam HaRishon?)? A man we were all suppose to have dwelled in as "One" at the beginning of "creation".

 

The Kabbalistic teaching on origins seems to contradict the Vaisnava teaching that creation, maitenance and destruction have being going on forever; and moreover, that jivas are eternal and have existed eternally before our fall into material creation in the Brahmajyoti (some same Vaikuntha itself).

 

At any rate, the Kabbalists do seem to have some vedic ideas (like reincarnation), and are aware of many esoteric mysteries.. they are an interesting group within Judaism.

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

 

Christianity considers Prabhupada's KC movement a cult, and a work of the devil to seduce souls with eastern beliefs and practices. Protestant and Catholic Christians do not believe anything like Hare Krishnas, and believe Hare Krishnas are doomed for hell if they do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord & Saviour.

 

From the biblical Christian perspective, it is their duty to "contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints", and fight against false gospels and other religious movements: declaring that Jesus Christ alone can save souls from the wrath of God.

 

So we should consider the implications of this:

 

Always chanting My glories, endeavoring with great determination, bowing down before Me, these great souls perpetually worship Me with devotion. [bG 9.14]

 

Here - what is God saying - great souls - who are as noted in the text just previous [those who are not deluded, the great souls, are under the protection of the divine nature. They are fully engaged in devotional service because they know Me as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, original and inexhaustible.]

 

So He is not siding with any group - but rather - He is saying - great souls. Can we see the implication? Of course those who preach biblical exclusivity are misguided - but that is not the all end all of the issue.

 

Ever read about the great Catholic Monk Thomas Merton? He writes of Bhagavad Gita 'As It Is':

 

"The Gita can be seen as the main literary support for the great religious civilization of India, the oldest surviving culture in the world. The present translation and commentary is another manifestation of the permanent living importance of the Gita."

 

http://www.harekrishna.com/col/founder/sp-s/sp-gita.html

 

At that link you'll see comments from others of biblical background - are they wrong or somehow less genuine to their faiths than their noted misguided exclusionist brethren?

 

YS,

 

BDM

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

 

Hi Don,

I have never understood why the mayavidis are so excited to give up personal identity to merge into some soup of idistinguisable oneness. Sometimes depending on the mayavidi speaker, it seems as they might mean something more mystical when they 'say merge', than their analogy actually gives off, but because of the vagueness of their analogy, it can be hard to tell. You are right though that God is impersonal to them.

 

Kabbalah seems to speak more about "individual souls" than Advaita. At least the Lurianic Kabbalah, which I have studied a little. Isaac Luria's whole teaching on the 5 parts (or aspects) of the Soul I've found interesting. One thing (and please correct me if I am wrong) is Kabbalists seem to believe the soul was created or sparked at one fixed point in time? This is said to have happened with the creation of the Primordial Man (Adam Kadmon or Adam HaRishon?)? A man we were all suppose to have dwelled in as "One" at the beginning of "creation".

 

The Kabbalistic teaching on origins seems to contradict the Vaisnava teaching that creation, maitenance and destruction have being going on forever; and moreover, that jivas are eternal and have existed eternally before our fall into material creation in the Brahmajyoti (some same Vaikuntha itself).

 

At any rate, the Kabbalists do seem to have some vedic ideas (like reincarnation), and are aware of many esoteric mysteries.. they are an interesting group within Judaism.

 

Interesting points I'll come back to them soon.

 

YS,

[riih.qarojamahoamaan 0]

Basically everything that appears on the t.v. screen is trash, why do you watch it? I cannot be labelled of a specific religion, but since long i have observed that the 10 commandments plus the 2 most important commandmens given by Jesus are connected to the signs of the zodiac, the first (I am your God) is of Aries, sign of identity, the 2nd (make no idol) is connected to Taurus, the sign of form, the 3rd (take not God's name in vain) is of Gemini, the sign of speech, the 4th is of Cancer, who finds trouble to relax, the 5th is of Leo who tends to disrespect his parents, the 6th is of Virgo, the sign of destruction, the 7th is of Libra, the sign of marriage, the 8th is of Scorpio, the sign of breaking laws, the 9th is of Sagittarius, the truth seeking, the 10th is of Capricorn, the sign of ambition, the 11th given by Jesus is love your God by all your might, corresponds to Aquarius: the sign of discovery, and the 12th also given by Jesus is love the people close to you as you love yourself, this is of Pisces, the sign of devotion.

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

 

Hi Don,

I have never understood why the mayavidis are so excited to give up personal identity to merge into some soup of idistinguisable oneness. Sometimes depending on the mayavidi speaker, it seems as they might mean something more mystical when they 'say merge', than their analogy actually gives off, but because of the vagueness of their analogy, it can be hard to tell. You are right though that God is impersonal to them.

 

Kabbalah seems to speak more about "individual souls" than Advaita. At least the Lurianic Kabbalah, which I have studied a little. Isaac Luria's whole teaching on the 5 parts (or aspects) of the Soul I've found interesting. One thing (and please correct me if I am wrong) is Kabbalists seem to believe the soul was created or sparked at one fixed point in time? This is said to have happened with the creation of the Primordial Man (Adam Kadmon or Adam HaRishon?)? A man we were all suppose to have dwelled in as "One" at the beginning of "creation".

 

The Kabbalistic teaching on origins seems to contradict the Vaisnava teaching that creation, maitenance and destruction have being going on forever; and moreover, that jivas are eternal and have existed eternally before our fall into material creation in the Brahmajyoti (some same Vaikuntha itself).

 

At any rate, the Kabbalists do seem to have some vedic ideas (like reincarnation), and are aware of many esoteric mysteries.. they are an interesting group within Judaism.

At last I come back to this post!

 

I agree - why would anyone wish to merge - and they say it's bliss - but they won't know that when it happens to them - as that experiance [and knowing] of bliss is only possible - for a person!?

 

It is so very clear that some souls [mayavadis] want spirituality but they do not want God - they go to great efforts to deny and avoid Him too!

 

In the Kabbalah there is information about the soul and we are to take that information in context - the theory of souls as presented there isn't the all in all - the points there are possible - but there is no doubt that there is more to it.

 

In the Kabbalah there is mention of some 974 generations created and destroyed - before Adam - so time is presented as being cyclic - though it's not expressly mentioned as such.

 

In the original Torah books of the bible we don't see much information on soul - the explicatons of these points came later as commentary.

 

The concept of the beginningless eternal nature of the soul - is something that is alluded to but not expressly stated.

 

These points in Kabbalah deal less with literal meanings and much more with the mystical and - the use of allegory is quite cryptic. That is an important point to know.

 

So in one regard the soul and the afterlife - can be a matter of perspective for those in the biblical traditions.

 

For an example - there are even Christian groups - like the Jehovah's Witnesses - who deny the soul altogether - taking their information solely from the book of Ecclesiastes 9.5:

 

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

 

So with that text Jehovah's Witnesses claim that the eternal soul is a 'heathen' teaching that the bible doesn't speak of an eternal soul - but that is very wrong indeed!

 

Thus Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the resurrection of bodies as the all in all - and they don't understand the context of that resurrection teaching.

 

That is something that we have to see - that in most cases - this resurrection is in fact - rebirth. [there is more to it than that though]

 

The point about (Adam Kadmon or Adam HaRishon?)? A man we were all suppose to have dwelled in as "One" at the beginning of "creation" - I would take that in many ways - as we too are made possible by a Manu - we can understand that Adam is a kind of Manu.

 

I'm still doing my study and as time goes by - I'll know more and more and I'm right now working on a nice posting about this soul point - from a proper biblical perspective - and I hope to have it done not too long from now - we'll see.

 

YS,

 

BDM

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

 

Basically everything that appears on the t.v. screen is trash, why do you watch it? I cannot be labelled of a specific religion, but since long i have observed that the 10 commandments plus the 2 most important commandmens given by Jesus are connected to the signs of the zodiac, the first (I am your God) is of Aries, sign of identity, the 2nd (make no idol) is connected to Taurus, the sign of form, the 3rd (take not God's name in vain) is of Gemini, the sign of speech, the 4th is of Cancer, who finds trouble to relax, the 5th is of Leo who tends to disrespect his parents, the 6th is of Virgo, the sign of destruction, the 7th is of Libra, the sign of marriage, the 8th is of Scorpio, the sign of breaking laws, the 9th is of Sagittarius, the truth seeking, the 10th is of Capricorn, the sign of ambition, the 11th given by Jesus is love your God by all your might, corresponds to Aquarius: the sign of discovery, and the 12th also given by Jesus is love the people close to you as you love yourself, this is of Pisces, the sign of devotion.

 

 

Not everything is trash on TV - just most of it - Nice astrological allegory posting!

 

Do you believe in God? In your other string you mention sorcery - do you think that your bhakti is less powerfull that the crazy witchcraft of others?

 

 

 

YS,

 

BDM

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

A butcher who kills an animal with a defective knife will die of the plague, and his soul will pass into a dog, whom he thus deprives of what belongs to him; for it is said (Exod. xxii. 30, "Ye shall cast it to the dogs." [Kitzur Sh'lh, fol. 17, col. 2]

 

Interesting quote!

[melvin 1]

When i write my post here on this forum, I based it by my experience because its the best teacher, you know.

------

 

It was sometime in august 1995, when i attended a regional medical convention in zamboanga city in mindanao, philippines.The city is where you can find and meet christians and muslims watching cockfights inisde a cockpit betting.Outside, grilled barbecued chicken are being sold to muslims and christians alike.But next to this chicken barbecue stand is also a stand where chopped roasted pig are sold. I wonder, if there are zamboangueno muslims who buy and eat this delicacy.

At the convention, doctors from all over the philippines where there to attend the scientific lectures offered by the hosts, the Philippine Academy of Family Physicians-Zamboanga chapter.

When it was time to have lunch or dinner.At the convention hall, the hosts placed two big tables, one where seafoods, beef, fruits and vegetables were served while the other table served the same array of food but this time pork was served.

So, you could tell if the doctors who partook these items were muslims or christians.There were few doctors who patronized the table without pork whereas the majority took to the table where pork was served.

What a comic view that was! Because there were still so much food at the table where pork wasn`t served that i had to go to this table!Then i went to the other table just to get a few slices of pork this table served.It`s because its not forbidden by the Christian religion to eat pork and beef, i went from one table to the other!Muslims don`t eat pork but eat beef.Hindus don`t eat beef but there some who eat pork.Buddists are vegetarians and so are the devotees of Krsna.

That`s the very reason why Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists can`t agree with themselves.How much more in agreeing to Whom one should believe and follow.

That`s why there are wars!Because even husbands and wives quarrel what food one should serve for lunch or dinner.Tell me how many economies would go bankrupt if God insists that only fish and vegetables should be served?

 

------------------says me"krsnaraja"--------------------------------

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

 

When i write my post here on this forum, I based it by my experience because its the best teacher, you know.

------

 

It was sometime in august 1995, when i attended a regional medical convention in zamboanga city in mindanao, philippines.The city is where you can find and meet christians and muslims watching cockfights inisde a cockpit betting.Outside, grilled barbecued chicken are being sold to muslims and christians alike.But next to this chicken barbecue stand is also a stand where chopped roasted pig are sold. I wonder, if there are zamboangueno muslims who buy and eat this delicacy.

At the convention, doctors from all over the philippines where there to attend the scientific lectures offered by the hosts, the Philippine Academy of Family Physicians-Zamboanga chapter.

When it was time to have lunch or dinner.At the convention hall, the hosts placed two big tables, one where seafoods, beef, fruits and vegetables were served while the other table served the same array of food but this time pork was served.

So, you could tell if the doctors who partook these items were muslims or christians.There were few doctors who patronized the table without pork whereas the majority took to the table where pork was served.

What a comic view that was! Because there were still so much food at the table where pork wasn`t served that i had to go to this table!Then i went to the other table just to get a few slices of pork this table served.It`s because its not forbidden by the Christian religion to eat pork and beef, i went from one table to the other!Muslims don`t eat pork but eat beef.Hindus don`t eat beef but there some who eat pork.Buddists are vegetarians and so are the devotees of Krsna.

That`s the very reason why Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists can`t agree with themselves.How much more in agreeing to Whom one should believe and follow.

That`s why there are wars!Because even husbands and wives quarrel what food one should serve for lunch or dinner.Tell me how many economies would go bankrupt if God insists that only fish and vegetables should be served?

 

------------------says me"krsnaraja"--------------------------------

 

Melivin you're being unfair - you write:

 

where you can find and meet christians and muslims watching cockfights inisde a cockpit betting

 

These events [cockfights] are not promoted as 'christian and muslim' events - you're mentioning a cultural aberration [cockfights] and then attching 'christian and muslim' to it.

 

How many hindus are involved in cultural aberrations? If we see an abortion clinic in India - do we thus say 'such and such is an hindu abortion clinic' - is that fair??

 

There is no doubt it's about the diet - but that is a cultural kali yuga cultural aberration in all nations - even India.

 

So I would ask that you try to be fair and not post such mixed facts.

 

To say that Hare Krishna's and Buddhists are vegetarian and thus 'special' is a kind of exclusivity that isn't really important - as even animals are vegetarian - the real idea is that we are to find the best of a bad bargain and - if you're trying to encourage the meat eaters to give it up you best not blame their faiths and scriptures for this - cultural aberration. That isn't going to encourage anyone now is it.

 

Did you ever eat meat? Did you believe in God when you were a meat eater? Was is a sham to believe when you were a meat eater?

 

Please Melvin we have to have as much compassion for the people who eat meat as we do for the poor animals that they eat - as they are a mirror of one another - those who eat this - become this and - those animals who are killed to be eaten - get a premature human birth - back and forth they go - but - when they 'meet' a devotee - like yourself - it's the moment that they have a potential opportunity - to hear and - thus become free of this nasty slaughterhouse diet - by turning to God in the proper persepective on this issue.

 

Quote:

 

Tell me how many economies would go bankrupt

 

Reply:

 

No fish! No economies have to go bankrupt - why should that be a matter for concern?

 

Sure a few people who make their direct profit from this - they might be affected - but all others can go on - as people still have to eat and there are many soy and other good veggie meats now and - they'll only get better with such a change - so really - there isn't much of a worry about this issue - as noted - the slaughterhouse owners better have a 'plan B' for their economic development because the time for this change is near and it doesn't have to be any big ordeal.

 

If people are really going to use their heads they are going to see the logic of what it said here:

 

"Nothing will benefit human health or increase the chances for survival of life on earth as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.” [Albert Einstein]

 

YS,

 

BDM

[melvin 1]

There was the Word.And the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us

 

 

If you chant Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare the Cancer cells in your body disappear.Why? because the Word Cancer really sounds this way" KANSR"

In other words, the "kansr" cells disappear in one`s body if the Words Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Hare Hare are being chanted within regularly by you and me.

The Hare Krsna maha mantra therefore is the ultimate cure for cancer.Believe it or not!

 

--------------------says me"krsnaraja"-------------------------------

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

 

There was the Word.And the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us

 

 

If you chant Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare the Cancer cells in your body disappear.Why? because the Word Cancer really sounds this way" KANSR"

In other words, the "kansr" cells disappear in one`s body if the Words Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Hare Hare are being chanted within regularly by you and me.

The Hare Krsna maha mantra therefore is the ultimate cure for cancer.Believe it or not!

 

--------------------says me"krsnaraja"-------------------------------

 

Melvin - what is that supposed to mean to this discussion?

[akshar 1]

Jesus lived in india. He got his powers from yog. He had a guru. His real tomb is in kashmir. After the so-called ressurection he went to india. He performed taap in himalayas. He was no god or the son of, he was just a religious man.