sambya1

actually it prooves the wonderful power of mahaprabhu to win over peoples heart and can be understood as nothing short of a miracle . to protest against a kaji in those days of muslim autocracy was next to impossible and kaji was the supreme head of the region literally . there was no western sysytem of justice and things like appeal was normally absent . the incident brings out the divine powers of mahaprabhu . it also indicates that the wise kaji did not want to get into a inevitable clash with mahaprabhu whose popularity was reigning high at that time , and offend the masses . it proves his diplomatic ways ..... if thats the case then its ok . but then perhaps he should have said " bengali muslims are vaishnavs " rather than " islam is vaishnavism " .

if you would have studied history of hinduism you could have instantly known that beef was the favourite food of indra and agni . whatever is put in to the fire is a way of providing agni with naivedya . what about the cow or horse sacrifices then ? yajnavalkas passion for meat was well documented and munusmriti specifically says that meat eating is not forbidden . charak samhita page 86 recommends meat soup as a cure. manu smriti chapter five --- 27. One may eat meat when it has been sprinkled with water, while Mantras were recited, when Brahmanas desire (one's doing it), when one is engaged (in the performance of a rite) according to the law, and when one's life is in danger. lastly i must mention that im NOT ENCOURAGING MEAT EATING BY ANY MEANS. i said all these just to make you believe that there is a lot of difference between hinduism as taught to you by iskcon and hinduism as it actually was in historical times . im merely protesting against your idiotic rigidity of thought . im personally a vegetarian

whats the big deal ??? dont you know that he attained nirvikalpa and was a advaitin ? advaitic veiwpoint does'nt consider it sinful for anyone to think of himself as god at the highest point of realization . and ramakrishna was undisputedly situated on such a platform ....... he realized his 'oneness' with rama and krishna as per advaitic sadhana . you are repeatedly verifying things in a dualistic light . and remember that dinabhav (extreme idealistic humilty ) that you are glorifying in chaitanya is only appriciated in vaishnav sadhana . others like shaivas shaktas or advaitas carry more of virabhava . there's nothing to condemn . most people who came in contact with ramakrishna thought of him as an avatar . but in almost all of the cases he (ramakrishna) refused to accept this . right now im remembering a situation where he said back to the person who glorified him as an avataar -- ' dont ever say such things, we are the ocean's(god) waves(jiva) . no one says wave's ocean . ' but there were some isolated incidents where he was silent in samadhi when asked about his divinity( avataar ) . and there were some vague dialogue between him and his disciples which to his follower's conviction is an indication of his hidden divinity . but such phrases are vague and carry many meaning . and many contemporary intellectual and aristocratic individuals of calcutta accepted him as an avataar silently . thats all for his avatrhood . and i'll get you the references where gouranga accepted his divinity by showing silence or direct speech . just give me some time ....... dont go by what they said . realize the noble god intoxicated life they have led . take the best out of these god-men . check out his life and work ...... not some isolated comments made in a different light . that puts it . equating him with shankara or buddha automatically makes him an avataar . dont waste time in evaluating saints . live life as per their teachings . they did not come to preach their name . they came to glorify righteousness and god ............ you are saying this because you have not read anything substantial about him . you dont know how much he crticised buddhism for bringing about a unintentional ruin to our land . read before you talk...

no ! obviously !!! no faith is free from faults and its your own wish to find it out and reflect upon it . freedom of thought !!! do you feel that 'criticising' and 'fault finding' are synonymous terms ? one is free to mentally speculate the faults and leave the religion aside for others to follow in case it doesnt suit to his taste but publicly criticising it is not good. oh !!!!!!!!! so is that what you believe ? then why get angry ? thats exactly what i did in this thread . surely your ideals are universally and not selectively applicable ?? what may look like deception to you may not be deception to others . and what may not be deception to you may be verily the worst deception to others. or are you trying to suggest that there is only a small group of people like you who can successfully point out true deceptors ???!!!!!!!! no ---- if you merely think , realise , believe in your own ideas. yes---- if you publicly go about proclaiming the inferiority of some paricular religion and attempt to convert its followers into your belief.

thats quite a spectacular achievement !!!! why dont you open a voluntary investigating agency all over the internet ...............................................................

actually being critical is not altogether bad . its true that all religions having some shortcomings . all religions have a particular unique message that ensures its existence. for example madhur bhava may be present in all hindu sects but nowhere is it so prominent as in vishnava faiths. so if i make a critical analysis of tantra ( for example) and say that it does not have the fullest expression of madhur bhava thats not sectarianism . but if i say that because tantra doesnt excel in madhur bhava its all but incomplete or wrong , then it would amount to sectarianism .here it should be noted that matribhav ( percieving god as mother ) finds its fullest expression in tantra not in vaishnavas . every faith has its own distinguishable charateristics . these distinct thoughts are its own contribution to the world. the day the necessity of that thought vanishes the religion automatically vanishes or subsides. constructive criticisms are not bad.

ive already answered that ............ as everything in this world is relative and not absolute anyone who follows a particular path might be termed sectarian . its obvious that the follower would love his path most . that automatically implies that he would not be able to love other paths equally . and that , may be understood as a type of sectarianism . in this sense there can be no true nonsectarian person . a politician loves his party most , a social worker likes charity most , a spiritual candidate loves meditation most etc. thus in its finer aspect we all are sectarian . but when we say sectarian in gross sense of term , as used in day to day life , we mean one who openly critisises other beleifs. i try to refrain from doing that and hence think myself to be not a gross sectarian. when i do criticise its only because those individuals themselves criticised others.maybe i do it with the hope that they might realize that it feels really bad to have your cherised belief ot ideal blasphemised and thus stop doing that for others .

i already did that to the best of my capacities and now you are free to interpret or understand to the best of your capacities. actually it does . most sectarians ive met till date openly preach sectarian thoughts but doesnt want to be branded as such and shirk away from being labelled . they like to be called open and broad minded . maybe this is he result of the so called 'secular' 'democratic' education that they have recieved since childhood which they cannot ignore. but you are perhaps the first person ive met who is confidant in your own sectarian belief and agressively defends it. this is a rare incident and i would like to know which creed or sect you follow . this would give me a greater understanding of such a glorious faith which can produce so strong willed followers (hard to find in most spiritual paths also) and help enrich my experiences . and i would be gratefull if you can explain me your veiws regaurding how a sectarian religion be of collective benefit to mankind and whether it would be right to term such a belief , religion at all.

you didnt understand me at all ................when i said 'collective' i didnt mean for each and every individual on this planet . vedic philosophy is meant or written for everyone but it also recognises the diversity in beliefs and religions across the world. of course every individual cannot follow a same path !! but by recognising this fundamental truth of human behaviour vedic thought has outshone other contemporary religions. now you might say that im glorifying vedic thought above the rest . yes thats true , its my faith and this is also a hindu spiritual forum . but that doesnt imply that im degrading other faiths. ok !! you tell me why do you think concepts such as dharma ,artha, kama, moksha , bramacharya ,grihasta , vanaprashta , sannyasa were formulated when the sages already knew that kama or artha can never be the end . i would be happy to hear your perspective........ no !! obviously !!! but when the person differing from any veiw openly criticises and condemms that belief , yes !!!! NO !!!! you yourself indicated that everything is relative in this world. what may be flaw in my eyes may be the sole truth in someone else's. its not about fault finding only , its about disrespecting , condemming , criticising blaspheming etc. exactly !!!!!!!!! you have summarised my thinking !!! sadly many people dont do that and its them that i criticise back . once again---- vedas are meant for everyone but not enforced on anyone . this , you are failing to understand.......

evrything in this world is relative . there is nothing absolute except god . viewed from that perspective any one who follows a sect is sectarian . thats ok . but such a perspective would unnecessarily make matters complex . only that much should be accepted which helps people collectively , not individually. because individual progress which retards collective progress is harmfull . religon , as we all know is a process of evolving-- from lower to higher life forms , from lower to higher and from higher to highest levels of conciousness. although its true that only a few people become truly religious in strict sense of term , it also cannot be denied that religion is the sustainer of society and culture. therefore any religion that collectively degrades the social progress is not an idealistic religion . as i said religion and society are not seperate. im sorry but this is an absolutely wrong notion. vedic religion was indeed for collective benefit . lets take the varnashrama dharma for example. a student passes through brahmacharya , grihstha , vanaprshtha and finnaly sannyasa . vedic seers knew that only a few would be interested for true realization and the rest would be contended to lead a ordinary life. but they also realised that self relization is the only way towards happiness and thats the goal of human birth . thats why they laid down this injuction so that all indivduals can slowly learn to strive for god. after enjoying the sensory pleasures in householder life he was compelled to slowly try and learn the way to god. this slow and compulsory training would elevate the soul and thereby he shall get another chance in his next birth. similarly we find mention of dharma artha kama and moksha as the four goals of an average human's life. when the rishis understaood that all cannot take to self realization they taught people to enjoy material world in a regulated way but taking care that their ultimate goal should always be moksha. thats why moksha was always kept higher than artha kama or dharma. all four were the necessary , but none equalled moksha . such injuction were made for collective social benefit with the full realization that everyone cannot spontaneously turn towards god. also vedic religion is one such religion that doesnt directly condemm any other faiths . it lays stress on following dharma or that which is inherent in man . dharma also varies with change in social status and caste. but by following ones own respective dharma he is supposed to remain in the correct path . such an injuction is also for collective benefit of society. infact when atheistic doctrines like charvakas surfaced they were also not thrown out of the society . although buddhism disagreed with the vedas it was not denounced but given a place in the society . vedic religion has always been broad and universal . this also reflects the belief in collective benefit , not individual benefit . may be what you are suggesting here is that only a few blessed individuals ever strive for spiritual enlightment and the spiritual disciplines are shown for them . while that is true , it doesnt stop shastras from formulating various ways for collective upliftment.

raghu , im curious to know what is your idea or belief regarding god ? which path do you follow ? also i never want to force any thought on anybody . but at the same time i dont want anybody to criticise other peoples much cherished beliefs . its just when some people blasphemise other beleifs that i feel irritated . its not necessary nor practical to think that everyone would support or like other faiths . but its definately desirable to keep atleast silent if you cannot have respect for them . i would like to have another answer from you ....... how can a religion ( or belief ) that creates sectarianism and rifts in the society be of any collective benefit to the mankind ? can any such narrow belief that creates social differences be termed as true religion?

in most of my posts i have used the phrase ' all religions are equally valid ' . when i say all faiths are same i mean they are all equally valid. respective ends as mentioned in the scriptures are different but the reason behind their origin and the purpose of their existence is always same. conciousness , death , birth , existence , nature etc were the puzzles that mankind wanted to solve since times immemorial . the quest for these answers brought them closer towards god . over time various understanding of this puzzles devoloped . they were the different religions. with time these religions evolved to varying degrees . while some never left their primitive stage , some as in case of vedic religion , evolved to a very high degree of perfection . you are taking taking things only in its literall sense ( not suprising , most of your vaishnav brothers do that). just because the end result or target of each religion vary greatly you are assuming all of them to be totally different. you think that out of all only one is true religion. it means that the rest all are absolutely wrong paths . here i would like to say one thing . say for example an innocent man thinks that god is formless and not with form.and with such thought he dedicates himself in the pursuit of this formless god. would god , who is causelessly mercifull and absolute perfect curse him ? would not god understand that it is actually he , who is being called ? does the father chastise the baby when he calls his father 'pa' instead of 'papa' ?? it is the understanding of god that varies and creates these differences in the respective targets of these religions . but all of them do search for god . god is unity . he is not plural . ask a tribal he would say that his faith leads to god . ask a christian and he'll say that christianity leads to god ..........so on and so forth.it can be clearly seen that all of them are thinking about a phenomenon called god. all of them want a relief from material existence , death , diseise etc . all want to find a place of comfort and dependence . thus the internal targets of all religions are same . their external beliefs and idea about the ways to reach this plane of happiness might vary . this is how all religions are 'same' . externally a religion might be striving for moksha or prema bhakti but internally it is seeking liberation from this mundane existance. this way its same . its internal goals are non different. im sorry if you didnt understand . not everyones mental faculties are same. lastly you must understand that its my own personal belief . you are free to practice and profess your belief that most religions are wrong. enough of this....................

good !! nice understanding . but what charitable work was done by isckon in 70's when india was starving ? or even in 80's ? (remember ,im not attcking vaishnavs here)

couldnt get you ...... i wasnt speaking about archa vighrha or idol worship..........neither am i an westerner. let me clarify . i have indeed said against iskcon a couple of times . but thats because iskcon itself attacks against almost all indian sects . they are adept at making personal attacks also. had they been silent about others and continued in their own belief it would not have been an issue atall. but they dont do that. they'll irritate you till you are forced to retaliate. as regaurds ramakrishna mission , they never criticised anyone . they are happy with their belief . whats the need of attacking them. but i will have full respect about your thoughts on mission .its your own belief . does that mean you are biased now ?? read ramakrishna vivekananda ( at least the gospel of ramakrishna and complete works of vivekananda ) and then criticise with your full heart . trust me, ill come and support you .coz ,it shall be your learned opinion not the ignorant one . moreover ramakrishna himself preached in freedom of thought . enjoy........

yes , every faith is externally different from the other . its ideals , practice and expectations do not match many a time. but its true that at the end they are all searching out that one same god . maybe their approach and methods or understanding of that god varies . but all religions search for god. there's no denying that . and god is always one. when i say all religions are same i dont mean that they are similar (which you are understanding out of my words) . i mean that they struggle for same truth -- to find the causes of this existence and the inherent conciousness of the cosmos. they are not similar but strive for the same answers. secondly when you say that they are not equal it implies that they do not search for the same truth . then it also implies that only one of them is true . this would provoke severe sectarianism , bloodshed and fanaticism in addition to what already exists. this might ruin the civilization and is certainly undesirable for the society . now , can a thought that collectively injures the society as a whole be of benefit to individuals? even if it actually benefits some it cannot be 'religion' .religion is meant for total upliftment not individual upliftment. this veiw might drag in much of sociology but telll me something , is society and religion seperable individual units ??