Do you have to be Born Hindu to be Hindu???

[sant]

 

Are we hindu or not whether we were born hindu or not. That is the question, but don't you think to answer this question, we should first wonder what hinduism is ?

Somebody said it is a way of life. Someone else said it is rituals.

Once answer to this qustion will be found, I am sure you all will be able to answer the second one of this thread.

But I am sure that on this fundamental and basic question, there will still be discreapancies.

Some people will give answer accordingly to their scriptural readings. Other people may answer accordingly to their sense and feelings.

 

To be honnest with you, I don't have any knowledge on scriptural writtens.

In my opinion, hinduism like other religion is a way to love, help each other and make people become and feel better, bring them faith and hope when needed. Bring them good habbits to remain in good health...

But people are unfortunately not able to understand it and want to make sure that God will be happy of their acts. Actually, you don't do good things for God... You do it for you, for your family, your neibourgh, your society for your satisfaction of good making.

You, your society get benefits of it.

But it seems people cannot understand or see this.

So maybe they need to be affraid (by the reaction of God) to do good thinks. I don't know ?

 

Anyway, being hindu or not, this is not the matter. Well acting with people, helping them, loving each other, giving, sharing... These are universal values shared by all whatever your religion is, and this make of you a good hindu, catholic, buddist or whatever you want.. This will make you satisfied and happy.

And I am sure that God will be happy his children react like this.

 

One should do one should do but why should one do can you tell that.

Why should one only love his family or neighbours why not everybody.You are only loving them out of moh, attachment.Everybody loves his family, society is that enough.Dont you think this love is little selfish.And if god is our father like you said then everybody should be our family.

And why should we not do anything for god.He is our father according to you so shouldnt we serve our father.

[sant]

 

Originally Posted by sambya

by what authority do you claim this ? give us examples from anywhere you please .......... even prabhupada would do !!!

also , if it is neither completely right nor completely wrong , which parts of it are right and which parts of it are wrong ?

 

Personal experience and approval of great saints should be an authority.

[sant]

 

Kaiser, I find your last posting offensive. I am just informing you that you are in my ignore list. Actually, you've been in my ignore list for the last three years, and I'm only reminding you of this fact. In case you need any reminders, I will be certain to again let you know that I am ignoring you. By the way, did I mention that I am ignoring you?

 

 

However, should you wish to be forgiven for your offenses, I am now accepting initiation into my new sampradaya that is a branch off of the Chaitanya sampradaya. You will have to learn "achintya theism atheism vada," but the good news is that despite being an atheist, you should find that this philosophy neatly reconciles the conflicting viewpoints of God-centered ideology and atheism. You don't have to actually read anything, but it is important that you purchase a full set of my books and put them up on the mantle while glorifying them as they gather dust due to non-use. Initiation comes with certain perks, such as: (1) I will smite anyone who disagrees with you as an Offender at your lotus feet, and (2) you can now claim to be preaching "pure religion, free of all mundane designations" even while you preoccupy yourself with telling everyone else that their religion is hodge podge.

 

Why do you keep an ignore list? Do you think of yourself as some kind of alien that you keep on ignoring human beings.

[theist]

 

buddha a shaktyavesa avatar ?????!! that means buddha is on the same level with bhaktivinoda thakur ??

 

 

"In two hands Lord Viṣṇu always carries a club and a cakra to kill demons, and in His other two hands He holds a conchshell and a lotus to give protection to His devotees. When His incarnation is present on this planet or in this universe, the Lord kills the demons and protects His devotees simultaneously. Sometimes Lord Viṣṇu appears in His person as Lord Kṛṣṇa or Lord Rāma. All of these appearances are mentioned in the śāstras. Sometimes He appears as a śaktyāveśa-avatāra like Lord Buddha. As explained before, these śaktyāveśa-avatāras are incarnations of Viṣṇu’s power invested in a living entity. Living entities are also part and parcel of Lord Viṣṇu, but they are not as powerful; therefore when a living entity descends as an incarnation of Viṣṇu, he is especially empowered by the Lord. " -SB 4.19.37

 

You can stop rolling on the floor now and get up Sambya.

[chandu_69]

Theist, Buddha is mentioned by prabhupada in his purport.SB 4.19.37doesnt say anything about Buddha or about the much abused śaktyāveśa-avatāra concept.

 

It should be of interest to you to read quote from Bhagavad-gītā (4.8): regarding what Krishna said about Avatar(s).

[theist]

 

Theist, Buddha is mentioned by prabhupada in his purport.SB 4.19.37doesnt say anything about Buddha or about the much abused śaktyāveśa-avatāra concept.

 

It should be of interest to you to read quote from Bhagavad-gītā (4.8): regarding what Krishna said about Avatar(s).

 

What????? He directly says Lord Buddha is a saktya-vesa avatar. I even enboldened the sentence.

 

I am satisfied.

[sambya]

 

What????? He directly says Lord Buddha is a saktya-vesa avatar. I even enboldened the sentence.

 

what he says and what he does not is none of our concern here !! i want scriptural basis and sound logic for that statement .

 

jayadeva was one the first persons who summarized the ten incarnation of vishnu and he happily included buddha in the list . and these ten avatars are foremost avatars of lord vishnu , more important than chaitanya or swaminarayan etc ...... . if buddha can become a shaktavesa avatar by the same logic i can labell ram or nrisimha as shaktavesa avatar .

 

 

I am satisfied.

we all know that ( is there any reason to disbelieve that a low IQ child would be satisfied with a hansel and gretel story ) .

 

but im not .........!!!

[primate]

 

 

Hinduism can be defined as 'Vedic religion' or Vedanta. If the scriptures of your personal religion are considered Vedic, then you are a Hindu. Thus, everyone can be a Hindu.

 

The most fundamental controversy in different Hindu philosophies, is the Advaita-Dvaita dichotomy. Logically, Advaita and Dvaita are mutually exclusive philosophies. Either everything is Brahman, or everything is not Brahman. Both philosophies can not conceivably be simultaneously true. Hence, the concept of 'inconceivable truth' was introduced by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. According to 'acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva', everything is inconceivably Brahman and not Brahman, simultaneously.

 

Why is this inconceivable? Because it doesn’t comply with any known form of reasoning or logic. In itself, this is not a reason to reject any proposal of simultaneous oneness and difference. Indeed, by some unknown (inconceivable) logic, it just might be correct. In any contemporary science, however, it would be considered 100% pure speculation.

 

Nevertheless, I believe acintya-bheda-abheda is true. Why? Because it’s a scientific (known) fact that 'causality' doesn’t exist at the most fundamental (quantum) level of reality. This ultimately implies that our (contemporary) scientific logic is at least incomplete and possibly even invalid. God might be simultaneously believable and unknowable..

 

 

Edit:

Theist, I hope I'm not on your ignore list.

 

By the way, I think that the particular logic necessary to accept simultaneous oneness and difference as a 'conceivable' reality, may already exist in 'mathematical chaos theory'..

[sant]

 

i want scriptural basis

 

 

The following description of the various types of avatars is given in the ancient Garga Samhita.

Text 16 Sri Närada said: In the Smrti-çästra the great sages who have Vyäsa as their leader explain that the Lord descends in six kinds of forms: 1. amsamsa (a part of a part), 2. amsa (a part), 3. ävesha (entrance into a jiva), 4. kalä (a full part), 5. pürna (full), and 6. paripürnatama (most full).

 

 

It is stated in the Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 20.246

guṇāvatāra, āra manvantarāvatāra yugāvatāra, āra śaktyāveśāvatāra

"There are incarnations that control the material qualities [guṇa-avatāras], incarnations who appear during the reign of each Manu [manvantara-avatāras], incarnations in different millenniums [yuga-avatāras] and incarnations of empowered living entities [śaktyāveśa-avatāras]."

[sambya]

 

 

The following description of the various types of avatars is given in the ancient Garga Samhita.

Text 16 Sri Närada said: In the Smrti-çästra the great sages who have Vyäsa as their leader explain that the Lord descends in six kinds of forms: 1. amsamsa (a part of a part), 2. amsa (a part), 3. ävesha (entrance into a jiva), 4. kalä (a full part), 5. pürna (full), and 6. paripürnatama (most full).

 

 

It is stated in the Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 20.246

guṇāvatāra, āra manvantarāvatāra yugāvatāra, āra śaktyāveśāvatāra

"There are incarnations that control the material qualities [guṇa-avatāras], incarnations who appear during the reign of each Manu [manvantara-avatāras], incarnations in different millenniums [yuga-avatāras] and incarnations of empowered living entities [śaktyāveśa-avatāras]."

did i want the classification or qualities of avatara ?

[theist]

 

what he says and what he does not is none of our concern here !! i want scriptural basis and sound logic for that statement .

Who is the 'we ' you refer to? Speak for yourself little soul. Many here accept the Gaudiya conclusions on saktyavesa avatars. Sant has already offered verses from Garga Samhita (which is new to me).

 

You can accept those or not. You can accept the statement in Prabhupada's purport or not. It means nothing to me either way. I won't waste time trying to prove anthing to you or bend you to my position.

 

 

jayadeva was one the first persons who summarized the ten incarnation of vishnu and he happily included buddha in the list . and these ten avatars are foremost avatars of lord vishnu , more important than chaitanya or swaminarayan etc ...... . if buddha can become a shaktavesa avatar by the same logic i can labell ram or nrisimha as shaktavesa avatar .

I remember Narada Muni as being on that list also. Another Saktavesa avatar.

 

Vyasadeva also but I am not sure if he was one of the ten listed or not.

 

 

 

we all know that ( is there any reason to disbelieve that a low IQ child would be satisfied with a hansel and gretel story ) .

 

but im not .........!!!

I know that was meant as an insult but it is true, I am of exceedimg low intelligence. I am just barely intelligent enough to realize this fact. Unfortunately this means I will never be able to find God through speculation and philosophical argumentation.

 

But good luck to you in your endeavor.

[theist]

 

By the way, I think that the particular logic necessary to accept simultaneous oneness and difference as a 'conceivable' reality, may already exist in 'mathematical chaos theory'..

It may exist there, whatever that is. If it did I know I would never find it there.

 

 

Edit:

Theist, I hope I'm not on your ignore list.

Of course not primate.

[sant]

Text 18 The Smrti-shästra explains that the pürna incarnations are 1. Nrsimha, 2. Räma, 3. Lord Hari, the ruler of Shvetadvépa, 4. Vaikuntha, 5. Yajna, and 6. Nara-Näräyana.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaktyavesha_Avatar

 

 

by the same logic i can labell ram or nrisimha as shaktavesa avatar

[sambya]

theist , i wanted to know where is it suggested that buddha was a shaktavesa avatar . i want the precise scriptures and some sound logic also . im sure you would be able to provide some , being a harekrishna (they dont move a inch without 'authentic' scriptural qotations) .

 

by what logic ( or wildest possible imagination ) can buddha and bhaktivinoda thakura(because he was a shaktavesa too) be compared ?

 

but i think i already know the answers........either you will shout and argue blindly till everyone gets a headache with an accute lack of logic or leave the thread backdoor !!

 

 

however , it will be better and more respectable for you if you simply say that you dont have the answer( none of us here know everything ) and admit that prabhupada sometimes did speak without corroboration from 'authentic' scriptures !!!!

[Haridasdasdas]

 

theist , i wanted to know where is it suggested that buddha was a shaktavesa avatar . i want the precise scriptures and some sound logic also . im sure you would be able to provide some , being a harekrishna (they dont move a inch without 'authentic' scriptural qotations) .

 

by what logic ( or wildest possible imagination ) can buddha and bhaktivinoda thakura(because he was a shaktavesa too) be compared ?

 

but i think i already know the answers........either you will shout and argue blindly till everyone gets a headache with an accute lack of logic or leave the thread backdoor !!

 

 

however , it will be better and more respectable for you if you simply say that you dont have the answer( none of us here know everything ) and admit that prabhupada sometimes did speak without corroboration from 'authentic' scriptures !!!!

It says it in the first canto of the Bhagavatam, but it doesn't say shaktavesa, The Bhagavatam makes Buddha sound more like a full avatar, according to the Bhagavatam, he's Visnu Tattva, so that's a long way from shaktavesa, right?

 

I don't know, but I don't see that he's shaktavesa either.

 

But Parasurama is sometimes called Shaktavesa as well and hes one of the Visnu Tattva. Confusing.

[sant]

 

ayadeva was one the first persons who summarized the ten incarnation of vishnu and he happily included buddha in the list .

Sambya you want scriptural basis so is shri jaydev also scripture according to you if yes then why not prabhupada by your logic.

[primate]

 

It may exist there, whatever that is. If it did I know I would never find it there.

 

 

Edit:

Theist, I hope I'm not on your ignore list.

 

Of course not primate.

 

Then tell me what did you mean by your statement: "Hinduism is not Krishna consciousness. Just ask any Advaitin."? I guess you simply made a mistake. That's no problem.

[sant]

The avtara issue is a very subtle thing.even not all buddhists see buddha as god.buddha is a saktyvesha avtar or not i cant say but i think he is vishnu but still he himself also never declared such a thing and there must be something that srila prabhupada meant when he said buddha is shaktya vesha avtar.anyway he is an important avtar.Even krishna is considered as an avtara of vishnu in the dasavtaar so why are you not arguing on that sambya.In that case even krishna is a avtar of vishnu.So such things are difficult to know.So i unlike you dont jump without thinking and start defaming his divine grace.

Besides -However, it is also likely that the buddha referenced in the Puranas is another buddha, different from the Buddha.As stated in the Lankavatara sutra, the demon Jina's son was also a buddha and was prayed to by the demon Ravana, the king of Lanka, whose death at the hands of Rama predated the birth of the Buddha. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha_as_an_Avatar_of_Vishnu

[theist]

 

Then tell me what did you mean by your statement: "Hinduism is not Krishna consciousness. Just ask any Advaitin."? I guess you simply made a mistake. That's no problem.

 

Look, how much more simple can I make it then I already have?

 

If Hinduism equals Krishna consciousness then what do you say to those Hindus who don't accept Krishna as the Supreme personality of Godhead?

 

Krishna consciousness is the natural consciousness of the soul in liberation. Do you think every hindu is liberated?

 

Nor are all the Hare Krishna's really fully Krishna conscious. It is a rare condition to find such a rare soul in the world.

 

Krishna consciousness is not a belief system that you just identify with or are born into or enter into by the performance of certain religious rites and rituals.

 

If this isn't clear enough then I apologize.

[theist]

 

theist , i wanted to know where is it suggested that buddha was a shaktavesa avatar . i want the precise scriptures and some sound logic also . im sure you would be able to provide some , being a harekrishna (they dont move a inch without 'authentic' scriptural qotations) .

 

by what logic ( or wildest possible imagination ) can buddha and bhaktivinoda thakura(because he was a shaktavesa too) be compared ?

 

but i think i already know the answers........either you will shout and argue blindly till everyone gets a headache with an accute lack of logic or leave the thread backdoor !!

 

 

however , it will be better and more respectable for you if you simply say that you dont have the answer( none of us here know everything ) and admit that prabhupada sometimes did speak without corroboration from 'authentic' scriptures !!!!

sambya, I do not desire your respect. I repeated my source for making such a claim and if you don't accept the words of Srila Prabhupada on the subject then that is your right. I have no personal need to try and make you see things my way.

 

Get it yet?

[theist]

 

It says it in the first canto of the Bhagavatam, but it doesn't say shaktavesa, The Bhagavatam makes Buddha sound more like a full avatar, according to the Bhagavatam, he's Visnu Tattva, so that's a long way from shaktavesa, right?

 

I don't know, but I don't see that he's shaktavesa either.

 

But Parasurama is sometimes called Shaktavesa as well and hes one of the Visnu Tattva. Confusing.

 

And what of that Narada Muni who is also on that list. He is clearly not Vishnu tattva right?

 

The thing is it is not the subject of Jayadeva to discuss those details in his song of praise.

[sambya]

 

sambya, I do not desire your respect. I repeated my source for making such a claim and if you don't accept the words of Srila Prabhupada on the subject then that is your right. I have no personal need to try and make you see things my way.

 

Get it yet?

now that you have gathered up enough courage and admitted the facts and the truth , you automatically earn my respect !!

 

thanks .......................

[sambya]

 

The thing is it is not the subject of Jayadeva to discuss those details in his song of praise.

 

but what did this mean ?

 

does it mean that jayadeva shouldnt have wrote about them so explicitely ?

[theist]

Sambya, you sound like a little boy asking "Why... why... why...". In his song of praise Jayadeva did NOT write about nature of each avatar as to how they should be classified.

[theist]

 

now that you have gathered up enough courage and admitted the facts and the truth , you automatically earn my respect !!

 

thanks .......................

I said nothing different then I have in any other post on this thread or any other. Please keep your respect and do me the favor of learning to read with comprehension instead.