unite hindu

[Guest guest]

proud to be a hindu

 

www.hinduunity.org

[Guest guest]

 

nice site I loved the archives section in hinduunity.com

Yes i am proud to be a hindu

Hinduism forever!

 

krishna will always with us...

 

hare krishna hare krishna krishna krishna hare hare :: hare rama hare rama rama rama hare hare

 

 

[Guest guest]

I am proud and very happy to see the isckonites feeling such an inclination towards Hinduism and Hindutva.

 

Last time i came here around 1 and half years back all were seculars and i felt very sad.

 

shakti and guest i am proud to have hindu brothers like u.

 

however i would like us to get in touch, how could we ?

 

any idea ?

 

plz make a disposable fake ID and give me to contact u there after that we could be in regular touch.

 

Dhanyawaad,

Jawan Karthik.

[Guest guest]

i am kevin not a indian born but my family is devoted

to iskon living in california

And a Proud hindu

 

ur mail id ?

kartik

 

hare krsna

[Guest guest]

<< I am proud and very happy to see the isckonites feeling such an inclination towards Hinduism and Hindutva. >>

 

it would help a lot in uniting hindus and hare krishnas if the word "iskconite" is not used for the western krishna devotees. i use the word Hare Krishnas or HK's for them.

 

Now, HK stores do sell pictures of devas and devis.

the names of many Hk's are the names of devas and devis.

 

so, it seems that understand that HK's are sanatana dharmis or hindus.

 

jai sri krishna! -madhav

 

[Guest guest]

"so, it seems that understand that HK's are sanatana dharmis or hindus"

it depends on what you mean for hindu... if we say that harekrishna comes from a school of thought, in a sense, born and developed in india, there's no problem

 

if hindu is used as another sectarian religion saying that god is only ours or if hindu is a vehicle for fanaticism, politic and nationalism, hare krishna is not hindu

 

another thing is the personalism/impersonalism issue... i, as an hare krishna, i feel myself more close to a christian or a muslim than an advaitin even if apparently we use similar dress, pujas, ceremonies etc... i believe in one, personal god.. so i feel myself close to other monotheists (and not to mayavadis, impersonalists, panteists etc.), if they are hindu or christian or muslims it is a detail

 

actually i do not think that an impersonalist/mayavadi belongs to sanatana dharma..

 

so harekrishna = hindu? sometimes...

[Guest guest]

Hindus & Hare Krishnas (HK’s) Unity

by “Madhav”

 

Background:

 

Terms Defined:

 

The word Hindu is about 1200 years old. When the Islamists started invading India around 900 AD, they had to cross the river Sindhu at the NW border of Bharat (India).

They would pronounce Sindhu as Hindu. So, the world Hindu to them meant the people who lived on the East and South side of Sindhu. These people were (and most of them still are) the followers of Sanatana Dharma or Varnasrama Dharma that is described in the ancient Vedas and the Vedic literature. Their culture is known as the Vedic culture. People accept the authority of the Vedas and live by it. The culture is such that every one in the society has equal opportunity to progress spiritually towards God. Every act of daily life is geared towards God in mind and for spiritual progress. According to the Vedas, Sanatana Dharma is as old as the creation. So, the word Hindu meant the Vedic person and Vedic way of living (Sanatana Dharma) came to be known as Hinduism. The words Hindu or Hinduism are not mentioned in the Vedic literature because the name change occurred long after the scriptures were put on paper. Originally the literatures were kept in memory of the Brahmana class of the society.

 

Hinduism is a very tolerant Dharma. The Book of Hinduism is Bhagavad Gita that is generally known is Gita. It is a 700-verse summary of 80,000-verse Vedas. While other religions give a set of beliefs for one to accept or reject. Hinduism provides spiritual truths that are as true and universal as the laws of science, like gravity or mathematics. Once can accept these truths and live by it, or choose to not accept and eventually suffer if the laws are violated. Just as the laws of gravity does not change no matter what you believe about it, the spiritual laws and facts about God and soul do not change whether you believe them or not. Hinduism, in principle, provides all possible ways of realizing God. That is why it talks of many names of gods. That is why it is difficult for non-Hindus to understand it. Consequently most non-Hindu cultures have misunderstood it and even condemned it. Every religion has some people who malpractice it. Hinduism is not any exception, but malpractice does not and cannot change what a religion originally is. While Islam and Christianity tells the followers to convert the whole world, Hinduism tells not talk about Hinduism to any one who is not showing friendly interest to know it. Consequently, the Hindus have never invaded another’s country and never have converted any one by force. Hinduism is inherently a secular way of living. Consequently the phrase “Hindu Fundamentalism” or “Hindu Fanatic” is an oxymoron. Unlike Islam and Christianity, Hinduism is not an organized religion.

 

Bharat is described in the Vedic literature as devabhoomi, the land of the gods. It is a holy land of rishis (spiritual scientist), saints, sanyasis (people who give up worldly life for spiritual life), sadhus (godly people), and yogis and mystics. Most Hindus are God conscious.

 

Hinduism says God is one. As creator He is Brahma, as maintainer, He is Vishnu, and as destroyer, He is Shiva. Then there are many demi-gods who serve God, just as there are many Governors and Mayors who serve the President. Consequently a Shiva worshipper Hindu is known a Shivite, and Vishnu worshipper is known is Vaishnava, etc. The philosophy of Vaishnavas is called Vaishnavism. This, Vaishnavism is a major part of Hinduism ever since Hinduism exists.

 

Hinduism is non-sectarian. It addresses or is for all the people of all times and places.

Hinduism has no pagans. Hindus are skin-color-blind. Race is transparent to them.

Bharat is the cradle of the Vedic civilization. So, Bharat is the land of the Hindus, just as Israel is the land of the Jews.

 

Hindu Nationalism is a new phenomenon, although Bharat is a nation of the Hindus since thousands of years. Since 1200 years the Hindus have been kicked and persecuted in their own land by Islamists and for 200 or so years before 1947 ruled over by the British people. Even after so much and so long suffering, the Hindus remained tolerant to the aggressors (Islamists and Christians). Gandhi made it worse for the Hindus by creating Pakistan for the Islamists and still allowing the Muslims to live in Bharat. He did it so because the Muslims threatened a civil war in 1947 and Gandhi did not want a war. What he did in actuality was he made the non-violent Hindus more tolerant of the aggressors, and he failed to make the violent aggressor Islamists non-violent. Now the Hindus do not want to tolerate any more non-sense from the Islamists or any one else. They want to keep Bharat intact, undisturbed, and reserved for the Hindus where they do not want any aggressor religion or ideology that thinks of converting any Hindu. They are working at internal level to stop Hinduism malpractice, and external level to cleanup Bharat of the ideologies that are aggressive to Hinduism and Hindus. Being Hindus, they preferred non-violent ways so far and for long, and none worked. The violent ways are within the scope of Hinduism as described in Gita and they know it. Gandhi’s non-violence message was from Jainism, not Hinduism. So, this sudden change in Hindus’ mood to restore self-respect and get control of their own land and self-rule is seen by the invader outsiders as Hindu fundamentalism, but it is not. Hindus really do not care what other countries do in their own country. They just want to make sure they can practice Hinduism without any hindrance from any one in their own land Bharat.

 

 

The phrase “Hare Krishnas” identifies the Western followers of Bhakti-vedanta Swami Prabhupada who preached Krishna Consciousness (KC). KC is same as Vaishnavism at taught by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu some 500 years ago. His philosophy is slightly different from that taught by three Vaishnava Aacharya (religious authorities) that came before him.

 

The Current Time:

 

This is post 9/11/2001 WTC attack time and early 2003. 9/11 attack on WTC has made the world know the barbaric nature of Islam. The Hindus have many times suffered genocide over 1200 years from Islamists in Bharat. Therefore, the Hindus, being the vitims, know the barbaric nature of Islam since a long time. The current barbaric acts of Islamists towards Hindus are: The destruction of Baminan Buddha statue in Afghanistan, attack on Akshardham and Raghunath temples in Bharat. The web page http://www.hinduunity.org describes many such acts towards the Hindus.

 

The jeehaad or Islamists’ holy war against all the non-Muslim people of the world is an asymmetric war of terrorism. (They do jeehaad as described in their Holy Book, Koran and Hadith.) No government alone can fight terrorism and win it. Everyone (or most of the) citizen needs to fight it in whatever small or big way one can fight it, violently or non-violently. For Hindus, violent war is the last choice. When all have to fight, then unity of purpose, organizing, planning, manning, funding, and executing is required. Therefore, the Hindus and HK’s can unite for this purpose. However, the way Sri Prabhupada has presented KC, it makes difficult for HK’s to unite with the Hindus. When many Hindus see that Hk’s do not understand them, then they turn away from HK’s and sometimes become hostile to HK’s. Still many Hindus do support HK’s. This article aims to discuss it with the hope that it will help HK’s unite with Hindus. Once properly understood, it would be seen that unity is already there but not realized.

 

Now the Article:

 

Some points (facts) are described below.

 

a) Sri Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada who came to USA in 1965 and preached KC for 12 years all over the world was a Hindu. He was born and raised in Bharat (although that is not a condition to become a Hindu.) He practiced and preached KC or Vaishnavism or Krishna bhakti or Bhagavat dharma that is a major part or sect of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma. He preached Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam. Gita is the Book of Hinduism. Krishna is known as God Vishnu among Hindus and in the Vedic literature.

b) Hare Krishnas are Hindus. This is clear when they practice and preach KC. The Hindus clearly see it this way. If some one who follows Jesus is no doubt a Christian, then one who follows and worships Krishna is no doubt a Hindu. If a bird says it is not a bird, that does note make it a non–bird.

c) Prabhupada said to his followers that he is not preaching Hinduism, so HK’s are not Hindus, he said. So the question is why he said so in light of paragraph a) above. Some answers are as follows:

c1: Many Hindus have malpracticed Hinduism, and Hinduism is more than Vaishnavism. The malpractice is going away now, but is still there somewhat. Most non-Hindus incorrectly think that Hinduism is what the most Hindus practice. Rather than telling about the malpractices to the followers who mostly hated Hinduism because they do not know it correctly, he told he is not preaching Hinduism. This was to avoid the discussion about the malpractices and different sects’ principles of Hinduism. This was a lie, but for good reason, just like parents sometimes lie to a child to take a medicine that ultimately will make the child healthy.

c2) The Islamists and the Christians have introduced Hinduism to the world incorrectly and defamed it for selfish reasons. Consequently most non-Hindus do not know what Hinduism really is, and hate it for what they know about it. If Prabhupada had said, ”I am teaching a part of Hinduism,” most would have turned away from him before listening him any more. So, it helped him teach pure Vaishnavism to them by telling it is not Hinduism or a sect of it.

c3) When he said he is not preaching Hinduism, it became attractive to all, even who hated Hinduism. So, he got more followers, as he wanted.

d) When the Hindus hear that Prabhupada said he is not preaching Hinduism when in reality he is, they (especially those who follow Hinduism correctly) feel that Prabhupada stole Hinduism and did not give due credit to the Hindus who kept Hinduism alive despite many Hindu genocides by the Muslims. This is like a mother (even a prostitute) will feel really bad, upset, and hurt when her son says, “I am not your child.” Although Hinduism is for every human being, it is the Hindus who kept it as their treasured heritage. So, when some one takes this heritage and spreads it, they feel good about it. However, when no credit is given to the Hindus for carrying on the culture for future generations, they feel bad about it. Similarly when the Hindus see that yoga and Aayurveda are silently stolen from Hindu heritage and commercialized, and no credit is given to the Hindus, they feel bad about it. The Hindu nationalists want to understand this heritage correctly and practice it well, especially in Bharat.

 

e) Prabhupada preached pure Vaishnavism but packaged it wrongly to make it attractive to his western audience. Removing this false package does not change his preaching subject (Vaishnavism) at all. Vaishnavism still can be preached as Prabhupada taught it, but saying that it is a major sect of Hinduism. No harm can happen to the KC movement if this is done.

 

f) When KC is recognized by HK’s as a part of Hinduism, millions of the Hindus will feel good about it and support the movement. Note that even without this correction, many Hindus do support KC movement. Hindus have no problem with others if others want to worship only one god exclusively. However, HK’s should not look down to the Hindus just because they worship many gods. They do it because there are many gods (devas/ devis). When they understand dharma correctly then they worship only one god.

 

g) Currently HK’s are not supporting Hindu nationalist movement but the Hindus are supporting KC movement. Thus there is no mutual support that is needed when Islamists have declared war on all the kafirs (HK’s included). If the Hindu nationalists do not keep Islam and Christianity out of Bharat, then over some time not far, there will not be any Hindu temples or pilgrimage places like Vrindavan and Jagannath or Dwarika. It all will be just mosques, and burqa for women and cow slaughters every where. Islam is very intolerant, and Koran and Hadith and Saria are the books of religion as well as the government. Sure HK’s do not want this, and therefore they need to support Hindu nationalist movement as the Hindus support KC movement.

 

h) Hinduism (Vaishnavism included) has four divisions of society. Ideally, the Brahmanas are the spiritual guides of the society. Kshatriyas are the protective class, the police and military to keep law and order so that every one can practice their dharma without any problem from any one. Vaishya are farmers and traders and merchants, and shudras are the labor class. Every society has these four classes. Without kshatriyas or the Hindu nationalists, the Hinduism will be run over by the Islamists in Bharat. Hindu-HK unity is desirable to avoid this and keep Hinduism alive and well for future generations on this earth.

 

Bottom line:

 

Vaishnavism the HK’s practice and preach is a major sect of Hinduism. It is a subset of Hinduism. Therefore, HK’s are Hindus and they need to accept this truth just as a Californian will not say he is not an American. The Hindus have no doubt about it. The HK’s should thank Sri Prabhupada for telling them (even incorrectly) he is not preaching Hinduism and thus making them Krishna devotees. Hinduism is just a recent new name for Varnasrama dharma or Sanatana dharma. The word “Hinduism” should not be used to mean all the malpractice the Hindus did in the past. Rather Hinduism needs to be presented to the world as it actually is given by Krishna in Gita. HK’s need to be sympathetic to the Hindu nationalist movement called Hindutva in reciprocation of the fact that Hindus do support KC movement. The current HK preachers need not say any more that they are not preaching Hinduism because now they know KC is not bad as malpracticed Hinduism was. It is very true and correct to say Vaishnavism is a sect of Hinduism and they are preaching that only in its pure form, and practice it correctly. The purpose of the article is to cause unity that is beneficial for HK’s as well as the Hindus.

 

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare

Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare

 

--END—

 

[Guest guest]

"Bhakti-vedanta Swami Prabhupada .... His philosophy is slightly different from that taught by three Vaishnava Aacharya (religious authorities) that came before him"

––no vaishnava autority thinks like that.. this is completely arbitrary and not demonstrated

 

"This was a lie, but for good reason"

---too easy, the writer of the article cannot pretend to be iin the head of an acharya.... the most important thing of "hare krishna's are not hindu" is that krsna consciousness or any true spirituality cannot be mixed with national boundaries, or a social and superstitious use of religion.. and there's the fact of impersonalism.. a vaishnava does not belong to the same group with people saying that god is only impersonal or (mayavadi) that the existence is maya. If these theories are inside hinduism, a gaudya vaishnava is surely more close to a christian or a muslim.. than a hindu... if hindu want to include a group in induism for their initiative .. no problem... but...

 

"When he said he is not preaching Hinduism, it became attractive to all, even who hated Hinduism. So, he got more followers, as he wanted"

__prabhupada is honest and sincere, not a cheater...... when prabhupada came in the west and even now, there was big sympathy for hinduism.. there was no problem for prabhupada's followers to be called hindu... especially for hippies, many of the first followers of prabhupada had been in india before meeting him

 

"When KC is recognized by HK’s as a part of Hinduism, millions of the Hindus will feel good about it and support the movement"

–––and millions of people all over the world: "ok.. it is indian, it is another common religion.. why practice hare krishna? i have already a religion, i do not want to change religion"

so... no.... a christian who is chanting hare krishna does not became a hindu.. he remains christian, but adding hare krishna.. if he want to wear indian dress, signs like hindus it is ok.. otherwise he's a devotee even if he's not a hindu, and this is the thing to care, not hindu or muslim

 

"Currently HK’s are not supporting Hindu nationalist movement"

_because gaudya vaishnava is not national, it is international.. krsna is the property of everyone, not of indians only

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

<< krsna consciousness or any true spirituality cannot be mixed with national boundaries >>

 

true. but just as a temple has a boundary and is to be protected so that the religious activities can be done there without any disturbance or fear, the birth land of the vedic culture from where the vaishnavism came has to be protected for the vedic people and must be kept free from the aggresive ideology like islam. just a vaishnavas keep their kitchen free from roaches and bugs, the vedic people need to keep the vedic land free from the aggresive and barbaric ideology.

 

jai sri krishna! -madhav

 

[Guest guest]

<< "Currently HK’s are not supporting Hindu nationalist movement"

 

_because gaudya vaishnava is not national, it is international.. krsna is the property of everyone, not of indians only >>

 

if Hk' are supporting any movement to keep a krishna temple free from disturbance, then india - the birth land of vaishnavism is a bery big temple which has been hurt for 1000 years by the invader islam and so it - must be protected from external disturbance (and internal as well).

 

krishna did not choose saudi arabia to walk on. he chose india.

 

jai sri krishna! -madhav

 

 

[Guest guest]

krishna did not choose saudi arabia to walk on. he chose india"

 

krsna is where his name is chanted..

but, ok, go for your hindu business, you do not need my blessings... haribolo

[Guest guest]

<< krsna is where his name is chanted.. >>

 

"aham sarvasya prabhavah

mattah sarvam pravartate.."

 

krishna is every where,

we know it, but islam does not.

chant hare krishna in saudi arabia, and you will be stoned and riddiculed. same for pakistan.

hindus in contrast feel joy and join in chanting.

 

so who is friend of HK's? hindus or islam?

 

jai sri krishna! - madhav

 

[M_Mehdi]

hindus and islam /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

but anyway i want to discuss pride... what i've learned about Krishna Consiencness... is no different from all true paths to the One...

 

and upon this path are many pitfals.. and a big one is Pride /images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

pride blinds...

 

the soul knows no such thing as pride...

 

pride is material... a source of the mind... not the soul...

 

pride is animal... not spiritual...

 

pride is the cause of many wars... personal and national..

 

what do you think?

 

peace /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

 

[Guest guest]

hinduism teaches one to be humble,

humbler than grass.

 

so, my dear wise grand father,

forgive me if i exhibited false pride.

 

most have false pride. that does not help them or othres.

 

if you are born in a noble culture, noble family, nobel tradition, and live nobly, then you know it, and you feel good about your self. however, you will not brag about it if you are a hindu. there is internal pleasure in knowing good and living good - sin free. some may say you are a sinner or a fool, and that cannot hurt you because you know truthfully where you are. also, one cannot expect others what opinion they should/must hold for you, but you, by your own knowledge and actions, know and can form a opinion for your self, and when you know that krishna likes it, then that is satisfaction and joy and that is permanent.

 

i am eager to hear some good advice that coudl benefit all,

my dear grand father.

 

jai sri krishna! -madhav

 

[M_Mehdi]

madhav, it's sure nice to see your anger subside even if it manifests in the form of sarcasm... it's a step isn't it? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

however sarcasm is insincere... which makes me wonder if your whole post is sarcastic or just parts... who knows really... maybe you do... and you can share...

 

also the place where sarcasm comes from... would you agree that sarcasm comes in the form of the ego in self protection mode...?

i'm curious to know... what you think?

 

peace /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

it may sound like sarcasm, but i did not intend.

i cannot control a reader's mind how he/she want to read it.

i wish the readers try to get the message i intend.

 

a fact is that no matter how you write,

one can always find some fault in it.

 

rather than analysing why i addressed you as my grand father, or you addressed me as a silly boy,

why not we focus on the point a post tries to make.

 

narashinha bhagavan was very angry at hiranakashipy,

so much that the devas there were frightened also, and could not figure how to pacify him. finally lakshmi requested prahpad to go and pacify him. parhalad went to him and said, "my dear lord, why you become so much angry on a tiny asura like hiranyakashipu? you are so great and powerful. please calm down now. the asura is dead. and the devas saw that narasinha was licking prahland's face with love and affaction.

 

everything has its place, enen anger and rage.

a KC person uses everything for krishna, and his devotees.

 

a tiger can kill big animals with one bite, but the same mouth can carry its babies very gently with love.

 

jai sri krishna! -madhav

 

[M_Mehdi]

----quote by madhav: rather than analysing why i addressed you as my grand father, or you addressed me as a silly boy,

why not we focus on the point a post tries to make.---

 

nice! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

ok... what do you think of the following?

 

The origin of anger may be very complicated. still one thing remains... the cycle of anger must be stopped somewhere... these feelings will never leave on their own... they will age with you from one life to the next... anger is the worst of the inner enemies because of its unending connection to the chain of desires... whenever there is dissatisfaction there is anger...

 

peace /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

<< ok... what do you think of the following?

 

The origin of anger may be very complicated. still one thing remains... the cycle of anger must be stopped somewhere... these feelings will never leave on their own... they will age with you from one life to the next... anger is the worst of the inner enemies because of its unending connection to the chain of desires... whenever there is dissatisfaction there is anger... >>

 

it is true.

however, when one does a niskama karma for krishna,

then it is not so.

 

also, it is not right to preach the victims of aggresors to abstain from anger. whould it be right to tell the slaves to keep toperating slavery and not get angry? why hot preach the slave's master to not keep slaves?

 

have you ever tried to explain your above para point to a muslim? probably not. try it and share the experience here.

 

the vedic literature says that there six kinds of aatataayis, and they must be killed. now you canlove them or hate them as you choose, but to tolerate them is encouraging adharma. fortunately the hindus of india have no need to go that extreme, but that path is open and valid, and is well justified.

 

no muslim has so far expressed any sorrow when the bamian buddha was shot at and destroyed. you see, they are angry te the statue even. how angry they will be at the alive non muslims (you being one)? have you worrid about them - what will happen to them because they keep anger?

 

their interest is to make the whole world islam,

we hindus on the other hand want to keep india for the hindus and hindus' friends only. we have no problem them living islamic way in the desert of arabia, but not on the bharat land. foolishly we allowed them, and we found it was a wrong decision in 1947. we never say we have any right in arabia. why they say or think they have right in india?

 

it is not adharma to get angry at asuras and asuric ideology. do you have doubt about this? i do not.

 

jai sri krishna! -madhav

 

 

[Guest guest]

but mehdi does not behave as asuric!!!!! (you.. ehem... a little bit..)

[M_Mehdi]

madhav,

 

your anger only creates a mirror image which you see yourself in others... and you also become the mirror image of those who anger you... the cycle goes on and on... it is up to you to stop it...

 

and everyone has their time...

 

---madhave writes: have you ever tried to explain your above para point to a muslim? probably not. try it and share the experience here.---

 

/images/graemlins/smile.gif it does not matter to me which flag a person chooses to wave... if it speaks intollorance and hate... i will say my piece(peace)... madhav please read my posts and do not let anger and pride blind you... you may go through all my posts easily by clicking on my name to the left of this post... you'll find an answer to your doubts on this very site... on which i have posted...

 

anger blinds.... subside anger and open the eyes...

 

and the rest of your post is very words of a bigot...

 

________________

big·ot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt)

n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

________________

 

---madhav writes: we hindus on the other hand want to keep india for the hindus and hindus' friends only.---

 

this dear madhav what you say seems nothing different from what i've heard white supermists use as an excuse for their brand of ignorance, hatered, pride and anger... this is all text book dear madhav...

 

the justification is in your mind... you're going to follow it because you wish to and at these points of conversing with you i feel you truley enjoy your anger... your anger seems to give you purpose... and power... and the joy you get from it is why you do not want to give it up... but remember your anger is material... and nothing more...

 

there is however one other source (even though it is still material) which your anger comes from... and this is lack of knowledge... you knowledge of Islam is at best... bad... dear madhav... i said this to a muslims n this very site regarding Sufis... and to you i say the same:

 

---posted by M_Mehdi RE: sufi [re: muslim]

11/28/03 10:13 AM ...and although one might have a certain experience with a certain sufi order or particular person(s)... one cannot judge a whole people by actions of a few... ---------------

 

also madhav... regarding you analogy of slavery... please take time to read: Uncle Tom's Cabin

by Harriet Beecher Stowe

 

ok now... to our dear Guest in hiding... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

"The asuric person feels responsible for his or her life and is constantly seeking something that will improve the quality of life"

 

my faith, my soul, my sprituality is nothing more than personal reponsibilty... i cannot blindly follow anything nor anyone... for at the end it will be I who will stand naked before God... God whome gifted the me and all humans with the faculty of reason... and thought... it is for us to learn the truth... and it is ourself whome have to be accountable for this truth... this is karmic and quranic...

 

anger, pride, hate have no room in a "seeking seeking something that will improve the quality of life"

 

no war...

 

if my neighbor is happy... my household is also happy... why? ... simple... cause when he ain't he cranks up his stereo so loud.. no one can even think... lol! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

sorry a lil jest but in essence true...

 

may peace be on us all... and God the asamaurdhva (none equal and none above) guide us all...

 

muhammad /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[madanvrao]

Bhagavad Gita is not a hindu book, please... It is a totally scientific book taught to us by the Supreme Personality of Godhead himself. It teaches us the art of living happily come what may. A reader of Bhagvad Gita actually feels sad for others who are not interested in this science. It allows us to discover the Supreme absolute truth that is brahman. My favourite verses of the Bhagvad Gita are Verses 22-26 of Chapter 14. They are as follows:

 

&#8220;The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O son of Pandu, he who does not hate illumination, attachment or delusion when they are present nor long for them when they disappear; who is unwavering and undisturbed through all these reactions of the material qualities, remaining neutral and transcendental, knowing that the modes alone are active; who is situated in the self and regards alike happiness and distress; who looks upon a lump of earth, a stone and a piece of gold with an equal eye; who is equal toward the desirable and the un-desirable; who is steady, situated equally well in praise and blame, honour and dishonour; who treats alike both friend and enemy; and who has renounced all material activities &#8211; such a person is said to have transcended the modes of nature.&#8221;

 

And in verse 26, Krishna says:

 

&#8220;One who engages in full devotional service, unfailing in all circumstances, at once transcends the modes of material nature and thus comes to the level of Brahman&#8221;.

 

This friends is the summum bonum of Krishna Consciousness. One who understands these two verses completely is perfectly happy.

 

So, friends please, please shed the thought that you belong to a particular religious faith. You are actually atman and it is your birthright to be happy. If uou want to find God, just turn your attention to your heart and you will find God sitting there waiting for you since time immemorial.

 

Hare Krishna

[Guest guest]

madan rao ji,

 

what you sais is true, however i would like to comment on:

 

<< Bhagavad Gita is not a hindu book, please... >>

 

this statement misleads one to believe hinduism is sectarian.

 

the facts are:

 

- gita is (as you said) the book of dharma - sanatana dharma - that is universal dharma useful for all the people of all the times and places.

 

- hinduims is just a new name for sanatan dharma. hinduims is not defined by the conduct or beliefs of all who malpractice it. it is defined by gita and the vedas.

 

therefore, hinduism is dharma for all the people of all the times and places.

 

our effort should be to make all (hindus included) to understand this, and encourge them to live by it corretly and not malpractice it and not think it is sectarian.

 

no hindu thinks and talks like "my god, your god".

we know god is one, and we know also that there are many devas and devis who worship the same one god we do.

 

there is no need to dump /slander the word "hindu or hinduism" because it is well known now all over the world or centuries. the need is to reveal its correct meaning.

and slander - if necessary and proper - the malpractice of hinduism.

 

note that hinduism/gita/ krishna never says all religions are same. (he says deva/devi worshippers go to them and his devotee comes to him. thus allah worshiper goes to allah who eer he is. allah worshiper will destroy hindu temples.)

 

yes, there is a vdic statement that all paths lead to same god. however, when this statement was made thouands of years ago, there was no islam, judaism, ., etc. there was only sanatan dharama with all its branches and paths like different yogas and deva/devi worships and god worship. so, the "all paths" refer to these vedic paths, not non vedic paths that are born in last 2-3 thousand years.

 

religions are many. dharma (sanatan dharma) is one.

 

religions are made of a set of beliefs.

dharma is statements of realized truths.

the meanign or the workd religion and the word dharma are not same.

 

if any one disagrees with this, then i invite him to rationally refute each statement of truth i made above.

else understand the truth and spread it.

 

hiding or distroting misrepresenting truth does not help.

(asuras think it does, and so they do it.)

 

jai sri krishna! - madhav

 

[Guest guest]

hinduims is just a new name for sanatan dharma. hinduims is not defined by the conduct or beliefs of all who malpractice it.

---no there's inside something sanatana and something else limited in time.... mayavadi are not sanatana dharma.. neither dharma

 

note that hinduism/gita/ krishna never says all religions are same.

---and He makes difference between mundane religion(as hinduism) and complete surrender, "sarva dharma ecc." means to abandone also induism and surrender to krsna, how can a mayavadi or an advaitin be called "surrendered to krsna" or sanatana dharmic?

 

yes, there is a vdic statement that all paths lead to same god. however, when this statement was made thouands of years ago, there was no islam, judaism

---vedas are eternal and all inclusive, you will not find perhaps the exact names but you will find all the kinds of religion in them. It is not possible to create a religion (or a deviation) not already written in the vedas.

 

religions are made of a set of beliefs.

dharma is statements of realized truths

---and as the other religion the hinduism is a mix of truth and false beliefs.. personalists and impersonalists, monotheists and pantheists, vaishnavas and mayavadis, one says that krnsa is supreme, one says that siva is supreme.. tantra... animal sacrifices... caste system... how can you say that all these opposite things are all in the same vision of the absolute and all ETERNAL and RIGHT, CONSTITUTIONAL like the sanatana dharma? you are so selective with others, but if there's hinduism stamped on there's no problem .. krsna is god or krsna is maya..for you the same?

 

hiding or distroting misrepresenting truth does not help.

---so please don't do it

[Guest guest]

because you are a krishna devotee, you are a hindu.

the difference is, you are not born on that devabhoomi

called bharat. being so, you fail to understand a hindu mind, hindu interest, hindu pains..

 

krishna bhakti has come to you from hinduism.

islam or . has not given you krishna.

just remember it, apprecaite it.

 

so, my dear hindu,

 

one who is adamaent to not get the point, will never get it.

in such case it is useless to discuss.

 

you seem to be hell bent on advaitis.

i am not an advaiti, but i understand them and can live with them peacefully than with islam.

 

about advaitis, here are the facts:

 

- advaita is gyan yoga as krishna says in gita.

 

bahUnAm janmanAm ante

gyAnvAn mAm prapadyate

vAsudev sarvam itie

sah mahAtmA durlabha

 

krishna says gyan yoga is difficult, but he recognizes as a path to him. so, when krishna gives one freedom

( ..yathechchhasi tataa kuru), why you, a krishna devotee, insist that all give up gyan yoga?

 

- advaitis are always are with us. all the vaishnavas (except the HK's) have lived with them pecefully. even the guru of ramanujacharya was an adviati (who finally surrendered to ramanuj.) no advaiti drops bombs on vaishnavas. no advaiti destroys hindu temples. all advaitis are not pure advaitis. there are advaitis who malpractice advaita, just as there are vaishnvas who malpracice vaishnavism.

 

- islam is advaita in principle but worse than the advaita of the vedic culture. islam cannot be called advaita of the sanatan dharma. islam followers desttroy hindu temples. islam cannot tolerate any hindu including any HK. islam has raised hell all over the world by jeeehad. why this facts do not come in your mind and only the adviatis from india appear the only bad guys in the world?

 

- shankaracharaya, the modern advaiti aacharya of known history, has saved sanatana dharma (including vaishnavism) from buddhism. if he had not come, hinduism (including vaishnavism) whould have been eradicted from india.

so why not thank advaitis for it? even he has sung:

 

"bhaja govndam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam moodha mate".

 

- the HK's monthly back go godhead has recognized shankaracharya as the hidden devotee of krishna.

 

- the temple stores of HK's do sell deva and devi pictures.

this clearly says that they cannot hate deva/devis.

Many Hk's also assume names of devas/devis. So, then why hate devas/devis or their worshippers?

 

the priority of the time is not wasting time argueing with advaita but uniting against islam. have you ever analysed what is better, advaita or islam? who will join your kirtan, islam or advaita? who will protect krishna temples advaita or islam?

 

priority of this time is to listen to krishna, not chaitanya. priority is to raise kshatriyas. once terrorism is eradicted, then follow chaitanya and do samkirtana and japa, or debate with advaitis, as we always ahve done for milleniums. remember that krishna did not do ras lila in vrindavan until after he killed all the asuras. if krishna did so, why you, a krishna devotee, want to do sankirtana when the asuras are lurking around with ak-47? are you so selfish that the asuric attacks on the distant temples and vaishnvas mean nothing to you?

 

- advaitis did not invade other countries, and did not kill non advaitis. islam did and does. just because you are not born on the land where islam caused hindu genocide for 1000 years, you seem to easily ignore this hindu pain. a vaishnava ought to understand the pain of others, and you seem to totally fail to understand hindu pain.

 

i wrote this, but only krishna's mercy will help you understand it. i cannot make you understand it.

so pray him.

 

jai sri krishna! -madhav

 

[Guest guest]

because you are a krishna devotee, you are a hindu.

••••my position is definited by prabhupada, my spiritual master and my intelligence, not you.. all three are saying to me that i am not hindu

 

being so, you fail to understand a hindu mind, hindu interest, hindu pains.

••••to understand does not means to join a sect.. i understand very much and i do not made classifications, hindu, christian, buddhist, i judge the single persons and i am sorry for single persons, not for cathegories..

 

if you want to put me in a group, i judge if we are sharing something.

 

And definitely, speaking of religion, there's philosophies opposite to mine that you call also hinduism . So what's the meaning of speaking of sanatana dharma if there are one million of dharmas involved? Be honest, in India there's many religions, to put them all in one hinduism is artificial.

 

krishna bhakti has come to you from hinduism.

••••no, from prabhupada who does not call himself hindu and explains clearly that hinduism is another material corruption of the sanatana dharma and that is a definition given by invaders and not vedas

 

islam or . has not given you krishna.

•••why are you speaking to me of islam? have i said that i am a muslim instead of hindu? do not bring useless subjects

 

one who is adamaent to not get the point, will never get it.

in such case it is useless to discuss.

••••i think that i am trying to say logic things and you are simply not answering in a way that for me is not satisfying.. why to insult me saying that i deliberately do not want to hear or understand?

 

you seem to be hell bent on advaitis

••••you are wrong.. i simply do not belong to their religion, they believe opposite things to mine, for me adharmic. Why hell? simply difference of opinion, a peaceful difference that does not permit to say that the religion is the same.

 

why you, a krishna devotee, insist that all give up gyan yoga?

••••no one has to give up anything (did i say it?), simply there are different views on absolute truth.. and opposite views cannot be classified as the same dharma

 

- shankaracharaya, the modern advaiti aacharya of known history, has saved sanatana dharma (including vaishnavism) from buddhism. if he had not come, hinduism (including vaishnavism) whould have been eradicted from india.

••••i have citated only this phrase of a long discourse where you with great fantasy say that i am an enemy of advaitins and shankaracharya and a great friend of muslims...

 

So, then why hate devas/devis or their worshippers?

•••are you speaking with me or you have an automatic response system? who hate devatas? me? where i said it?

 

priority of this time is to listen to krishna, not chaitanya

••••of course, spiritual master say the opposite and i have to follow you? you are speaking of religion and simultaneously saying to neglect the instructions of chaitanya mahaprabhu and parampara? on wich basis you give these revolutionary teachings to put aside chaitanya? are you teaching it on your initiative or you are following a spiritual master? the principle of guru/disciple is fundamental in sanatana dharma.. how can you speak of dharma and simultaneously suggest an adharmic thing like to disobey to the spiritual master? this is not vaishanva, neither advaita or hindu..

 

priority is to raise kshatriyas. once terrorism is eradicted, then follow chaitanya and do samkirtana and japa

••••there's army and police, if there's terrorism the fault is of an unefficient and corrupted government, why speak of religion, ksatrya, mahaprabhu, samkirtan and so on? if you are a soldier or a policeman do your job.. but if you're not and you use the violence you are simply another terrorist

 

and you seem to totally fail to understand hindu pain.

••••and you seem to have a great fantasy

 

i wrote this, but only krishna's mercy will help you understand it. i cannot make you understand it.

so pray him.

••••you have said to abandone japa and samkirtan... (you are really a good preacher of sanatana dharma)