Sonic Yogi Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 There is a new documentary out called The God Who Wasn't There. It specifically challenges the historical authenticity of Jesus Christ. The producers have presented the views of some of the top academic theologians who have arrived at the conclusion that the story of Christ is a myth. This comes along with a new book by R.G. Price entitled Jesus, a very Jewish Myth. There is a website that deals specifically with the Christ myth theory. http://www.christbusters.com Is it possible that in fact the story of Jesus is a myth fabricated in Greek language by Hellenistic Jews looking for a marriage of the Jewish and the Greek traditions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Is it possible that in fact the story of Jesus is a myth fabricated in Greek language by Hellenistic Jews looking for a marriage of the Jewish and the Greek traditions? might be , just like some hindus claiming rama or krishna is myth !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Quote: Originally Posted by Sonic Yogi Is it possible that in fact the story of Jesus is a myth fabricated in Greek language by Hellenistic Jews looking for a marriage of the Jewish and the Greek traditions? might be , just like some hindus claiming rama or krishna is myth !! I agree with sambya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisersose Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Though Krishna, Rama and Jesus are candidates for fictional characters and a lot of ink has been spent on the topic, I find it curious that no such controversies surround the Buddha - though he lived 600 years before Jesus. Are Rama and Krishna any less credible than the Buddha? At least, in the case of Jesus, there are some compelling arguments that his name is absent in the list of people who were executed during that time, etc. No such evidence exists to question the existence of Rama, Krishna and Buddha. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Hey sonic yogi.Please tell me what does krishna mean when he says that you attain my spiritual nature.Dont the advait have an upper hand on that.And he also says that the nature of the soul is of self. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Wasn`t it that Srila Prabhupada was very much amused by a little girl from Boston who called him, Swami Jesus? He even quoted ( during that incident) a verse from the New testament in the Bible which says, " ...and a child shall lead them." From the book : Prabhupad by Satsvarupa dasa Goswami Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted June 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Hey sonic yogi.Please tell me what does krishna mean when he says that you attain my spiritual nature.Dont the advait have an upper hand on that.And he also says that the nature of the soul is of self. No, the Shankarites have no upper from anything in the Bhagavad-gita. The statement of Krishna says "he attains to my nature" it doesn't say he attains to become me. To attain to the nature of Krishna means to become a transcendental, spiritual person with full spiritual sense function as Krishna has. It does not mean that somehow Krishna is saying that "you will become another Krishna like me" or whatever it is you are saying that the Shankarites believe about the verse in Gita. Krishna says abandon all religions and surrender "unto me". The ME is clearly as person since nirvishesha brahman is devoid of personality. I guess the Advaitins are all excited about the proposition of becoming God, but it all sounds like so much foolishness to western people who were all raised to believe that God is a person and not just some spiritual substance without form, name or qualities. This "become God" philosophy is unique to India and the Shankarite sects. Outside of India this proposal that "you can become God" just sounds like so much ridiculous nonsense. Advaitism is a Hindu cult that has practically no existence outside of India. In the western countries, this "you can become God" religion is a Hindu cult with little to no potential for becoming a world religion as has Gaudiya Vaishnavism. "You can become God!" Really, that is such an absurd concept that it's hard to understand how so many Hindu people have bought into such a ridiculous religion. In the western world, people just laugh at Advaitism. Advaitism "you can become God" has got to be the most ridiculous cult on the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Yes i agree but why again you envy a religion. The nature of the soul is of sel.This is also mentioned. And when you talk about being like krishna.It is mentioned in the in one of the types of mukti that you attain the status of vishnu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 You can become God!"Really, that is such an absurd concept that it's hard to understand how so many Hindu people have bought into such a ridiculous religion. Most advaits think they already are god correct me if i am wrong. They just have to realise it.Certainly aham brhamasmi,Where soul is referred to as ishwar in gita,Soul is refered to brahman etc.They may qoute from here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 In the western world, people just laugh at Advaitism. I ( and most indians like me ) would laugh at people at you who try to pose iskcon as something totally transcendental to material nature and yet a new scandal surfaces every fortnight !! has anything been a greater failure than iskcon in history of religious movements ( im not speaking of numerous now-extinct tribal cults ) ?!! and probably you are not aqquainted with modern theories of physics( not suprising with the americans though ) which is increasingly proving the creation to be similar as envisioned by advaita and such other philosophies ! read books like 'tao of physics' for a little better education ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 My recent personal insight --yet to be resolved as correct or not: "Is it logical that our the original earth-bound so-called 'caveman' ancestors of mankind could conceive (intellectually) that there is a God, without being told so?" Do we not take for granted all the ipso-facto revelations from the past --that 'There might be a God [of which we are modeled or distinct from]'? Why is it thought that it is natural for any aboriginal indigenous tribe(s) to conclude that God is a Person. Supernatural experiences alone do not foreshadow the concept of a personal God. The impression that departed souls could linger and cause occurences attributed to ghostly causes --would seem very likely. Anything more is a strech of the probable intelleceural capacity of common hunter/gatherers or farmer. But where would the idea of God the Father, or just, "God the Person" arise? Animistic concepts seemed to jump over this ideal of "God the Person-Godhead. Idol worshipers of Babylonia seemed to jump over this ideal of "God the Person-Godhead. Mundane conditioning only lends itself only to (self-interested) to eat/sleep/mate & defending activities. Why would one rise above the limited & petty & immediate desire-of-the-moment --without being told (from above) via the 'desending' path of knowledge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Quote: In the western world, people just laugh at Advaitism. No sambya you yourself go and tell any muslim or christian this he will surely laugh when you say youre god.Its not a scandal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisersose Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Quote:In the western world, people just laugh at Advaitism. No sambya you yourself go and tell any muslim or christian this he will surely laugh when you say youre god.Its not a scandal. Tell it to any Advaitin and he will laugh more. He will laugh at your ignorance of what Advaita is. Btw, Christians and Muslims have little or no time for your Hare Krishna brand of worshipping Krishna idols either. It is an offense and you guys are hell bound. As far as they are concerned, there is no difference between the Hare Krishna & the Advaitin. Why dont you stick to topics you are familiar with, instead of constantly puting your foot in your mouth? Or read Advaita from a proper source and then criticize the doctrine. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted June 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 you attain the status of vishnu. No. That is just wrong. There is nothing anywhere in shastra that says you attain to the status of Vishnu. You can attain to the service of Vishnu in a similar form with similar qualities of Vishnu, but to attain to the status of Vishnu would mean that you cease to become servant and then become Vishnu. There is no such belief in any Vaishnava sect that you become Vishnu. That is a foolish Mayavada idea that you can become Vishnu. No true Vaishnava ever aspires to become Vishnu or attain his status. Jiva can never become Vishnu. He can become servant of Vishnu and have a form like Narayana, but he can never become Vishnu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 sant , you are free to show a sloka from any standard advaitist scripture stating that the goal is to become god or that the practice is to proclaim yourself as god ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 "standard advaitist scripture stating that the goal is to become god" ---? Yes, we know that this is indeed the case --Why post it? For Doubting Thomas'? :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Nirvana & Brahman realisation are far from: "the goal is to become god"? Nirvana & Brahman realisation are far from athiestic & meglomaniac tendencies to proclaim oneself as the standard bearer of the Truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dasosmi Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I ( and most indians like me ) would laugh at people at you who try to pose iskcon as something totally transcendental to material nature and yet a new scandal surfaces every fortnight !! has anything been a greater failure than iskcon in history of religious movements ( im not speaking of numerous now-extinct tribal cults ) ?!! and probably you are not aqquainted with modern theories of physics( not suprising with the americans though ) which is increasingly proving the creation to be similar as envisioned by advaita and such other philosophies ! read books like 'tao of physics' for a little better education ......... Hare Krishna. Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Guru and Gauranga. You are certainly very senior to me both by birth and also by education. You seem to know so much about everything. I tried hard not to reply to your post but I felt I had to. I do not think ISKCON is a failure at all. I know its one of the most successful societies ever made. Perhaps you are so far ahead in spiritual life that you can't appreciate the little things ISKCON centers around the world help with for some beginners like myself. I am sure you have valid reasons for your conclusions. It would be nicer if you shared them with people in private because this forum is open to the general public. Certainly every fruit bearing tree has some rotten fruits but I would not go as far to chop down the entire tree. Perhaps it is for selfish reasons I ask you not to post such negative thoughts about ISKCON. I am here to learn and grow in spiritual life and the aim of this forum seems to be just for that reason. I do not think such negative comments will encourage us to talk open heartedly and teach us to love one another as spiritual brothers and sisters rather than Indian and American. Please accept my humble obeisances and forgive me if I made any mistakes in my assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 No, the Shankarites have no upper from anything in the Bhagavad-gita.The statement of Krishna says "he attains to my nature" it doesn't say he attains to become me. To attain to the nature of Krishna means to become a transcendental, spiritual person with full spiritual sense function as Krishna has. It does not mean that somehow Krishna is saying that "you will become another Krishna like me" or whatever it is you are saying that the Shankarites believe about the verse in Gita. Krishna says abandon all religions and surrender "unto me". The ME is clearly as person since nirvishesha brahman is devoid of personality. I guess the Advaitins are all excited about the proposition of becoming God, but it all sounds like so much foolishness to western people who were all raised to believe that God is a person and not just some spiritual substance without form, name or qualities. This "become God" philosophy is unique to India and the Shankarite sects. Outside of India this proposal that "you can become God" just sounds like so much ridiculous nonsense. Advaitism is a Hindu cult that has practically no existence outside of India. In the western countries, this "you can become God" religion is a Hindu cult with little to no potential for becoming a world religion as has Gaudiya Vaishnavism. "You can become God!" Really, that is such an absurd concept that it's hard to understand how so many Hindu people have bought into such a ridiculous religion. In the western world, people just laugh at Advaitism. Advaitism "you can become God" has got to be the most ridiculous cult on the planet. IMO, Advaita doesn’t mean that you and me can become God. That would be absurd. The basis of Advaita is that there exists only one God (just as in Christianity). So no one but God is God. Then, of course, it is impossible for both you and me to be God simultaneously. We must both be eternally different from God. The difficult part to understand (even for Advaitins) is not so much this difference, but the simultaneous oneness or Brahman or God. It seems to be inconceivable.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted June 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 IMO, Advaita doesn’t mean that you and me can become God. That would be absurd. The basis of Advaita is that there exists only one God (just as in Christianity). So no one but God is God. Then, of course, it is impossible for both you and me to be God simultaneously. We must both be eternally different from God. The difficult part to understand (even for Advaitins) is not so much this difference, but the simultaneous oneness or Brahman or God. It seems to be inconceivable.. Advaitism is about the idea that all bodily existence is miserable and there the goal is to become unembodied and to merge into the oneness of of the Brahman. Since impersonal Brahman is "God" and the goal of Advaitism is to merge homogeneously into the Brahman, we have in effect a religion about how to become God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Though Krishna, Rama and Jesus are candidates for fictional characters and a lot of ink has been spent on the topic, I find it curious that no such controversies surround the Buddha - though he lived 600 years before Jesus. The reasons why should be obvious. Hinduism is a majority tradition in India, so denouncing the historical existence of Krishna and Rama has obvious political advantages for those who hate Hinduism and want to subjugate it through politics. Nobody cares to go after Buddha because Buddhism is hardly of any interest in the political realm. You can't get away with blaming Buddhism for the plight of modern Muslims, for example (though I hear that the Taliban found a way in Afghanistan a few years ago). As soon as you understand that most Indological scholarship is colored by political and/or religious motives, the reasons for such double standards become clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisersose Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Advaitism is about the idea that all bodily existence is miserable and there the goal is to become unembodied and to merge into the oneness of of the Brahman.Since impersonal Brahman is "God" and the goal of Advaitism is to merge homogeneously into the Brahman, we have in effect a religion about how to become God. Do you have a quote from an Advaita source to back this up? If not, then I am sure you have no problems if I tell you it is wrong. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted June 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Do you have a quote from an Advaita source to back this up? If not, then I am sure you have no problems if I tell you it is wrong. Cheers You are obviously clueless about Advaitism. It's a sorry day for Advaitism when the servants of the Vaishnava have to explain to them what is Advaitism. You might fancy yourself as a Shankarite or Vedantist, but you seem to have no information about the tattva-siddhanta of Advaitism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisersose Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I asked for evidence supporting your description of Advaita and you responded with, You are obviously clueless about Advaitism.It's a sorry day for Advaitism when the servants of the Vaishnava have to explain to them what is Advaitism. You might fancy yourself as a Shankarite or Vedantist, but you seem to have no information about the tattva-siddhanta of Advaitism. In other words, you have no scriptural evidence to backup your version of Advaita. That was exactly my point. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted June 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I asked for evidence supporting your description of Advaita and you responded with, In other words, you have no scriptural evidence to backup your version of Advaita. That was exactly my point. Cheers I am not going to teach you Advaitism. You obviously have not study Advaitism under any authentic guru in the lineage of Shankaracharya. Trust me, I know more about Advaitism than you do and I learned it from the Vaishnava acharya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I am not going to teach you Advaitism.You obviously have not study Advaitism under any authentic guru in the lineage of Shankaracharya. Trust me, I know more about Advaitism than you do and I learned it from the Vaishnava acharya. Which Vaishnava acharya taught you about "Advaitism?" Would you consider it fair if an Advaitin said he knew all about Vaishnavism because he heard about it from an Advaitin acharya? For what it's worth, your ideas about "Advaitism" are incorrect on several counts. What you describe as "Advaitism" sounds more like the bheda abheda philosophy of Bhaskara and the Neo-Advaita propagated by Vivekananda and others of his ilk. And yes, I base my views on Advaita on the writings of Sri Sankaracharya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts