Guest guest Posted July 28, 2003 Report Share Posted July 28, 2003 More sarcasm? What ever happened to proving a point and being a gentleman, let alone being a humble devotee? So now you want to go off and suggest that I am saying that anything goes? Talk about your strawman!!! This is going nowhere so why continue? I already told you that showing that one is karmically implicated if he/she eats meat is not the same as proving 'one can make no spiritual advancement' and engage in meat eating. You failed to even acknowledge the point even though it is correct. Everything one does without it being dovetailed in service to Krsna and authorized through his representative will bring more karmic debt. Apparently you think that being a vegetarian makes one immune to incurring any karmic debt. Being a vegetarian automatically brings one spritual advancement? The other important point that you fail to understand is that when one calls out in the core of his/her heart to God, he hears that call. You want to focus on the aspect of karma or vikarma and suggest that this alone makes one ineligible for any genuine spiritual progress. Unfortunately it doesn't add up either based on scripture, sense perception or logic. No points for you in terms of your argument. Which gets me to another point. You want to claim authority of scriptures and saints and I agree with you on that point. However, until such time as we become genuine experiencers of truth and reach the stage of bhava bhakti we all need good guidance in order to make sense out of the vast body of literatures which we use (of course we are all students forever and in that sense we will always need good guidance). You know who my Guru Maharaja is. For making sense of that which I am unclear on I go to him as my authority. May I ask you who it is that you go to for clarification regarding scripture and how to apply it? You have tried to place many words in my mouth which I didn't speak. I have merely tried to show you that your approach is similar to that of Christian fundamentalists who think they have a monopoly on truth. I also tried to point out to you that your approach is lacking in common sense and leaves one with the expectation of simply ignoring the fact that there are Christians who are spiritually advanced and that there have been many followers of Christ throughout the ages that have been great experiencers of truth. Brushing this aside with the weak argument that this truth is subjective will not do. Why? Because the same can be said of Vaishnava mystics and saints. No one can provide universally acceptable objective evidence as to the attainment of anyone. However, if you can remove your prejudice and look carefully at some of the examples of Christian saints throughout history you will see that they were decorated with the saintly quailities we expect to find in such persons based on our own scriptures. Lastly you seem to have a problem with the nomenclature used by Christians to call on God. Those who are narrow minded from that group have a problem with the names we use as well. Why not find out what their definition of God is and see if they are talking about the same 'one' God? Is that too much to ask? Or will this somehow make you seem ignorant in the eyes of the tattva-vadis or the Sri Vaishnava's? Enough. Your servant, Audarya-lila dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 An interesting conversation: Priest: Name Krsna, Allah, Jesus, (indistinct), what is the... Prabhupada: Allah is not name. That is...It is not the name. It is just like the idea of God. Priest: Yeah. Priest: Allah means also (indistinct). Prabhupada: But that is not the name. That is...Just like the President and Mr. Nixon. The President may be another person. Not only Nixon, but another person also may be. So President is the general understanding of the post. But still, one who occupies the post, he has got a name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Mr. Krishna s You said: —All I know is that nobody gets liberation by slaughtering millions of innocent animals for the purpose of satisfying their bellies and their taste buds.— Well then you don't know very much. No one gets liberation from doing the kinds of things the Hare Krishna's are best known for either. Yes, you don't slatughter cows, and perhaps you are very morally upright in all respects. That makes you a pious person, but do you have any spiritual experience? Can you say that you are as detatched from matter as the many Catholic saints were? Can you embrace the kind of austerity they did in their quest for God? Indeed has you devotion even been seriously tested as their's was? These are important questions to ask yourself. Maybe you should study the lives of the Christian saints. Perhaps they could help you develop the humility that Lord Caitanya spoke of that seems to have eluded you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Yep, There are primary and secondary names of God. Primary names being those that refer to him and his pastimes directly and secondary ones reffering to the position. It doesn't mean that the name refers to someone else. I believe this is dicussed in Harinama Cintamani. Your servant, Audarya-lila dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 That makes you a pious person, but do you have any spiritual experience? Your post was really quite shallow and cowardly, just a bunch of personal insults directed to Krishna S. questioning his spiritual practices and sincereity. At least have the guts to sign your name. My guess is that you are a registered member here and therefore violating the policies of the board by attacking another user without identifying yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 You say my post was shallow, but your reply was less than shallow. I do not believe that it is insulting to state what I believe to be the facts: Many Catholic saints have exhibited extraordinary spiritual qaulities that Krishna S does not have. Maybe he does have these qualities, and in that case I would be wrong and would apologise. But I doubt that he does for obvious reasons. If he exhibited the qualities of St. Francis, I think he would be well known by now and recognized a spiritual authority by many people. I assumed that he was pious in all respects, so in this respect I have been generous. But, again, I seriously doubt that he is as detatched from matter, as renounced, as many of the Catholics saints of the past. Since the saints detachment was a result of their devotion, I doubt that Krishna S is as devoted as they were. This all seems reasonable to me, not insulting. And I have only brought it up becasue he has placed himself above all of these saints. At least I believe that this is implicit in his posts. If not, then as I read it he needs to distinguish between the expressions of Christianity that he condems and those that he does not, and if there are those that he does not condemn then Christianity does or did at some point have some spiritual merit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 JNdasa, Your speculation about my identiy was wrong and in fact a bit insulting. Ramnam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Your IP is an exact match of another registered user who is a close friend of Audarya Lila prabhu and who has contributed in many other threads of Audarya Lila's in his defense. You can try to play games, but that is not adviseable. Regardless, guests are not allowed to attack other users, so such posts of yours are not welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krishna_s Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Misguided fundamentalist that I am, I shamelessly wrote: All I know is that nobody gets liberation by slaughtering millions of innocent animals for the purpose of satisfying their bellies and their taste buds. To which Theist of bona fide sampradaya correctly responded: Bhaktivinode ate meat in his earlier life. He obviously still made spiritual progress. I deeply apologize. You are correct. Bhaktivinod's example shows that one can get liberation even if he continues to slaughter millions of innocent animals for food. See, sometimes that fundamentalist in me gets loose, and I just need someone like you to knock that false ego out of me. But please be assured that I am making progress in my spiritual life, what with my newfound understanding of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and all. Why, just today, one of my Vivekananda worshipping friends came up to me and expressed doubt about some scriptural remarks which seemed to condemn meat-eating, saying such fundamentalist things as, meat-eaters would become animals in their next life, would reincarnate as many times as there are hairs on the slain animal, etc. I assured him that there were many other possible interpretations of these seemingly straightforward statements, and anyway, I pointed out that many other great saints (whose names I could neither point out nor give evidence as to their status in the afterlife) were meat eaters and nevertheless had great spiritual experiences, proving that one can eat meat and still make spiritual advancement. He was happy with this and started to leave, but then stopped and reflected: it turned out he was going to a local chapter of the Hindu Students Council meeting, where the main course for dinner would be McDonald's hamburgers. He asked me whether it would be a problem for him spiritually to eat cow meat, to which I reassured him that even many Christians eat hamburgers, but were obviously spiritually advanced given how nice I thought they were and how much they gave of themselves to help their community. Then my HSC friend presented yet another doubt: he heard that some Hare Krishna followers were saying that cow-eating was sinful. I again reassured him, pointing out that the Hare Krishna's founder was a milk-drinker, and hence a hypocrite; after all, if you already drink milk, how could it possibly be any more sinful to eat cow meat? My friend thanked me profusely for this revelation of Sanatana-dharma which I bestowed upon him. All my misconceptions are, one by one, being dissolved by my newfound faith in Jesus and my decision to begin hearing philosophy in his parampara. ONce in a while I say something fundamentalist, but I am confident that with help from my good friends here, enlightened Gaudiya Vaishnava Vedantists all of them, I will overcome these fundamentalist tendencies. Please be patient with me. Your servant, - K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krishna_s Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 More sarcasm? What ever happened to proving a point and being a gentleman, let alone being a humble devotee? So now you want to go off and suggest that I am saying that anything goes? Talk about your strawman!!! This is going nowhere so why continue? You're just envious of me cuz you don't have any Jesus-shakti. a former fundamentalist, - K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 If you paid as much attention to critical reading as you do to critical speaking you would understand what I said: Bhaktivinode ate meat in his earlier life. He obviously still made spiritual progress. Try again school boy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krishna_s Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 All I know is that nobody gets liberation by slaughtering millions of innocent animals for the purpose of satisfying their bellies and their taste buds. Theist immediately wrote: Bhaktivinode ate meat in his earlier life. He obviously still made spiritual progress. and yet in that same post he says ?!?: If you paid as much attention to critical reading as you do to critical speaking you would understand what I said: Perhaps you should try taking your own advice. Maybe you need a little more Jesus-shakti in your cheerios? peace, - K (a former fundamentalist) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 I don't think this _s person was insulted. His insults directed towards Lord Jesus Christ is being tolerated though. I wonder why that is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krishna_s Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 I don't think this _s person was insulted. His insults directed towards Lord Jesus Christ is being tolerated though. I wonder why that is? Blasphemer! Don't make me come over there and smite you! K-man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 But you better be ready for the real thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin5 Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 We are closing this thread for now as it is getting a little heated and not addressing any real points in a constructive manner- admin5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin5 Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 This thread has been reopened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 round two of Muay Thai boxing begins. Nah just kidding. You were right to call an intermission. My mind has calmed and I have lost my taste for the battle. Om Shanti Shanti... (but I rest with one eye open /images/graemlins/wink.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2004 Report Share Posted May 16, 2004 I am That I am and I am hath sent me unto you These perfectly suppost SriMadhwas interpretation that AHAM is the most sacred and secret name of Brahman. Here God calls Himself IAM and A AM hath sent ME Is there any more clarity than the universal thread in philosophy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2004 Report Share Posted May 16, 2004 I am that I am and i am hath sent me unto you so the god says. this is perfectly in line with Sri Madhwas interpretation in AHAM BRAHMASMI that AHAM is the most secret and sacred name of Brahman.Can it be more clearer? shantuvin@indiatimes.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2004 Report Share Posted May 16, 2004 "We must also remember that Bhaktivinode himself was a meat eatter and only gave it up as a last attachment" This only shows that bhakti purified him and made him stop making more unnecessary karma. Gita 9.30-31 Even if the most sinful person resolves to worship Me with single-minded loving devotion, such a person must be regarded as a saint because of making the right resolution. Such a person soon becomes righteous and attains everlasting peace. Be aware, O Arjuna, that My devotee shall never perish or fall down. Someone serious about their spiritual practice doesn't make unnecessary karma (eat meat etc.) and has compassion for all of god's creatures. Most likely the former judeo-xian 'vaishnavs' will never recognize this due to their bias as can be seen in their non acceptance of the pramana presented by Krishna S. Despite whatever contradicts their views, they'll still maintain jesus will get you to Goloka. Oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maadhav Posted May 16, 2004 Report Share Posted May 16, 2004 << Either way, Lord Krishna has advised that we abandon these religions and surrender unto him. >> the above refers to: sarva dharmAn praityaja mAma ekam sharaNam vraja.. (gita ch. 18) and it is mis-interpreteted here as is done very ofter. the dharma as stated in the verse is varnasrama dharmas, the duties of brahmana, kshatriya, vaishya and shudra. one who surrendes to krishna fully, is above varnasram dharma. any society has very few of such people, and to pretend one is surrendered to krishna "fully" does not help. this is not meant to say that there is nothing better than xianity. there is, and we hindus and HK's know it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maadhav Posted May 16, 2004 Report Share Posted May 16, 2004 << Which Christianity are you talking about, the one who is in your thoughts? or the one that Christ preached? >> and which of many churches preach the xianity that Christ preached, and which xians live by the word? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 your attempt to demonstrate that "sarva dharma..." means only to pervert the varna - ashrama system is wery weak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 and which of many churches preach the xianity that Christ preached, and which xians live by the word? not very much... the pure devotees of krsna are also perfect christians (why do you write xians.. it is for offence?) 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.