Beware of Kali Temples - blood,alcohol and cigarette offerings

[tackleberry]

 

What do you expect me to demonstrate?

 

Quote pramana-s to prove your position. Merely saying 'there are different paths, all paths are valid' isn't pramana. It's just a politically correct statement, nothing more. If you believe advaita is correct, prove it. Attacking others (especially those who demand pramana) as fundamentalist is just a clever tactic to evade the issue, it isn't going to work.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

Still, I would differ with you on this one since, even as an Advaitin, I do recognise the difference between the brahma-swarupa Deities such as Lord Hari, Lord Hara, Mother Shakti and "lesser" celestial beings such as Indra and Varuna, who are definitely jivas and are holding these posts for the duration of a manvantara or kalpa at most. For example, in the present Patriarchate, Purandara is assuming the position of the heavenly ruler, whereas in the next, King Bali will fulfill that role. So, my point is that these elemental controllers cannot be equated with Lord Ganesha, Lord Skanda or Surya-Narayana. I know of no verse which praises Agni as all-pervading but Durga Maa, for example is described as brahma-svarupini in many places, and She can award advaitic moksha to Her bhaktas, which Yamaraja, Shani or Vayu cannot bestow upon persons who pray to them.

 

 

Differences are healthy, a true Hindu is never bother by them, this is one of the reason why i stick with this label, there is no sectarian connotation attached. A Hindu is more concerned to walk the walk then merely Theorize what absolute is or is not. I salute anyone who is on this path, I keep saying Yama and Niyam are very necessary to progress and just As Krishna Says

na hi kalyāṇa-kṛt kaścid

durgatiḿ tāta gacchati

 

a transcendentalist engaged in auspicious activities does not meet with destruction either in this world or in the spiritual world; one who does good, My friend, is never overcome by evil.

I can understand jiva wanting to take position of the great devas and perhaps they do and that is what Purans tell us.But Vedas speaks of 33 priciple devas I believe, how that one became all that.

"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutman.

To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan." RV (Book 1, Hymn 164.46)

I shell not dwell on this much, as we do not really have any problem respecting each others position and that’s what matters a lot in a civilised society.

Dharma is in essence a personal matter of correct “selection” or “perception” of Truth. Over time, however, the various selections made by some inspired members of different cultural groups have become “set in stone” for those groups, and subsequently their particular cultural version of “religion” or dharma has been presented more dogmatically.

 

Furthering ones own institute and position has become a goal, instead of self realisation.

sanAtana dharma is founded in the wisdom of the dharma cakram Whereas the devoted followers of an individual guru, following just one spoke of the eternal wheel, in ignorance (or denial) of any other true spokesman, take their dharma as a veritable sword cleaving a straight path to the source of all illumination.

 

Knowing the whole field of dharma (cf. kurukshetram) the wise guru understands that many different paths are valid for different individual circumstances, but that (when all true paths are considered) there is ultimately no difference at all. And Hindu understanding has always been tempered by this overriding thought of ultimate unity.

 

Gita mentions several paths to reach him. Arjun asks,

How may I know You, O Lord, by constant contemplation? In what form (of manifestation) are You to be thought of by me, O Lord? (10.17)

 

and even after seeing him in his universal form he asks who are you?

and yet we have here people placing him in their little box!

 

Sometimes naïve devotees get carried away by their obsession with apparent differences and the absolute truth of their own path. Blinded by proud supremacy, adharma invariably results.

 

Each spoke in the wheel of dharma has its own guided path, and while the language remains the same the sign posts on another path remain familiar instructions, but if the language is translated then the similarities soon become invisible to anyone unfamiliar with both tongues.

by Sarbhanga

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Malati dasi]

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by Malati dasi

Theist said: We have to judge which is best on the basis of what they have found. Only that will help us in our search.

 

 

Do you judge the truth of love on an abusive marriage? Why judge truth based on other people's application of "truth"? Where does that put our individual realization, then?

 

Radhe Radhe Radhe

 

 

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

Not on other peoples application of the truth but of the teachings themselves.

What I am saying is this. We can judge the value of Buddhism by understanding that in Buddhism one can find a sense of mindfullness and detachment as well as compassion for other living beings. What we cannot find in Buddhism is information on the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Given this how can any student of Vaisnavism talk of Buddhism as being on par with Krsna consciousness?

If you yourself don't do this then on what basis have you chosen Vaisnavism over Buddism or worship of Kali? Is Vaisnavism better or not? What do you say?

 

Radhe Radhe

Theist,

Your earlier statement is misleading; when you used the word "they" in your sentence. Let put it this way the truth of the teachings can stand on its own. Ok then, I agree with you about buddhism, that our ontology- the explanation of the nature of being in our GV system- is superior than buddhism. Of course before we can come to that conclusion we should know where they stand on things. However we believe how we get that seed for the search for truth, eg by bija from many past lives, or by causeless mercy as a self manifesting aspect of our swarup shakti, etc, this is a big topic.

 

To loverofbhagavat and Ganesh and company, if you can please show me a more accurate translation of this verse from the Bhagavad Gita: Give up all varieties of religion and surrender unto me!

I feel that it pertains to a certain "form" right?

 

Also, I pasted quotes from the Gita about the topic. You can read demigod the way you think it should be read. Still...

Bhagavad Gita as it is Chap 7.

 

verse 20:

Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto the demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own nature.

 

21

I am in everyone’s heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship some demigods, I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to that particular deity.

 

22

Endowned with such a faith , he endeavours to worship a particular demigod and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed by Me alone.

 

23

Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planet of the demigods, but MY devotees ultimately reach MY supreme planet.

 

24

Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I , the Supreme Personality of godhead , Krishna, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme

 

 

Below is an excerpt of a lecture by a most venerable Babaji of Radha Kunda.

 

Now over here we have a question. ‘Lord Krishna, He contains all the devatas within Himself, so when we worship some deva, then ultimately that worship is going to Him.He is giving some mercy (in that he gives the fruits even when the demigods are worshiped), he might as well give some mercy (since he's the one giving the result anyway), couldn't he, and also liberate us from material bondage (since that's what he'd do if we worshiped him directly). Why don’t we only do some kind of Devi-puja then? (As that ought to accomplish the task just as well.) <!--IBF.ATTACHMENT_4027--><!-- THE POST -->This has been explained in Srimad Bhagavatam. In the Bhagavatam it is mentioned that a river, flowing

from a hill eventually mixes into the ocean. When we worship demigods it is a similar situation, our worship ultimately flows toward Sri Krishna. But, the hill from which the river emerges from never reaches the ocean, only the water from the river meets the ocean. Likewise, when worshiping the demigods, our offering eventually arrives at Sri Krishna, but we the worshiper do not. Hence it is effective to worship directly the Supreme Personality Sri Bhagavan.

 

Also loverofbhagavat, your sentences are very well crafted as they are, please don't misfigure it by adding the superfluous sniggers !!!

Kind regards

Malati dasi

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[suchandra]

 

 

Beware of Kali Temples - blood,alcohol and cigarette offerings bring on generational curses

 

 

Dear Pundit Hemraj Maharaj, they have this all over Latin America as well, Coca leaves, schnapps and cigarette offerings for skulls on altar for Las Ñatitas celebrations. Could be part of the evolution of the human species to go through this kind of tamas religion

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

Quote pramana-s to prove your position. Merely saying 'there are different paths, all paths are valid' isn't pramana. It's just a politically correct statement, nothing more. If you believe advaita is correct, prove it. Attacking others (especially those who demand pramana) as fundamentalist is just a clever tactic to evade the issue, it isn't going to work.

 

Now, you don't expect me to cut and paste the thousands of verses from the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas (including the Bhagavatam), Brahmanas, Aranyakas and numerous bhashyas just to get your jollies, do you? The knowledge is out there, and if you're sufficiently committed to obtaining it, I'll be more than happy to help. However, coming from someone who opined on another thread the scripturally unattested joke that Ashvatthama is an incarnation of Mahadeva (on the "authority" of Madhva, the founder of a most narrow-minded and insignificant cult of Karnataka), I am gobsmacked, to say the least, that you're clueless about the virtually unending number of shlokas that can be adduced in support of Advaita Vedanta. As I said, just say it and I'll furnish to you more material than you're able to digest in this lifetime, and probably the next.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

Malati, just grab a version of the Gita by any non-Gaudiya acharya and you will see how those glosses that you think substantiate your specific position evaporate in thin air. Even Ramanuja, the staunch Vaishnava that he was, would disagree with the Chaitanyaite interpretation on many, many varying points. And if you read an Advaitic exposition of Lord Krishna's teachings, frankly, I doubt whether you will want to remain associated with such a babyish conception of Veda much more. Then again, you're only defending your religion, and I cannot hold that against you.

 

Pranam

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

Ganeshprasadji,

 

Thanks for your post. I would tend to chime with you on most of it. You know, I spent years in Gaudiya Vaishnavism before returning to the mainstream Hindu fold, the perennially compelling teachings of which are exemplified by the lives and spiritual careers of many venerable saints (Swami Sivananda, Ramana Maharshi, Chidananda Swami, Samarth Swami, Swami Chidanand Saraswati and a number of other transcendentalists par excellence, including the Vaishnavite Alwars and Shaivite Nayanmars), and whether people like Theistji believe it or not, I still revere Vaishnava dharma, as I do all genuine lineages in the vast lanscape of Indic traditions, including non-Vedic ones like Buddhism (forget Malati's risible downplaying of it) and Jainism. On this forum, I am often forced to adopt a contrarian standpoint because of the insufferable pride and bigotry of some modern Vaishnavas, at least people pretending to speak on behalf of Vaishnavism. Some of my statements can be construed as being anti-Vaishnava, but this is principally for the sake of argument, and deep down, I respect and honour devotion to God Vishnu for the simple reason that I am totally confident of its authenticity and validity, as I am for the truth of Shaivism, Shaktism, Advaita siddhanta and the rest. If only certain sectarians could rid themselves of their tinted lenses and view the reality in front of us with just a tad more nuance!

 

And for the record, we do not insist that ALL PATHS ARE THE SAME. The several means that there are to realise God may be in some respects at variance with one another, but that for sure does not preclude them from being individually just as useful and valuable, and with definite, proven results, in almost every single instance.

 

Hari Om Tat Sat

[RadheRade1657]

 

 

generational curses

 

I don't believe in generational curses... why would the bad karma of one person affect his/her descendants? We're supposed to work out our own karma, not someone elses! So please stop trying to scare people with such nonsense.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by Malati dasi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

 

 

To loverofbhagavat and Ganesh and company, if you can please show me a more accurate translation of this verse from the Bhagavad Gita: Give up all varieties of religion and

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

 

I can not put claim, to any more accurate translation, but I can only express my own understanding of it.

 

First dharma is not equated to religion, to understand the verse I go back to beginning of the Gita. Arjun is overcome by grief, not sure of his dharma and afraid of sin of killing his kith and kin.

 

So it is befitting Lord Krishna assures him, in the end, of his very reason to ask Lord Krishna in the begining.

 

My heart is overcome by the weakness of pity, and my mind is confused about Dharma (duty). I request You to tell me, decisively, what is better for me. I am Your disciple. Teach me who has taken refuge in You. (2.07) (Dharma may be defined as the eternal law governing, upholding, and supporting the creation and the world order. It also means duty, righteousness, ideal conduct, moral principles, and truth. Adharma is an antonym to Dharma. Expert guidance should be sought during the moment of crisis.)

 

Setting aside all noble deeds (dharma), just surrender completely to the will of me (God ) (with firm faith and loving contemplation). I shall liberate you from all sins (or bonds of Karma). Do not grieve. (18.66)

 

 

What need was there for Lord Krishna to go in to details about various

dharma principals and different mode of worship if his intention was to tell him to abandon all the religion, all he needed to do was saw his universal form and then tell him to surrender on to him, job done.

 

Thus the knowledge that is more secret than the secret has been explained to you by Me. After fully reflecting on this, do as you wish. (18.63)

 

This is the Hindu mind set, no compulsion no fear, those who accuse Hindus as Hodge podge has no concept of Dharma only thing they know is mine is better then yours attitude with their half backed knowledge or no knowledge of Vedas.

 

 

 

 

 

Also, I pasted quotes from the Gita about the topic. You can read demigod the way you think it should be read. Still…

 

Demigod has no place in Hindu Dharma, there is no such entity as half god.

 

 

 

Bhagavad Gita as it is Chap 7.

 

Lord Krishna does not condemn worship of deva nor does he call them half god anywhere.

 

Worship of material gain is not just confined to anya devas.

 

The knowers of the three Vedas and the drinkers of the juice of Soma (or devotion), whose sins are cleansed, worship Me by Yajna for gaining heaven. As a result of their good Karma they go to heaven and enjoy celestial sense pleasures. (/9.20)

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[cbrahma]

 

<CENTER>Chapter 4. Transcendental Knowledge</CENTER>

 

TEXT 12

 

 

 

 

 

kanksantah karmanam siddhim

yajanta iha devatah

ksipram hi manuse loke

siddhir bhavati karma-ja

SYNONYMS

 

 

 

kanksantah--desiring; karmanam--of fruitive activities; siddhim--perfection; yajante--worship by sacrifices; iha--in the material world; devatah--the demigods; ksipram--very quickly; hi--certainly; manuse--in human society; loke--within this world; siddhih bhavati--becomes successful; karma-ja--the fruitive worker.

 

TRANSLATION

 

 

 

 

 

Men in this world desire success in fruitive activities, and therefore they worship the demigods. Quickly, of course, men get results from fruitive work in this world.

 

PURPORT

 

 

 

There is a great misconception about the gods or demigods of this material world, and men of less intelligence, although passing as great scholars, take these demigods to be various forms of the Supreme Lord. Actually, the demigods are not different forms of God, but they are God's different parts and parcels. God is one, and the parts and parcels are many. The Vedas say, nityo nityanam: God is one. Isvarah paramah krsnah. The Supreme God is one--Krsna--and the demigods are delegated with powers to manage this material world. These demigods are all living entities (nityanam) with different grades of material power. They cannot be equal to the Supreme God--Narayana, Visnu, or Krsna. Anyone who thinks that God and the demigods are on the same level is called an atheist, or pasandi. Even the great demigods like Brahma and Siva cannot be compared to the Supreme Lord. In fact, the Lord is worshiped by demigods such as Brahma and Siva (siva-virinci-nutam). Yet curiously enough there are many human leaders who are worshiped by foolish men under the misunderstanding of anthropomorphism or zoomorphism. Iha devatah denotes a powerful man or demigod of this material world. But Narayana, Visnu, or Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, does not belong to this world. He is above, or transcendental to, material creation. Even Sripada Sankaracarya, the leader of the impersonalists, maintains that Narayana, or Krsna, is beyond this material creation. However, foolish people (hrt-ajnana) worship the demigods because they want immediate results. They get the results, but do not know that results so obtained are temporary and are meant for less intelligent persons. The intelligent person is in Krsna consciousness, and he has no need to worship the paltry demigods for some immediate, temporary benefit. The demigods of this material world, as well as their worshipers, will vanish with the annihilation of this material world. The boons of the demigods are material and temporary. Both the material worlds and their inhabitants, including the demigods, and their worshipers, are bubbles in the cosmic ocean. In this world, however, human society is mad after temporary things such as the material opulence of possessing land, family and enjoyable paraphernalia. To achieve such temporary things, they worship the demigods or powerful men in human society. If a man gets some ministership in the government by worshiping a political leader, he considers that he has achieved a great boon. All of them are therefore kowtowing to the so-called leaders or "big guns" in order to achieve temporary boons, and they indeed achieve such things. Such foolish men are not interested in Krsna consciousness for the permanent solution to the hardships of material existence. They are all after sense enjoyment, and to get a little facility for sense enjoyment they are attracted to worship empowered living entities known as demigods. This verse indicates that people are rarely interested in Krsna consciousness. They are mostly interested in material enjoyment, and therefore they worship some powerful living entity.

 

Srila Prabhupada translates deva as demigod in a sloka where Krsna minimizes the practice of worshiping them.

So anybody who rejects this sloka and translation obviously has serious issues with an exalted Vaisnava and/or Krsna Himself.

[tackleberry]

 

Now, you don't expect me to cut and paste the thousands of verses from the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas (including the Bhagavatam), Brahmanas, Aranyakas and numerous bhashyas just to get your jollies, do you? The knowledge is out there, and if you're sufficiently committed to obtaining it, I'll be more than happy to help. However, coming from someone who opined on another thread the scripturally unattested joke that Ashvatthama is an incarnation of Mahadeva (on the "authority" of Madhva, the founder of a most narrow-minded and insignificant cult of Karnataka), I am gobsmacked, to say the least, that you're clueless about the virtually unending number of shlokas that can be adduced in support of Advaita Vedanta. As I said, just say it and I'll furnish to you more material than you're able to digest in this lifetime, and probably the next.

 

In other words, you cannot quote pramaana-s. Quite typical of advaitins, who lost again and again to the 'narrow-minded' maadhva saints.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

Srila Prabhupada translates deva as demigod in a sloka where Krsna minimizes the practice of worshiping them.

So anybody who rejects this sloka and translation obviously has serious issues with an exalted Vaisnava and/or Krsna Himself.

 

It is not my wish to comment on Sadhus, but if you bring them up for discussion then be prepared to hear criticism. Anyway I shell refrain from my personal opinion on this.

 

You on other hand I have no problem to counter your opinion. Such threats are common in Abrahamic religion, fatwa’s are issued for daring to criticize or to have a different of opinion, not so in Vedic Hindu dharma. As to your opinion of Krishna minimizing the practice of deva worship could not be far from truth. I see no such reference but I can quote this and let us see how you minimise Krishna’s opinion

 

Brahmaa, the creator, in the beginning created human beings together with Yajna and said: By Yajna you shall prosper and Yajna shall fulfill all your desires. (3.10)

 

Nourish the Devas with Yajna, and the Devas will nourish you. Thus nourishing one another you shall attain the Supreme goal. (3.11)

 

I rest my case

Jai Shree Krishna

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

Srila Prabhupada translates deva as demigod in a sloka where Krsna minimizes the practice of worshiping them.

So anybody who rejects this sloka and translation obviously has serious issues with an exalted Vaisnava and/or Krsna Himself.

 

Quite typical nursery stuff of the Hare Krishna cult, the Johnny-come-lately of India's panoply of religions.

 

 

In other words, you cannot quote pramaana-s. Quite typical of advaitins, who lost again and again to the 'narrow-minded' maadhva saints.

 

 

I would advise you to go back to high school in order to brush up on your English reading skills, since what I wrote is a million miles away from what you made of it. And oh, Advaitins lost time and again to the funny Madhvas, eh? I suppose that is what explains why Dvaita never gained a foothold outside of a few marginalised swathes of Kannada-desha, and why Tattvavadis are still dwarfed by Shankarites and Sri Vaishnavas, even though Madhva appeared and preached after Shankara and Ramanuja, which is partly why I counselled you to get a reality check in my message. Give me your email addy and I'll send you dozens of PDF files laying out logically the unquestionable and unimpeachable doctrinal foundations of Advaita. By the way, what kind of an id is that, tackleberry? Any particular reason for such a preposterous nick?

[cbrahma]

 

Pranam

 

 

 

It is not my wish to comment on Sadhus, but if you bring them up for discussion then be prepared to hear criticism. Anyway I shell refrain from my personal opinion on this.

 

You on other hand I have no problem to counter your opinion. Such threats are common in Abrahamic religion, fatwa’s are issued for daring to criticize or to have a different of opinion, not so in Vedic Hindu dharma. As to your opinion of Krishna minimizing the practice of deva worship could not be far from truth. I see no such reference but I can quote this and let us see how you minimise Krishna’s opinion

 

Brahmaa, the creator, in the beginning created human beings together with Yajna and said: By Yajna you shall prosper and Yajna shall fulfill all your desires. (3.10)

 

Nourish the Devas with Yajna, and the Devas will nourish you. Thus nourishing one another you shall attain the Supreme goal. (3.11)

 

I rest my case

 

Jai Shree Krishna

Srila Prabhupada is an acarya in the Brahma sampradaya. Where do you get abrhamic from?

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

Tackleberry, for a more historically verifiable and rational recounting of the Impersonalist-Personalist discourses that have taken place over the centuries, you could mind taking a trip to Shringeri Matha for a version that lies at 180 degrees from what your fellow beleaguered Maadhvas care to tell. Mark my words, you could be in for a jumpy ride, buddy, and possibly a change of faith, if yours is rather pliable.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

Srila Prabhupada is an acarya in the Brahma sampradaya. Where do you get abrhamic from?

 

I suppose that tackleberry could educate you on the fact that Maadhvas categorically refute the Gaudiya claim that Chaitanya Vaishnavism descends from their line. If not, take a look at their sites and I would especially advise you to go through the Maadhva review of Prabhupada's BG As It Is.

[cbrahma]

 

Quite typical nursery stuff of the Hare Krishna cult, the Johnny-come-lately of India's panoply of religions.

 

 

Excuse me, but I am a software engineer with a university degree in science and mathematics and several post graduate courses so spare me your pompous, self-indulgent and ignorant ad hominems.

I don't belong to the Hare Krsna cult. Apparently you have exhausted your repetoire of dismissive labels.

Interestingly you accuse Hinduism of being a 'panoply of religions'.

Srila Prabhupada was not promoting religion - but sanatana dharma.

He was highly educated, so much so that he translated and purported enough books as would take years out of one's lifetime to read.

What is simple-minded and wrong is to minimize sanatana dharma as simply religious pluralism.

 

Again you demonstrate more hubris than knowledge.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

Srila Prabhupada is an acarya in the Brahma sampradaya. Where do you get abrhamic from?

 

Read my post again, i was responding to your opnion.

 

So anybody who rejects this sloka and translation obviously has serious issues or Krsna Himself.

 

this i responded to and i believe it is your opinion, unless or course you dont have one.

 

so are you going to minimize Krishna's words i quoted?

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[cbrahma]

 

Pranam

 

 

 

Read my post again, i was responding to your opnion.

 

So anybody who rejects this sloka and translation obviously has serious issues or Krsna Himself.

 

this i responded to and i believe it is your opinion, unless or course you dont have one.

 

so are you going to minimize Krishna's words i quoted?

 

Jai Shree Krishna

I was quoting an authoritative translation of a sloka from the Bhagavad - Gita. Again from where do you get abrhamic?

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

Excuse me, but I am a software engineer with a university degree in science and mathematics and several post graduate courses so spare me your pompous, self-indulgent and ignorant ad hominems.

I don't belong to the Hare Krsna cult. Apparently you have exhausted your repetoire of dismissive labels.

Interestingly you accuse Hinduism of being a 'panoply of religions'.

Srila Prabhupada was not promoting religion - but sanatana dharma.

He was a highly educated, so much so that he translated and purported enough books as would take years out of one's lifetime to read.

What is simple-minded and wrong is to minimize sanatana dharma as simply religious pluralism.

 

Again you demonstrate more hubris than knowledge.

 

cbrahma, unlike you, I'm not going to lay down my academic credentials on Audarya, however, you're the one who is severely lacking in any clue about the unfathomable and endless wisdom of Vedic dharma. You evidently are only acquainted with the few-decades-old ISKCONite take on shastra, when even traditional Gaudiyas dismiss Prabhupada's writings on a host of counts. A typical example is his atrocious Nectar of Devotion, in which he literally murdered Rupa Goswami's Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, and for a much better and more erudite English rendition of that text, consult Bhanu Swami's translation and commentary. To call you ignorant is actually far too mild a characterisation, since from reading your truly infantile words on this thread, I don't think I would care to engage in a debate with you, for the plain reason that you have just too little knowledge about the Vedic books. Sorry, I cannot stoop so low. Saying this, I bow out of this debasing discussion with persons of a tamasik disposition such as you and the other fanatics here.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

cbrahma, give it up, man. As someone who relies solely on BBT publications, you're just not up to the task. Then again, such small-mindedness would be expected from a convert like yourself, one hailing from a narrow Biblical background.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

He was highly educated, so much so that he translated and purported enough books as would take years out of one's lifetime to read.

 

Once more, you evince complete unacquaintance with the extensive literatures penned by a number of other highly respected sadhus from diverse lineages, and in so doing, you confirm my initial conclusion that you're not to be taken seriously, since you have such an enormous amount of homework to do. By so stating, I am not diminishing Prabhupada's significant contribution, merely putting it in perspective.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

I was quoting an authoritative translation of a sloka from the Bhagavad - Gita. Again from where do you get abrhamic?

 

In a nut shell you.

So anybody who rejects this sloka and translation obviously has serious issues with an exalted Vaisnava and/or Krsna Himself.

 

This is your opinion since you are saying it

One I refuted your claim that Krishna is minimizing Devas worship

What you call as authoritative translation, I can produce translation by other acharya which does not correspond with the one you produced.

Where in the sloka it says furtive ?

Jai Shree Krishna

[cbrahma]

 

cbrahma, unlike you, I'm not going to lay down my academic credentials on Audarya, however, you're the one who is severely lacking in any clue about the unfathomable and endless wisdom of Vedic dharma. You evidently are only acquainted with the few-decades-old ISKCONite take on shastra, when even traditional Gaudiyas dismiss Prabhupada's writings on a host of counts. A typical example is his atrocious Nectar of Devotion, in which he literally murdered Rupa Goswami's Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, and for a much better and more erudite English rendition of that text, consult Bhanu Swami's translation and commentary. To call you ignorant is actually far too mild a characterisation, since from reading your truly infantile words on this thread, I don't think I would care to engage in a debate with you, for the plain reason that you have just too little knowledge about the Vedic books. Sorry, I cannot stoop so low. Saying this, I bow out of this debasing discussion with persons of a tamasik disposition such as you and the other fanatics here.

If you are going to attack somebody's education - you are certainly begging for them to lay down their credentials. You have no problem making such attacks on this forum but you won't declare your claims to education, that you constantly infer? Your childish arrogance is only superceded by your illogic.

 

The substance of your attack, as thin as it is, is really directed to Srila Prabhupada, my siksa guru, whose words you essentially are condescending to call infantile. Nevertheless you have to do much better than that to be convincing.

[cbrahma]

 

Pranam

 

 

 

In a nut shell you.

 

This is your opinion since you are saying it

One I refuted your claim that Krishna is minimizing Devas worship

What you call as authoritative translation, I can produce translation by other acharya which does not correspond with the one you produced.

Where in the sloka it says furtive ?

Jai Shree Krishna

How is it my opinion when it is literally the words of Krsna and Srila Prabhupada. Read the sloka and the purport.