sant Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 SO waht do you think.Why did dashrath not go to vishnu loka when he remembered raam and took his name and died. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin Posted July 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 SO waht do you think.Why did dashrath not go to vishnu loka when he remembered raam and took his name and died. I don`t know, Sant. Why dasrath did not go to Visnu-loka when he remembered Raam. Maybe there`s an unfinished business dasrath had to deal with when he took Raam`s name and died. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 I don`t know, Sant. Why dasrath did not go to Visnu-loka when he remembered Raam. Maybe there`s an unfinished business dasrath had to deal with when he took Raam`s name and died. Yes who knows. God consciousness is not mechanical, it is personal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 will you please mention who is your guru ? I dont have any guru.May be Gurus didn't find me worthwhile to spend time on . exactly...............how does my comments on iskcon bother you ? It would not have bothered me a bit if you had responded to the real attackers i mentioned above.Your studious silence or serious attacks in hinduism while you go hammer and tongs on iskconites show the malaise of neo-hinduism. anyways .......im having a feeling that this thread might be closed down any moment now because it has turned into a fight and unproductive . Now you are talkng sense.But you conveniently forgot that it is you who started this fight by pestering theist and prabhupada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 chandu , i must say(from observation) that you have an wonderfull knowledge of islam and other foreign faiths except that of your own !! Probably true.May be because there are several thousand books in hinduism and i have no way to read them all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) First , Deuteronomy - found this online :...... About Abrahamic religions - my view 1] All this about "those others who worship other gods" or "do not abide by Allah's will" etc. is in the context of the geography , history , times and culture of those regions/nations. Here , worshipping other gods could mean yaksha-rakshasaas in raja-tama modes who oppressed people around Egypt, Europe and mid-east. OR , divine beings who are not the Supreme. It doesnt matter what people like you think.As per the Abrahamic scriptures you are worshpping false god(s).There is no IF and BUT.THAT IS THE VIEW HELD BY THEM.If you have come across any theologist of those religions say otherwise,post it. ( Bhagvad Gita Chap 17 - different kinds of faith. ) 2] Jesus said "reach God only thru' Me" - that was perhaps meant for the nations in vicinity of Rome who had trade / war relations. Some say the original Hebrew said "only thru' one of God" which was taken to be : one of God = Jesus of the Christ. Also , "Me" can mean so many things. Certainly not the historical body that walked on earth. However, Jesus himself can bring Krshna to those who consider Krshna as the Supreme Lord, Bhagvad Gita as their prime scripture, but also accept Jesus's teachings and/or have taken his shelter. (Krishna brings saints, devotees ; Saints , devotees bring Krshna). 3] The animal sacrifices of Judaism and Islam seem to have a lot to do with the desert location and undeveloped agriculture of those times. Tailormade. Just a step in spiritual evolution. Relatively better on their conscience than just being raw hunters (which is what the meat industry today boils down to). Today's followers of either religion have advanced agriculture and agricultural products. Some take all of this out of context. Obviously, we do not look upon terrorists as representatives of their religion. This is simply my understanding. I do not have anything to back it up, Jai Sri Krishna As i said above your understanding hardly counts with those who follow their scriptures. Btw, FYI the gospel of jesus is written in Greek not in Hebrew. Edited July 10, 2009 by chandu_69 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Sorry. I was the one who went off track. I apologize. Did think of starting another thread , but also wanted to refer to the quote here by Chandu_69. Nah, we all did, It always happens anyway but this subject is so important we have to show some discipline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 I dont have any guru.May be Gurus didn't find me worthwhile to spend time on . just came back once more for replying to you ... well , as is now clear from raghu's thread that a 'traditional hindu' ( as opposed to neo-hindu ) must allign to a 'traditional' school of hindu thought and also must have a guru in proper discuplic succession . bragging about shastras without a disciplic succession is typicall to what you call neo-hinduism !! since you dont yet have a guru and go on lecturing others about hinduism you are also very 'neo-hindu' ! at least you do not fall into 'traditional hindu' ...........therefore all your criticisms against neo-hinduism are worthless and equally idiotic !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Yes who knows. God consciousness is not mechanical, it is personal right. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 just came back once more for replying to you ... well , as is now clear from raghu's thread that a 'traditional hindu' ( as opposed to neo-hindu ) must allign to a 'traditional' school of hindu thought Ofcourse i to traditional school of hindu thought.Now, that is not relevent to this discussion. and also must have a guru in proper discuplic succession . bragging about shastras without a disciplic succession is typicall to what you call neo-hinduism !! I didnt exactly brag about Sastras.There are far more knowledgeable hindus like Ganeshprasad to quote authentic scriptures. since you dont yet have a guru and go on lecturing others about hinduism you are also very 'neo-hindu' ! at least you do not fall into 'traditional hindu' ...........therefore all your criticisms against neo-hinduism are worthless and equally idiotic !! The subject(I raised) is about spineless neo-hindus like you who whine endlessly about hinduism like spoilt brats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Ofcourse i to traditional school of hindu thought.Now, that is not relevent to this discussion.of course it is ............... you raise the neo hindu topic in every post and refuse to talk about traditional hindus . ex- you can criticise a 'neo-hindu' in two circumstances : 1- if you are a non hindu 2- if you are a 'traditional hindu' . since you do not fall into any of the two catagories( you are not 'traditional hindu since you dont even follow a sampradaya and so called traditional hindus must allign themselves to a sampradya) your criticism becomes baseless and irrelevant !! without sampradaya and a guru you are a ordinary religious scholar or speculator !!! learn it from me in case you already didnt know it !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Mr thiest wait i have a doubt. ISnt it also mechanical that whoever remembers the lord at the time of his death surely attains him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 of course it is ............... you raise the neo hindu topic in every post and refuse to talk about traditional hindus . I raise the characteristics of a typical neo-hindu who dont to Authentic scriptures and choose uneducated and delusional people as their gurus.The Neo-hindus like you have no respect for scriptures but keep on whining about inconsequential things. ex-you can criticise a 'neo-hindu' in two circumstances : 1- if you are a non hindu 2- if you are a 'traditional hindu' . since you do not fall into any of the two catagories( you are not 'traditional hindu since you dont even follow a sampradaya and so called traditional hindus must allign themselves to a sampradya) your criticism becomes baseless and irrelevant !! A practicing hindu follows scriptures not necessarily sampradayas. without sampradaya and a guru you are a ordinary religious scholar or speculator !!! learn it from me in case you already didnt know it !! I am an ordinary Hindu who is disgusted and pained with neohindus who put down their own scriptures and follow uneducated ,credulous looking Gurus. Still you have not answered the basic point. Why do you whine so much about iskcon and Hindu scriptures while keeping Mum when other faiths abuse Hinduism? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Mr thiest wait i have a doubt.ISnt it also mechanical that whoever remembers the lord at the time of his death surely attains him. But Sant, you were the one who gave the example of an exception in the person of Dasaratha. All I mean to say is that is the rule that Krishna goes by, but the rule is given by the Supreme Person Himself and He is free to change His mind at anytime for reasons known only to Himself. Ultimately the person rules over the rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 But Sant, you were the one who gave the example of an exception in the person of Dasaratha. Is he an exception or is it maybe because dashrath was remembering his son rama and not parmatma rama. Even in the case of ajamil he called out narayana. But did he acheive moksha at that time. I cant remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Is he an exception or is it maybe because dashrath was remembering his son rama and not parmatma rama.Even in the case of ajamil he called out narayana. But did he acheive moksha at that time. I cant remember. Don't know anything about dasaratha. Ajamila did not achieve Krishna at that time but later after going to Hardwar & living in a Visnu temple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Ok thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Chandu how is sambya a neo hindu? ISnt she a muslim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 deleted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 (edited) NOt fighting with you sir chandu but whos dividing hindusim now. Isnt it. Do you want to get the term neo hindu on a dictionary. and do you want to become raghu2 who has been succesful in dividing the hindus in this foum and has brought thoughts of difference to you also,who keeps on protecting hinduism. Edited July 10, 2009 by sant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Anyway im not actually serious to what is said.Just spoke for the sake of saying. And sambya stop attacking iskcon unecesarily or do post some proof even when youre attacking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin Posted July 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Sambya is also a brahmin.So tomorrow will you call him neo brahmin.Ofcourse then you are not so called traditional hindu since your not respecting a brahmin. Sant, I don`t know the difference from a Hindu and a Neo-Hindu. What I know is that the word neo-phyte means beginner or someone who`ve just began learning an art or vocation. Certainly, Sambya is no beginner on Hinduism. But if Neo means New, same as we label modern Nazis as Neo-Nazis, then Sambya`s views as I see them fittingly describes him to be a Neo-Hindu or Modern Hindu. And Chandu whose views are the very opposite of Sambya`s are traditionally Old-Hindu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 HOw is sambya a new hindu? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin Posted July 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 HOw is sambya a new hindu? The new Hindu is akin to a born-again Christian. That is if there`s such a word as a born-again Hindu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 The new Hindu is akin to a born-again Christian. That is if there`s such a word as a born-again Hindu. There is such a word. It is called diksa. Unfortunately the term is most commonly taken to refer to someone who has undergone a aprticular ceremony whereby he is given a thread, a mantra, and a new title brahmin. Brahmin means one who knows brahman or spirit. Such a person may not know brahman at all. This corresponds to the Christian who goes to a water baptism ceremony and upon coming up out of the water is told "now you are a reborn Christian". nevermind that Jesus never taught this. Jesus taught that the first birth is from water, the human birth, breaking of the water, and the second birth comes from God, which is the touch and cleasing of transcendence. IOW diksa. Small minded sectarianists will argue that sacred thread ceremony is real diksa and the same from the other camp will say "No, baptism in water is real rebirth." We have to rise up out of these camps and come into the light of God's presence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.