Murali_Mohan_das Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 How strange. You seem to "know" that I am a bigot and that what I say is wrong. I guess what you mean is that if *you* believe in something, then you "know" it, but those of us who disagree with you can't "know" anything in reality, right? I don't know anything, but I *suspect* that you are a fool. As always, I could be wrong. Only Sri Krishna knows anything with any certainty. To the extent that his pure servants are surrendered, Sri Krishna can reveal anything to them. They remain humble servants, though, not arrogant bigots. Now, maybe I should go re-read that quote from Sripad Bhakti Caru Swami about how "justified aparadha" isn't any good for us either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 Here is an example of why some individuals really need to be more compliant with their attention-deficit medication before they presume to post. Theist earlier wrote in this very same thread, and I quote: "The Bible while containing many God conscious passages is also heavily mixed with much specualtion. I had a Jehovah witness lady last week show me a verse from the Old Testament that clearly stated that at death there is no after life until the Lord comes to bring people back to life for the Judgment. This was her answer to my belief in reincarnation. As the saying goes, "too many cooks spoil the broth", and the Bible has too many authors or more precisely too many authors offering differing and unenlightened speculations on such topics as the self etc." As in, he just clearly stated that the Bible has been corrupted over the years by the adulterations of other individuals. But when I say the same thing, he wants proof? Some people are just hopelessly confused, but despite that, they just have to argue and disagree, not because they have something intelligent to contribute, but just for the sake of arguing. raghu, I don't say this lightly. You are a fool. It was RadheRade who asked you for proff of where JESUS'S teachings had been corrupted and you failed to produce. Instead you chided him about his english for some reason. When I pointed this out to you, you present a quote from me, out of context, about how I don't accept the Old Testament as a pure scripture. Another dodge. Someone starts a thread to glorify a devotees devotional service and here you come to piss on his sacrifical fire. Simply a disturbance and nothing more. Please pull your head back into your box schoolboy we have no desire to join you in there. We want to cultivate bhakti free from temporary religious designations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 Christ's message is the same as Krsna's, so how can we conclude that the message of Jesus has been corrupted? That makes no sense, unless Krsna's message has also been corrupted (although one could prove that with the mind too - another penalty for the offense of mind consciousness). Christians may have fallen from the path, but no sincere person will deride the message preached by Lord Jesus, least of all a vaisnava. It is the good news of God that has been heard over and over from the lips of the saints from time immemorial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matarisvan Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 We want to cultivate bhakti free from temporary religious designations. Liar liar, pants on fire! Funny then, that you would drag a thread onto pages sticking to the Vaishnava designation? You time and again continue to demonstrate inconsistencies in your position by contradicting yourself and then changing tracks to hurl abuses at others to cover up your mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matarisvan Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 To prove that the Bible has been altered and adulterated, you need an "original" copy (whose authenticity can be verified) to compare with current editions. Lacking that, all you have is blustering assertions. As of now the only person blustering on this thread is you. Without jumping in half cocked take the time to read what your friends are writing. Your christian friends tried to defend their position by claiming part of the bible was false ...the part which the biblical God as an ill-tempered, unstable entity. By your logic, your friends were making "blustering assertions". Raghu on the other hand has always held that the bible is a uniform text and since its God has no characterestics of Vishnu including his name, it follows that this God is *not* Vishnu. There is no evidence to support the position that part of the Bible is acceptable and not the rest. Do you want to be more careful about what you post in future or do you want to join the line of mumbling idiots consisting of GHari and Theist who make inconsistent and incorrect statements and cover them up by throwing insults? The choice be yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matarisvan Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 I don't know anything, but... If you really believe that you do not know anything, then you would not be saying anything. You would stop right there. Stop pretending to be humble by making such meaningless statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 Funny then, that you would drag a thread onto pages sticking to the Vaishnava designation? Sorry I can't understand this sentence either. One thing we tried to tell you many posts back is that Vaisnavism is not a mundane designation. Vaisnavism is the natrural condition of the unconditioned soul acting in it's natural constituional position as servant to the Supreme Lord. Because you refuse to accept this simple truth everything you have to say about who is a vaisnava is meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matarisvan Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 Didn't Vedavyas admit that his works were imperfect? Does that make those works "suspect"? You will have to do better. Point out where he made such a statement. If he made such a statement, he would be an idiot for writing something that he knew was imperfect wasting his time and everyone else's time. And just for your information the context is your christian friends are claiming part of the bible is false and part if it is correct based on no evidence other than their own intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 Yes, would they use the same impudent attitude to dissect their own scripture's God they would be left as ignorant atheists. Ooops, but that is what they are doing now, unknowingly, offending Krsna with every breath in a different language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murali_Mohan_das Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 You will have to do better. Point out where he made such a statement. If he made such a statement, he would be an idiot for writing something that he knew was imperfect wasting his time and everyone else's time. And just for your information the context is your christian friends are claiming part of the bible is false and part if it is correct based on no evidence other than their own intelligence. You chide me for not reading carefully? Did you miss this: SB 1.5.11: On the other hand, that literature which is full of descriptions of the transcendental glories of the name, fame, forms, pastimes, etc., of the unlimited Supreme Lord is a different creation, full of transcendental words directed toward bringing about a revolution in the impious lives of this world's misdirected civilization. Such transcendental literatures, even though imperfectly composed, are heard, sung and accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest. I believe it was Narada Muni who was speaking these words. As for "false" and "correct", I don't really care for those designations so much. I'm more interested in useful and useless. For instance, I find much of what HerServant, gHari, and Theist say to be useful, while almost everything you've written is useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 As for "false" and "correct", I don't really care for those designations so much. I'm more interested in useful and useless. Then you missed the entire point of the discussion as it is about right and wrong - not about usefulness or uselessness. I see theist is still sticking to his custom (secret dictionary) definition of Vaishnava and GHari is doing his usual thing. So what else is new? Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murali_Mohan_das Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 Then you missed the entire point of the discussion as it is about right and wrong - not about usefulness or uselessness. I see theist is still sticking to his custom (secret dictionary) definition of Vaishnava and GHari is doing his usual thing. So what else is new? Cheers As if any of us know right from wrong? Puh-lease!!! Just a bunch of blind men describing the elephant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCC Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 The drunk looked up at me and I was prepared for him to ask me for some money for his wine. What he did was look me straight in the eye as he said in a strong voice with conviction, "God is spirit!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 And the wino should appreciate that the wine krsna is the taste and the aroma of the wine he is tasting and smelling. Krsna is the quitessence of everything from every angle. From that little episode I have learned to not look down my nose at others in such trouble. Some of the best scripture I have heard was never written in books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 I see theist is still sticking to his custom (secret dictionary) definition of Vaishnava and GHari is doing his usual thing. So what else is new? And I see shvu sill hasn't a clue, so nothing new. No secret dictionary. I just prefer to take my definition from Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. From his booklet Vaisnavism Real and Apparent. <center>Real Vaishnavism </center> The word 'Vaishnavism' indicates the normal, eternal and natural condition, functions and devotional characteristics of all individual souls in relation to Vishnu, the Supreme, the All-per- vading Soul. But such an unnatural, unpleasant and regrettable sense has been attributed to the word as to naturally make one understand by the word, Vaishnava (literally a pure and self- less worshipper of Vishnu), a human form with twelve peculiar signs (Tilaka) and dress on, worshipping many gods under the garb of a particular God and hating another human form who marks himself with different signs, puts on a different dress and worships a different God in a different way as is the case with the words 'Shaiva', 'Shakta', 'Ganapatya', 'Jaina', 'Buddhist', 'Mohammedan', 'Christian' etc. This is the most unnatural, unpleasant and regrettable sense of the word, 'Vaishnava', which literally and naturally means one who worships Vishnu out of pure love expecting nothing from Him in return. And in so doing I feel solid ground beneath my feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsrowland Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 >>>As if any of us know right from wrong? Puh-lease!!! Just a bunch of blind men describing the elephant.<<< Sick and pathetic self-loathing. You should be ashamed of having so little love for and faith in a creation of the Lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadheRade1657 Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 Is English not your first language? I said that his message had been "corrupted" - meaning, interpolated, adulterated, tainted, etc by the unauthorized interventions by other individuals down the ages. This is an undisputed fact, and even the iskcon intellgentsia on this very thread agreed with it. I meant it in this sense: "immoral or dishonest: immoral or dishonest, especially as shown by the exploitation of a position of power or trust for personal gain" I don't think Jesus' message was immoral or dishonest is what I meant. Believe it or not, there are different definitions for the same word. QED the Bible is not a valid pramana and any religion based on such invalid pramanas is also invalid. How do you know the words of Jesus aren't a valuable source of knowledge (the meaning of pranama)? Just because you say there's no knowledge in the words of Jesus doesn't make Jesus' message invalid. There are many people who say that there's no knowledge in the message of Sri Krishna, is that true? I mean, after all, someone did say that it isn't a valuable source of knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveroftheBhagavata Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 He assigned Brahmin varnas to mlechchas who eventualy turned out to be pedophiles and worse. Such a blunder by Prabhupada and yet you find iskcon people in their ignorance thinking varna can be determined by characterestics. Well, this is one of my reasons for subscribing to the traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava Parivaras instead of being a member of either ISKCON or Gaudiya Math. For someone born completely outside of varnashrama to think that they can somehow become qualified for brahminical initiation just by the waving of a magic wand strikes me as a shocking display of a lack of humility. The reason for the descent of Mahaprabhu was prema-bhakti, not radical social activism. Barring a handful of His associates (notably Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami and Srila Haridasa Thakura), almost all of His followers were born brahmanas, including His very own Self. Having said this, nearly everyone on this forum, myself included, would not have come to raganuga-bhakti if it were not for the vision and preaching of Bhaktivinoda, Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivedanta. Thus, even whilst veering more towards classical Chaitanya Vaishnavism, I do appreciate the Bhaktivinoda Parivara/Sarasvata Parampara in large measure, and am grateful to these three great souls for what I owe to their efforts. At the end of the day, Bhagavati Radhika grants us Her grace for our purity of thought and advancement in sadhana. The shape of our tilaka or colour of our cloth has little bearing, in the broader scheme of things. My approach is to try to receive the gift of Krishna-bhakti wherever it is available, whether in orthodox branches, Gaudiya Math or ISKCON. And nobody in their right mind would deny that there are indeed wonderful devotees (and not so nice personages as well) in all three places. Just to say a final thing before I'm off this uninteresting and boring thread; I do not have an opinion, one way or the other, on Jesus. To the extent that divinity was present or not in him, I wish the very best to those who find him and his words inspiring. For my part, I can never thank Bhagavan enough that He gave me a Hindu body in this life. From infanthood, I've had the humongous fortune to hear about, learn about and worship Him and His confidential associates, i.e. the Devas and Devis. Later, the Lord was merciful enough to bring me in contact with the teachings of Sri Gaurasundara. The fact is, I have barely scratched the surface of my own infinitely profound Vaishnava tradition, and delving in the neverending depths of Hari-bhakti is what the Godhead has prescribed for me for the rest of eternity. Hence, there is little time or energy left to look at the shiksha of any exogenous culture or philosophy at all. Indeed, for someone who is attracted to the path of devotion to Radha-Krishna and who has taken shelter of the Bhagavatam, there is no need for that anyway. And I do think that any true, sincere, committed sadhaka would readily empathise with this. Radhe Radhe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suchandra Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 Amazing moment the world's biggest Christ was struck by lightning http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=513855&in_page_id=1811 Last updated at 00:34am on 13th February 2008 Comments (6) This was the dramatic scene as the world's largest statue of Jesus was hit by lightning. The bolt parted the thunderclouds over Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to strike Christ the Redeemer. The statue is 130ft tall, is made of 700 tons of reinforced concrete and stands atop the 2,296ft Corcovado mountain overlooking the city. Scroll down for more ... Heavens above: The statue is struck during Sunday's storms It was named one of the new Seven Wonders of the World in 2007. Sunday's storm caused havoc in Rio, felling trees in several neighbourhoods - but did not damage the statue. This amazing photograph gives whole new meaning to the phrase "May God strike me with lightning if..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matarisvan Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 And I see shvu sill hasn't a clue, so nothing new. No secret dictionary. I just prefer to take my definition from Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. The problem is you are doing more than that. You are coming to a general sprituality forum and trying to show this new definition down the throats of everyone. What makes you think that this alternate definition should be accepted by people who are not linked to your Gurus in any way? Let us take an example. A disciple of Sai Baba comes on this forum with a new meaning for Vaishnava (worshipper of Sai Baba) and say this is the correct meaning instead of dictionary meanings and should be accepted by the entire world even if you never heard of Sai Baba. How will you react to that? And try to understand if you can that the same reaction should b expected by you and your Guru for rejecting traditional meanings accepted over thousands of years and creating your own. If you still want to carry on with your Guru's definition you should confine your discussions to people who accept your Guru. Stop trying to pull this off with others. A hundred people can do the same then each with their own new meanings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matarisvan Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 As for "false" and "correct", I don't really care for those designations so much. I'm more interested in useful and useless. For instance, I find much of what HerServant, gHari, and Theist say to be useful, while almost everything you've written is useless. Big surprise there. If you understood what I am saying you would not be a Hare Krishna. Something useful can only come from truth. Apparent usefulness that is drawn from false sources is an illusion and is in reality useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 The problem is you are doing more than that. You are coming to a general sprituality forum and trying to show this new definition down the throats of everyone. What makes you think that this alternate definition should be accepted by people who are not linked to your Gurus in any way? Let us take an example. A disciple of Sai Baba comes on this forum with a new meaning for Vaishnava (worshipper of Sai Baba) and say this is the correct meaning instead of dictionary meanings and should be accepted by the entire world even if you never heard of Sai Baba. How will you react to that? And try to understand if you can that the same reaction should b expected by you and your Guru for rejecting traditional meanings accepted over thousands of years and creating your own. If you still want to carry on with your Guru's definition you should confine your discussions to people who accept your Guru. Stop trying to pull this off with others. A hundred people can do the same then each with their own new meanings. Most of the people on this forum hold the same view as I do and accept Bhaktisiddhanta's version. You caste hindu types are clearly the exception. You have bored me to tears. Bye bye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 The statue is 130ft tall, is made of 700 tons of reinforced concrete and stands atop the 2,296ft Corcovado mountain overlooking the city. These new "7 wonders of the world" won't even last 200 years, being made from concrete. No comparison to the ancient one's which have stood for thousands of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 Where did this #7 come from anyway? The world has billions of wonders from a simple cell to the grand Canyon or Amazon Rainforest. But all said that is a far out picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 Where did this #7 come from anyway? The world has billions of wonders from a simple cell to the grand Canyon or Amazon Rainforest. But all said that is a far out picture. Herodotus the Greek from the 5th century BC is the first known person to write about seven wonders. But he did not say wonders, it was more like a "must-see" recommendation for travellers and it was also not about the entire world either; just the mediterranean region. Since then, several such lists have been drawn, the only two common factors being the number seven and the Great Pyramid. Recently a new list was made which does not have the pyramid. The Greeks believed the number seven was magical, which may have been the the basis or else it was just simply because the first list had 7 places. And finally the amazon, the canyon, the sun, the moon, etc do not figure in the list as they are not man made structures. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts