Are atheists fools?

[JustRish]

 

Seeing Krishna as the intelligent being behind the universal phenomena is a bone fide God conscious realization but it is just the beginning, just a spark. But it happens to be what I am working on because the beginning is the right place to start however we can know that beyond that there is infinetly more.

 

Aaaah *rips her hair out* - very complicated stuff. I can imagine that may be, just may be, the universe, the planet in itself has intelligence but very hard to imagine someone made that intelligence. I'm reading the Gita. I have it right here. But I guess its a gradual process. I'm not going to rush over this.

[JustRish]

 

JustRish,

 

Lord Buddha is an incarnation of Krishna, who appeared because during those times, the animal sacrifice was being performed just to satisfy the senses and not for the higher goal of giving the animal a human form of life. Therefore it is stated in Dashavatara-Stotra of Jayadeva Gosvami about Lord Buddha as:

I'm not really that sure he is an incarnation of Krishna. But if you believe that then no problem. In Jainism, our 23rd Tirthankara (Neminath or Parshva) was the cousin of Krishna. Not sure if you accept that in Hinduism.

[theist]

 

Aaaah *rips her hair out* - very complicated stuff. I can imagine that may be, just may be, the universe, the planet in itself has intelligence but very hard to imagine someone made that intelligence. I'm reading the Gita. I have it right here. But I guess its a gradual process. I'm not going to rush over this.

 

Not so complicated really. There is a simple direct way of understanding this. If someone was to investigate your body they would be able to find intelligence within it.

 

The next question is does that intelligence belong to someone. Someone from the outside may not agree that there is a person behind the intelligence, but you know there is such a person because you are that person.

 

Intelligence must be guided as in, "She used her intelligence to design that structure." Architechs have a certain intelligence that let's then work in a certain way. Do you know of any architech that is not a person, a thinking, feeling and willing being? No of course not.

 

So the architech in this example is just a microcosm of God who is the macrocosm.

 

Yes go slow. That way the knowledge is sure to be digested and assimliated and not just swallowed. Just swallowing is like just believing. Much more is needed to get the benefit into the cells/heart.

[skp]

 

I'm sure you must've heard of what many make of this verse. But hey, I respect your interpretation of shastra and it would be idiotic to initiate an argument over this.

 

Best regards

 

LoveroftheBhagavata, I do not use my conditioned mind and brain to interpret the shastra because if I do there is no meaning and use of my statements. I'm basing this on Srila Prabhupada's translation.

 

I'm sure that He is an etenally liberated person and therefore his translation will give the original transcendental meaning..

 

Sure there is no need to argue. The only need is to try to understand Krishna and His devotees and get engrossed in appreciating their magnificent activities!

 

Hare Krishna!

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

LoveroftheBhagavata, I do not use my conditioned mind and brain to interpret the shastra because if I do there is no meaning and use of my statements. I'm basing this on Srila Prabhupada's translation.

 

I'm sure that He is an etenally liberated person and therefore his translation will give the original transcendental meaning..

 

So Ramanuja, Madhva, Shridhara Swami and countless others were all using their conditioned minds to interpret scripture, right? Anyways, rest happy deluding yourself. If Prabhupada's rendition is all that you're capable of basing yourself on, I'll only be wasting my time writing anymore here. Ciao

[Dark Warrior]

Buddha being an avatar is accepted by Sri Vaishnavas. Both our mordern teachers and our acharyas have referenced to Buddha.The alvars have also spoken about them. Sri Nammalvar in fact, openly calls out to Krishna in ecstasy, "O Kannan! You enter into the body of a jivatma and provide atheists with false vedas..."

 

Furthermore, Sri Parasara Bhattar, a Sri Vaishnava acharya of great intellect, has shown that the names 787-810 (If I got it right) in the Vishnu Sahasranama refer to Buddha avatara only.

 

The Sahasranama points out that there are many Buddha avatars of Vishnu. And Gautama Siddhartha was also empowered.

 

However, we do not accept Buddha in the Dasavatara. Nor is He worshippable. Since Srimad Bhagavatam is pramana, we can accept that He was just a soul empowered by Vishnu. Which means, Gautama Siddhartha, after death, may even be subject to transmigration as he was never a devotee of Vishnu (although a partial avatar), and the powers of Vishnu would have been removed from him upon completion of his work. Or he may have attained Moksha/Nirvana, who knows.

[skp]

 

So Ramanuja, Madhva, Shridhara Swami and countless others were all using their conditioned minds to interpret scripture, right? Anyways, rest happy deluding yourself. If Prabhupada's rendition is all that you're capable of basing yourself on, I'll only be wasting my time writing anymore here. Ciao

 

My dear LoveroftheBhagavata,

 

I am not arguing at all and, I don't want to say to anyone that they are deluding themselves, as you stated.. If I say that Srila Prabhupada's rendition is authoritative it does not mean that other's coming in disciplic succession is not authoritative.

 

There is no doubt that Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya and Shridhara Swami - All of them are equally authoritative as well because they are in the proper disciplic succession(Evam Parampara Praaptam).

 

As stated by Krishna:

 

 

 

[ evam parampara-praptam

imam rajarsayo viduh

sa kaleneha mahata

yogo nastah parantapa

 

 

This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost. - BG 4.2 - http://www.asitis.com/4/2.html ]

Wish you all the best wishes in your spiritual path.

Hare Krishna!

[skp]

Thanks a lot Dark Warrior, for giving the Sri Vaishnava point of view on this topic. It's indeed good to know this.

 

Hare Krishna!

 

 

Buddha being an avatar is accepted by Sri Vaishnavas. Both our mordern teachers and our acharyas have referenced to Buddha.The alvars have also spoken about them. Sri Nammalvar in fact, openly calls out to Krishna in ecstasy, "O Kannan! You enter into the body of a jivatma and provide atheists with false vedas..."

 

Furthermore, Sri Parasara Bhattar, a Sri Vaishnava acharya of great intellect, has shown that the names 787-810 (If I got it right) in the Vishnu Sahasranama refer to Buddha avatara only.

 

The Sahasranama points out that there are many Buddha avatars of Vishnu. And Gautama Siddhartha was also empowered.

 

However, we do not accept Buddha in the Dasavatara. Nor is He worshippable. Since Srimad Bhagavatam is pramana, we can accept that He was just a soul empowered by Vishnu. Which means, Gautama Siddhartha, after death, may even be subject to transmigration as he was never a devotee of Vishnu (although a partial avatar), and the powers of Vishnu would have been removed from him upon completion of his work. Or he may have attained Moksha/Nirvana, who knows.

[bhaktajan]

Buddha was a Shiva Avatara

[xexon]

Atheists are waiting for more evidence. They've pulled off the road and parked until they get it. Agnostics keep their engine running. x

[JustRish]

 

Atheists are waiting for more evidence. They've pulled off the road and parked until they get it. Agnostics keep their engine running. x

 

But it is actually possible to be both. I am both. It would be a little silly to deny the existence out and out. But I still find it hard to understand, and in the process I can be a pain in the back side for people when they explain it to me and I still don't understand . There may well be something out there who created us, but does this existence interfere with matters on earth? I am not so sure. If I did believe then perhaps I would be a Deist. I am still pondering on these things. I am quite confused.

[skp]

 

But it is actually possible to be both. I am both. It would be a little silly to deny the existence out and out. But I still find it hard to understand, and in the process I can be a pain in the back side for people when they explain it to me and I still don't understand . There may well be something out there who created us, but does this existence interfere with matters on earth? I am not so sure. If I did believe then perhaps I would be a Deist. I am still pondering on these things. I am quite confused.

JustRish,

 

The very fact that you are open to the idea of existence of a Creator means that you are a Theist. That is my honest opinion.

 

Regarding interference of Krishna, there is not need for Him to personally interfere but because He wants to give His association to His pure devotees and increase the devotional sentiment among the Theists He Himself descends (Avatara) to the material world.

 

That's what the famous verse "Yadaa Yadaa Hy Dharmasya..." mentions.

 

As stated by Krishna:

 

 

 

yada yada hi dharmasya

glanir bhavati bharata

abhyutthanam adharmasya

tadatmanam srjamy aham

 

Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion--at that time I descend Myself.

 

paritranaya sadhunam

vinasaya ca duskrtam

dharma-samsthapanarthaya

sambhavami yuge yuge

 

In order to deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I advent Myself millennium after millennium.

- BG 4.7-8 (http://www.asitis.com/4/7.html http://www.asitis.com/4/8.html)

Hare Krishna!

[theist]

 

But it is actually possible to be both. I am both. It would be a little silly to deny the existence out and out. But I still find it hard to understand, and in the process I can be a pain in the back side for people when they explain it to me and I still don't understand . There may well be something out there who created us, but does this existence interfere with matters on earth? I am not so sure. If I did believe then perhaps I would be a Deist. I am still pondering on these things. I am quite confused.

 

You describe the position of an agnostic.

 

<dl><dt class="hwrd">

</dt><dd class="hwrd">¹ag·nos·tic </dd></dl> 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

 

2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

 

As you describe yourself you are basically an agnostic. This is an honest position. The atheist deny's the existence of God. The agnostic says, "I'm not sure, maybe there is a God I need further proof."

 

The agonostic is in a good position because she holds an open mind. Now I would suggest considering the need for an intelligence behind the universe. ou have done that and say you can see the truth in the argument for intelligence but not convinced why that intellieence must be personal.

 

Next I suggested there is an intelligence within your body. You yourself must admit that there is also a person, you, within that body. But it is clear your intelligence is limited to your body and field of thought as mine is to mine.

 

So the question is whose intelligence is running the universe(s)? And the person behind that intelligence must be God.

 

This is the situation to consider, to meditate on and even to pray over. Afterall the agnostic says there maybe a God so you can ask that God (if He exists) reveal the answer to you. Take some time and explore like this.

 

Hare Krsna