Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Buddha and other bogus persons

[suchandra]

 

I have WAY TOO MUCH respect for the Vedic monism to equate that path with Islam. Do you see Vedic monists running around butchering people in the name of their religion? No you do not. That makes them infinitely more advanced in my book.

 

Islam is it's own category in the religious sphere. There is no need to artificially lump it with other doctrines.

"TOO MUCH respect for the Vedic monism" = contaminated by monism.

 

It was Lord Caitanya Himself who said that Islam is contaminated by monism.

In other words, there might be monists who follow the 4 regs to gain power, but the philosophy of monism itself has a strong lack of credibility to follow such strict disciplines.

As the Dalai Lama brings it to the point, it is good to refrain, but you don't need to follow disciplines.

[sambya]

 

Yet, Chand Kazi himself and many generations of his descendants and subordinates were following vaisnava dharma perfectly while still wearing Muslim dress and adopting all other external paraphernalia and practices pertaining to the Muslim religion. This is simply a historical fact. Vaisnavas to this day are worshiping Chand Kazi's samadhi (grave) in Navadvipa, WB, which they would never do to someone who is not a pure vaisnava.

Now my question is would you not call it that Caitanya has proved that their real internal religion was vaisnavism? We are not talking about religion in the social sense here but in the personal. Would you personally follow something that you didn't believe yourself?

...and that is all Prabhupada is saying here. He is not saying that all Muslims are Vaisnavas as some twisted the meaning of his words later in this thread.

For more information on this - Jaiva-Dharma, chapter 6.

 

just because of some isolated events where islamic and hindu thoughts actually converged , is not sufficient to prove that islam is actually vaishnavism .

 

in sundarvan mangrove forests hindus and muslims alike worship vana-bibi or the lady of the forest along with the tiger-ogre dakshinraya . idols are made and brahmin priests officiate the event . does that mean that muslims are basically followers of regional hindu deities ??!!!!!!

 

what chand kaji did was out of his own personal convictions and inclinations and it does nothing to reflect the nature of worldwide islam ........

[sambya]

 

Animal sacrifice in Vedic culture was not about killing an animal, making an offering and eating the meat.

that proves tantric sacrifices are also vedic , doesnt it ??

 

 

 

 

Mostly, they were horse sacrifices where the Brahmans tested the power of the Vedic mantras by restoring the horse to full youthful life.

 

Horse sacrifices for Vishnu were NEVER meant for the purpose of offering meat to Vishnu or the eating of meat by Brahmanas or anyone.

its a shame that you are so fond of fantasy stories at this mature age ( you said that you've heard a story 25 years ago .......just a post back ) .

animal sacrifices were animal sacrifices . there was nothing to bring them back to life . such absurd stories are fabricated in the later puranic ages when vegatrianism has already become a fashion among the educated . it was a idiotic attempt to justify the vedic sacrifices by some equally idotic brahmanas .

 

leaving everything else aside , why do you think a priest would sacrifice a horse or a cow and then bring them back to life ? the whole intention of a sacrifice is to offer something in a spirit of surrender . wouldnt bringing the horse alive amount to dishonesty ? should you bring back a horse to life after offering its blood to god ? that would be like offering a nice temple to the lord and then residing in it yourself !!! think rationally !! it shall also amount to a defiance of god's natural laws . do you think that would have pleased the lord ?

 

or do you suggest that it was some brahminical hocus pocus magic show intended to please the gods ????

 

gomedh (cow sacrifices ) and ashwamedh (horse sacrifices) was the practice of the day . there's nothing to be ashamed of !! religion and culture are never static but are on a continuous change . the practice that were naturall than might not be natural today . but that doesnt mean i shall distort facts to make them appear in a way i like !! admit it !! its historical truth .

[Sonic Yogi]

 

that proves tantric sacrifices are also vedic , doesnt it ??

 

 

 

 

its a shame that you are so fond of fantasy stories at this mature age ( you said that you've heard a story 25 years ago .......just a post back ) .

animal sacrifices were animal sacrifices . there was nothing to bring them back to life . such absurd stories are fabricated in the later puranic ages when vegatrianism has already become a fashion among the educated . it was a idiotic attempt to justify the vedic sacrifices by some equally idotic brahmanas .

 

leaving everything else aside , why do you think a priest would sacrifice a horse or a cow and then bring them back to life ? the whole intention of a sacrifice is to offer something in a spirit of surrender . wouldnt bringing the horse alive amount to dishonesty ? should you bring back a horse to life after offering its blood to god ? that would be like offering a nice temple to the lord and then residing in it yourself !!! think rationally !! it shall also amount to a defiance of god's natural laws . do you think that would have pleased the lord ?

 

or do you suggest that it was some brahminical hocus pocus magic show intended to please the gods ????

 

gomedh (cow sacrifices ) and ashwamedh (horse sacrifices) was the practice of the day . there's nothing to be ashamed of !! religion and culture are never static but are on a continuous change . the practice that were naturall than might not be natural today . but that doesnt mean i shall distort facts to make them appear in a way i like !! admit it !! its historical truth .

You can't produce any proof that there was any eating of meat in regards to animal sacrifices in the Vedic ages.

 

Show some proof from shastra that there was any eating of meat in regards to an animal sacrifices.

 

Animal sacrifices were performed in Treta yuga and stopped by Vedic regulations in Dwarpara yuga.

 

So, that means that by Vedic law animal sacrifices were supposed to stop 869,000 years ago at the beginning of Treta yuga.

 

That also means that any animal sacrifice in the last 869000 years is not sanctioned by Vedic law and was therefore useless.

[ranjeetmore]

Just look at the demoniac people.They've started trying to justify meat eating openly.

Meat eating is strongly condemned not only by Vaishnavas but also by Buddhism,Jainism,Shaivism(pure shaivas of course who do not equate themselves with Shiva and thus do not partake in smoking,etc),and advaitins.

Just look at these rascals.

 

It may be argued that Kumbhakarna ate meat.But it is understood that Kumbhakarna had a body of a demon.He NEEDED the meat for the nourishment of his huge body.

If Kaisersose provides proof that he and sambya are demons by their bodily structure,then they can eat meat.

[ranjeetmore]

Sonic yogi,Sambya thinks that whatever Narendra(Vivekananda) spoke is the final vedic law.

 

This Vivekananda advised meat eating,so he is following it.

 

It is another thing that sambya has absolutely no sastric support.He just goes on and on talking nonsense.

[Guest Melvin1]

Maybe sins are minimized if those who are not vegetarians ( christians, muslims, buddhists, etc ) eat only fish, crabs, shrimps, oysters and seaweeds instead of beef, pork and birds. For viand, Jesus Christ ate only fish and didn`t forbid his disciples to drink an alcoholic beverage(wine). If christians eat meat it`s because of what Jesus Christ believed. That whatever one takes through the mouth commits no sin. What`s sinful is that which comes from the bottom of our hearts such as deceit and malice.

[sambya1]

 

You can't produce any proof that there was any eating of meat in regards to animal sacrifices in the Vedic ages.

 

Show some proof from shastra that there was any eating of meat in regards to an animal sacrifices.

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

[Smiley]

sambya1, I appreciate that you are a vegetarian and that you are "merely protesting against ... idiotic rigidity of thought", however I would like to comment on your remarks about manu smriti. If "one may eat meatwhen Brahmanas desire", or "in the performance of a rite" or "when one's life is in danger", then we can infer that one normally may not. Logically, the manu smriti is listing exceptions to a generally accepted principle. Otherwise the words "may" would be nonsensical. If meat eating were done in only these circumstances, I for one would not have a problem with it. What is at issue here (for me) is the kind of casual meat consumption which fuels factory farming that most omnivores engage in for the sake of their palate.

 

 

... munusmriti specifically says that meat eating is not forbidden ...

... 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. ...

[Sonic Yogi]

 

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

Whatever sloka you quoted from Manu smriti does not prove that meat-eating was the purpose of or part of Vedic animal sacrifices.

Nothing in the verse says anything about any meat consumption in regards to any animal sacrifice.

 

Anyway, Manu smriti is not instruction on attaining Moksha.

What is said there are simply rules and regulation for karma-kandiya and having nothing to do with yoga or moksha.

 

This forum deals with spiritual discussion not talking about Karma kanda rules for sense gratification.

 

Karma kanda and Manu smriti are guidelines for the conditioned souls who are not ready to adopt the path of yoga.

It has nothing to do with self-realization, bhakti, jnana or yoga.

 

Sure anybody can eat meat if they like, but will they attain mukti or moksha?

No, they won't.

They will more than likely come back in the next life as an animal, so yes go ahead and eat your meat and become what you eat.

[Smiley]

I think trying to figure out what is "sin" is only elementary spirituality - compassion for all living creatures is the basis for vegetarianism IMO.

 

 

Maybe sins are minimized if those who are not vegetarians ( christians, muslims, buddhists, etc ) eat only fish, crabs, shrimps, oysters and seaweeds instead of beef, pork and birds. For viand, Jesus Christ ate only fish and didn`t forbid his disciples to drink an alcoholic beverage(wine). If christians eat meat it`s because of what Jesus Christ believed. That whatever one takes through the mouth commits no sin. What`s sinful is that which comes from the bottom of our hearts such as deceit and malice.

[visnujana]

 

just because of some isolated events where islamic and hindu thoughts actually converged , is not sufficient to prove that islam is actually vaishnavism .

That was another twist that has been made to the meaning of those words by Srila Prabhupada. By saying 'Islam is Vaisnavism' he did not mean to say that the two religious groups globally were practicing the same things. That would be an obvious gross misconception. Instead he meant that the original teaching of Islam is serving the same purpose. There is no difference between the two teachings in regards to their final objectives. For the prove of his words he referred to that historical fact (Chand Kazi) that we have agreed upon. Kulapavana had provided a link to the place in CC where this particular incident was described. There Kazi admitted that there were many faults in the Muslim scriptures, yet he said that he was a part of the Muslim community so he would still follow his religion for the benefit of others... and so he did. Doesn't it prove that the 'Muslim religion' was actually not much different from vaisnavism in Bengal at that time? (to say the least, if even vaisnava acaryas were worshiping and still are.. the 'Muslim leaders') Srila Prabhupada did not speak of the Islam all over the world, neither he spoke about Islam for 'all times'. He spoke about what you have named 'some isolated events'.. He did it for a particular reason, and he proved his points perfectly. Now there is no need to twist his words and try to accuse him for what he did not say.

I am sure it would all become more clear if we're actually present in that conversation. Otherwise all we have is 2 or 3 sentences ripped out of the context.

[jinglebells]

 

I have WAY TOO MUCH respect for the Vedic monism to equate that path with Islam. Do you see Vedic monists running around butchering people in the name of their religion?

 

They might, if they have the power. Since they don't, they're forced to be nice and humble; they have no choice. So it's not about religion at the end of the day, it's politics. The west is butchering people in the name of democracy, freedom, human rights, and whatever sweet-sounding term they could come up with; whereas, Muslims are doing it in the name of god. What difference does it make? It's all maya, the whole world is a terrible place.

[jinglebells]

 

Is it true that Srila Prabhupada`s Guru, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarawasti Maharaj, was also Adolph Hitler`s Guru?

 

Hitler recd. a lot of 'secret' teaching from hindu gurus, that's how he became powerful. But I am not sure if BSM was one of them.

[chandu_69]

 

They might, if they have the power. Since they don't, they're forced to be nice and humble;

 

They had power and there is nothing in their scriptures to encourage or advocate what you are claiming.

[chandu_69]

 

Hitler recd. a lot of 'secret' teaching from hindu gurus, that's how he became powerful. But I am not sure if BSM was one of them.

 

What are those secret teachings? Can you provide references.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

What are those secret teachings? Can you provide references.

Anybody can do a Google search and find out.

Hitler's guru was a woman.

 

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=m6-5YC-pBk4C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=Hitler%27s+guru&source=bl&ots=STi-g5mV_c&sig=vY5EwotdIA3XlTn3sTL_3TfItHM&hl=en&ei=svDxSbXkCMbJtgeSjcWyDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPP1,M1

[chandu_69]

 

Anybody can do a Google search and find out.

Hitler's guru was a woman.

 

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=m6-5YC-pBk4C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=Hitler%27s+guru&source=bl&ots=STi-g5mV_c&sig=vY5EwotdIA3XlTn3sTL_3TfItHM&hl=en&ei=svDxSbXkCMbJtgeSjcWyDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPP1,M1

 

savitri devi was not a Hindu guru.

 

Any fool can do a google search like the saying "any fool can pull a trigger".

[Sonic Yogi]

 

savitri devi was not a Hindu guru.

 

Any fool can do a google search like the saying "any fool can pull a trigger".

 

That is your worthless statement.

 

The introduction of the book is entitled "Found alive in India: Hitler's Guru".

 

So, that you don't consider her a guru doesn't mean anything.

A guru is simply a spiritual teacher.

If she was teaching any Vedic knowledge to Hitler she would then be his guru.

[jinglebells]

 

That is your worthless statement.

 

The introduction of the book is entitled "Found alive in India: Hitler's Guru".

 

So, that you don't consider her a guru doesn't mean anything.

A guru is simply a spiritual teacher.

If she was teaching any Vedic knowledge to Hitler she would then be his guru.

 

She was a vaishnava guru.

[sambya1]

 

There Kazi admitted that there were many faults in the Muslim scriptures, yet he said that he was a part of the Muslim community so he would still follow his religion for the benefit of others... and so he did. Doesn't it prove that the 'Muslim religion' was actually not much different from vaisnavism in Bengal at that time?

 

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 .....

 

 

Srila Prabhupada did not speak of the Islam all over the world, neither he spoke about Islam for 'all times'. He spoke about what you have named 'some isolated events'..

 

if thats the case then its ok . but then perhaps he should have said " bengali muslims are vaishnavs " rather than " islam is vaishnavism " .

[chandu_69]

 

No. It is very simple.

Jesus said "though shalt not kill".

 

 

 

Like prabhupada harekrishnas repeat the same error.Obviously prabhupada's knowledge of other religions is superficial.

 

"though shalt not kill" is one of the ten commandments of Old testament.

 

In The original hebrew bible(torah) it actually translates as

"though shalt not murder".

[chandu_69]

 

That is your worthless statement.

 

Let us see.

 

 

The introduction of the book is entitled "Found alive in India: Hitler's Guru".

 

So, that you don't consider her a guru doesn't mean anything.

 

Sure, no hindu worth his salt considers a nazi as their guru.

 

 

A guru is simply a spiritual teacher.

If she was teaching any Vedic knowledge to Hitler she would then be his guru.

 

Spiritual?? Like how to Gas the jews

[chandu_69]

 

She was a vaishnava guru.

I dont know of any vaishnava who advocates nazism

[Sonic Yogi]

 

I dont know of any vaishnava who advocates nazism

 

Maybe not, but Vedic culture was about spiritual communism and a monarchy.

Vedic culture was not a democracy.

 

You didn't get to vote in the Vedic empires.

You obeyed the King or you died.