Madhav, here's a bhakta un-interested in "indian culture"

[Guest guest]

all the different hindus have lived together peacefully for milleniums.

•••••me tooo!! i am not going to make war to advaitins... i say that i have not to belong to the same religion if they say opposite things about god, not exactly a detail!!so hindu in a sense... not hindu in other ones.. as i have explained

 

" hinduism is defined by the vedas and gita."

•••••the main thing is what you understand from the gita... if you understand that krsna is not the supreme lord, you are my beloved brother but, technically, we do not belong to the same religion

 

"<< Are Hare Krishna Christians?... a little bit, because they respect the commandments given in the bible and the teaching of christ as a subproduct of following the gita >>

one cannot follow two paths at the same time.

•••••one path, one path... i follow concepts not "brands" or "sects".... if an hindu says that brahman is the supreme, or that every devas are supreme, if i follow hinduism i am following two path!!

 

"xians belive there is no soul in animals"

•••••a detail in comparison with the things that i do not share with some hindus

 

" you did not like . and therefore have chosen KC."

•••••i like very much... the real problem with christianity is that there's not from millenniums a bona fide pure guru.. if you take away the guru everything spoils.. but if i consider the teaching of jesus christ with the cognitive instruments given by srila prabhupada everything is allright... the same with hinduism. As i have said i have not choosen KC to be indian or to belong to another sectarian religion

 

"krishna says:

sarva dharmaan parityaja maam ekam sharanam vraja."

•••••yes ... abandone the sectarian concept of religion... the "group" concept and surrender to krsna. So i want to surrender to Him, not to people who are saying the ideology that he's a material manifestation of brahman and he dies at the end of mahabharata

 

"there is no reason to hate that country a home of sanatana dharma "

•••••who's hating india? me? because i have said that in some sense i can be classified as hindu and not in some others?

 

"Hk's are extreme in their sadhana of krishna."

••••why extreme? accurate.. (if they are following properly)

 

"similarly a kshatriya has to be extreme in his work."

•••••accurate... they serve a pure devotee king adviced by pure devotees brahmanas... very discriminative, satvik and accurate, where's the extreme?

 

"if there is any evidence that hindus want hindu nation for sex,"

•••••this is obviously the dictionary... it is very clear that the sex issue is not for our discussion

 

"there are selfish spiritualists who care for their own spiritual progress "

•••••make progress and be selfish together is not possible

 

" hindu nation will protect all karishna devotees among others."

••••o thank you very much... you are very kind with me and my western brothers.. as i have said i belong very happily to india in some sense and not in some other... i do not feel myself very italian when iatly does bad things like wars or there's a bad government, so i do not like to be hindy, if some people who i think they are blaspheming are called hindu. Where's the difficulty?

 

"assocaite with the sanatana dharma nationalists,"

•••••sanatan is eternal... nations change... i am associating with you, i appreciate and surely i think that you are right to look for justice, order and peace.. but why mix with religion? we care for the same things in all the countries...

 

it takes time becaue yyou are not born on that holy land.

•••••mleccha.. sorry... but i spend my time to became more spirit conscious , krsna conscious not for became an indian (=impossible)

 

" i do not sing that song. it is not a bhajan as explained by prabhupada"

•••••ok... sing hare krishna, and do other things explained by prabhupada.. like "sarva dharma.." abandon religions and surrender to krishna.. are you initiated by a vaishnava? what is saying your guru of your nationalism? he's appreciating?

 

"krishna and the vedic literture says that some time killing is dharma"

•••••if it is necessary let the PURE ksatryas, and pure kings with the advice of pure brahmanas do this..

 

"<< And, first of all, to not think that the main task is to go back to godhead, so we have to chant nama more as we can.. this world will never be perfect, let us find the perfection in vaikunta, not in india, america, italy and so on. >>

please teach this successfully to invader aggresor islam before the victims of islam who gave you KC."

••••••so you want to do the same mistakes of the fanatics that you want to fight?

 

and is that the reason that the xians have created cow slaughter houses all over the world? no advaiti owns a slaughter house.

•••i appreciate so much... but for this i have to be together in the same religion?

 

"and muslims are dropping bombs in vedic temples.

xians are erecting cow slaughrte houses.

no advaiti does that."

••••fanatics and materialists are dropping bombs, killing cows and saying that krsna is maya... i am not in their religion..

 

"but do not say that kshatirya dharma is useless. "

•••••ksatrya dharma is not useless... ksatrya means pure kong, pure brahmanas, pure acharya and so on... otherwise it is sudra with guns, like in the other "modern" wars

 

"i am not guru-less. guru, sadhus, and shastras; all these guide. not only a guru."

••••yes... what's the opinion of your master? who is he?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

<< "krishna and the vedic literture says that some time killing is dharma"

•••••if it is necessary let the PURE ksatryas, and pure kings with the advice of pure brahmanas do this..

 

there is no if about this.

islam's violent and bloody invasions in india (and else where) for 1000 years cannot be justified.

if it is ok, then some one coming in your home or temple and dropping bombs or bullets or raping your loved ones is ok. both acts are of same nature.

 

when the invasions cannot be justified,

then the invaded countries or people need to fight back, and not keep the invaded ideology within the country.

to not fight is cowardice and adharma.

 

now in our times or millenium,

it is not possible to find ideal kshatriyas in sufficient number to fight back. still you cannot says, "well, you do not have ideal brahmana advisors and ideal kshatriyas. therefore, do not fight and accept islam, and let the muslims destroy all your temples and rape your women."

 

no matter how pure or unpure brahmans or kshatriyas or others are, they must fight the aggressors and invaders.

to not fight is adharma.

 

currently islam is fighting by terrorism with hindus and others non muslims.

the nature of this warfare- terrorism - is such that no government alone can fight and win. every one in the country

needs to fight it according to his/her ability.

fight non violently when possible, but also violently also if that is the only last choice left to win.

 

krishna advised arjun to fight violently

when all the non violent ways failed.

 

just because islam is violent all the time,

the the victim non muslims cannot justify that islam is ok, and their violent aggressions/invasions are ok.

 

just because the hindus remained non violent many times when they should have chosen violence against the aggressors, one cannot say that the hindus (the sanatana dharmis) must remain absolutely non violent for ever no matter what.

 

although jesus said, "if one slaps you on one cheek, submit another cheek happily (no anger or resistance)", no . country follows it.

 

althoug krishna said, "arjun, fight with adharmis. to fight is dharma", unfortunately the hindus did not fight sufficiently or effectively. this however does not mean the hindus will/should/must never listen to krishna.

 

hindus need to fight aatataayis.

to fight within and without,

but to fight an extrernal enemey is first priority.

that is dharma.

 

if you readers could agree to the above, then good.

please share ideas about the ways different people and you could fight islam.

 

if you cannot agree to the above,

then our disagreement will stay.

you may share on what basis you could not agree to any point made above.

 

jai sri krishna! -madhav

 

[Guest guest]

there's no way to commit adharma and to have dharma as result

[Guest guest]

I am not surprised by the comments of the person that atarted this thread, it is inevitable that foolish weak minded indvividuals of indian heritage get corrupted by this ISKON philosophy, which at face value appears harmless, but in reality seeks to create the same divisions between man that the westernised religons have created. If you feelmore comfortable to worship krishna in a mosque then go and do it.....i personally would love to see what happens to you. i can debate this topic for hours with you but it is pointless when it comes to brain washed indiviuals such as yourself..... you people dont seem to understand that a western "us and them" attitude just causes divisions and problems in the world. as varied as hinduism is there is one common principle.....tolerance. That is why you can find images and murties of several gods in a mandir...but you ISKON lot dont have that trolerance and would prefer to remove all the other images and leave ratha krishna standing alone, you might as well do the same and leave a crusifix in the middle, or extinguish all belief in anythy other deity and make allah the only one (as mohammed did in the arabian desert centuries ago). you would be just he same and have the same level of intolerance.....i will say it again.....and us and them attiude creates conflict!!!!!

 

 

secondly so what if white of black followers of ISKON dont want to follow indian AND HINDU ways of life such as living with parents into adulthood. Indian culture, hindu relion and even KRISHNA believe it or not teaches us that we should look after our parents when we are in the prime of our life and they are elderly (just as they did for us when weere infants and defenceless) anyone that does take care of their parents in their old age cannot seriously consider themselfs a true devotee of krishna.

[Guest guest]

I agree that while Iskcon has done well to spread gaudiya vaishnava philosophy to westeners and accept converts, they have unfortunately created another 'us and them' religion which promotes divisions amongst Hindus.

[Guest guest]

i can see that you and the precedent poster have a not exact conception of iskcon and that you are very attached to the nationalist/material/sectarian part of hinduism

 

the vaishnava/prabhupada ideology creates divisions on who do not believe that a real religious man has to be considered by behaviour, ideology and philosophy, not appartenence or nation, but in a moment of revival of indian nationalism many people want to put in the same religion , hinduism, people and groups with opposite beliefs

 

and you hate if anyone comes to you and say that a vaishnava is essentially more close to a christian than to an advaitin or sai baba

 

obviously i apologize for bad people calling himself vaishnava saying bad things about hindus, devas, india etc. but they have nothing to do with the acharyas and the original philosophy

[Guest guest]

"but they have nothing to do with the acharyas and the original philosophy"

 

Oh OK, so what is the original philosophy then? Is it Ramanujacharya's? Madhvacharya's? Chaitanya's? And how does ISKCON tie in with it? Someone told me that IsKcon were an offshoot of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, but I'm not sure if this is true or not. Care to shed some light? That same person told me that the following link shows the TRUE Gaudiya Vaishnavism parampara. But there's no Srila Prabhupadha here?

 

http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/DiscipleSuccession/

[Guest guest]

Actually on second thoughts is 'A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada' of IsKcon the same as 'Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Srila Prabhupada'. They don't look the same in the pic.

[maadhav]

<< they have unfortunately created another 'us and them' religion which promotes divisions amongst Hindus. >>

 

no. they are hindus (being krishna bhaktas)

but they refuse to admit it and hate hindus just because

hindus include advaitis and others. still they ignore the fact that there are many hindu supporters of them.

 

just is the muslims follow koran blindly,

they follow prabhupada very rigidly.

and prabhupada said - for political eason - that what he is preaching is not hinduism.

so they say.

 

however, they understand gita a lot better than many hindus,

and practice bhakti very well.

 

 

[Guest guest]

in vaishnava sampradaya there's many branches... many branches after sri chaitanya mahaprabhu.. and many more branches after srila bhaktisiddhanta sarasvati.. bhaktivedanta swami prabhupada is a disciple of srila bhaktisiddhanta and he's not listed here because this site is devoted to srila narayana maharaja who's disciple of keshava maharaja and "nephew" of srila bhaktisiddhanta

 

he was intimate friend of bhaktivedanta swami prabhupada and he consider him a siksa guru, but "technically" he's in a parallel branch

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Maharaja Prabhupada

http://www.krishna.ch/caitanya/images/Bhaktisiddhanta.jpg

 

Abhay Charanaravinda Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada

http://www.prabhupadaconnect.comPrabhupada3B.jpg

[Guest guest]

"and prabhupada said - for political reason - that what he is preaching is not hinduism."

 

prabhu... accept peacefully opinion differences and do not try to interprete the words of saints and do not take disciples as stupids..... there's reasons to not consider ourselves hindus, christians, muslims and so on, even if you obviously have the right to not agree... and they are real reasons, based on philosopical concepts.. i repeat: even if you have the right to not agree

 

there have to be common reasons and features to consider that some people belong to the same group, you think that what's in common between all vaguely "indian inspired" religious groups is enough to call them under the same name.... i am for first not interested in identifications, i appreciate people personally, not by group.. next, technically, i do not think that one who thinks that krsna/vishnu is supreme, one who thinks that siva is supreme, one who thinks that brahman is supreme and vishnu, krsna, shiva are only illusory charachters, belong to the same religion..

 

if you want to say : "let's unite for fighting muslims, terrorists and so on" this is a possible purpose, one can agree or not, but it's up to him.... but , if for this reason you have to force everyone under the same HINDU flag calling it sanatana dharma you are wrong

 

so if you say: "friend please help me...." it could be right

 

if you say "friend let us unite in the same religion in this way you are forced to help me against fanatics.." it is very easy that i recognize another fanaticism and i do not help

 

so do not search this artificial hinduism, this is a modern muslim, fanatic definition.... they were ignorants, not interested in distinctions, they saw themselves, the religious people.. and the others in this land that they were going to conquer.. all infidels, atheists, idol worshippers

 

so making no differences "they are beyond this river sindhu.. they are (s)hindu"

 

so uniting artificially people under a false definition you are behaving exactly as a western ignorant invader (=they're all enemies, they're all the same)

 

i, born as a christian, have learn by india how to live peacefully and friendly not fearful of the differences, if you take away them very soon you will remain only with an "hinduism" etiquette and no substance

 

so push your idea of opposing to the terrorists, religious fanatics and so on... but do not mix it with religion, because when the goal will be reached, when ayodya will have a temple, when all the muslim will be in arabia and so on, someone will use this hinduism/nationalism to conquer and oppress others

 

hitler started like that, first unite artificially (in a race) to defend from oppression, then remain unite to be oppressors

[Guest guest]

"i do not think that one who thinks that krsna/vishnu is supreme, one who thinks that siva is supreme, one who thinks that brahman is supreme and vishnu, krsna, shiva are only illusory charachters, belong to the same religion.."

 

I understand what you mean, but I think the term 'Hinduism' was never meant to be rigid, but a loose term to describe a collective of different religious paths or sects which same common beliefs.

 

[Guest guest]

ok.. but what are these common beliefs? are they sufficient to define a religion? i see that many "hinduisms" are more close to other religions than between them.

 

(everyone says like this but never says what are these common beliefs of hinduism!!!.... i think that very often the similarity is in cerimonials, rites... even in archana two temples can have the same murti and adore them with OPPOSiTE PURPOSE)

 

it is like to take a chinese, an american and an african and to force them in a ficticious new race..

 

..better to give up races

 

..better to "sarva dharma etc..." to abandon all sectarians/national concepts of religion and surrender krsna/vishnu/god

[Guest guest]

Some common beliefs are God - personal manifestations representing God, reincarnation, Souls, cycle of births, Law of Karma, obeience to the guru(s), following the path of dharma, seeking self-realisation, reverance to the Vedas, rituals and their representations towards different sects, etc.

 

"to abandon all sectarians/national concepts of religion and surrender krsna/vishnu/god"

 

That's only if you're an Iskconite. God can take any form a devotee wishes whether Shiva, Vishnu, Durga, etc so don't just talk as if only Vishnu and Krishna is God.

 

I never said Hinduism is a religion as such, put a term to describe how some common belifs are interpreted by various sects. it was never supposed to be narrow-minded from the beginning but was meant to be dynamic and grow as thr Rig Veda states: "Truth (God) is One, Sages refer to IT differently"

[Guest guest]

"to abandon all sectarians/national concepts of religion and surrender krsna/vishnu/god"

That's only if you're an Iskconite

 

.. i'm not iskconite (you use this word like an offence).. it is enough to be a bhagavad gita reader...

 

"I never said Hinduism is a religion as such, put a term to describe how some common belifs are interpreted by various sects. it was never supposed to be narrow-minded from the beginning but was meant to be dynamic and grow as thr Rig Veda states: "Truth (God) is One, Sages refer to IT differently"

••... you are (and i completely agree) depicting hinduism as a thing with no stated features, no real and distinctive characteristic.

 

You are also saying that giving common interpretation to something could be mind narrowing and no dynamic

 

but

 

classifications are based on certain fixed characteristics, features... in this way you identify races, cars, music, art and religions... catholics are catholics because they believe something well identified, the same with muslims or buddhists

 

so if hinduism is identified by nothing, because the few common (MARGINAL...if i read the ones proposed by you) beliefs are meant to be interpreted freely, so everything falls in nothing

 

so, following your reasoning, hinduism does not exist and it is not possible to unite anyone under a non existing principle

[Guest guest]

Nope, you've gone off at a tangent. Hinduism basically consists of a number of spiritual truths as I mentioned and the BELIEFS are what the sectarian movements promote. They substitute one personal god with another or even view god as the impersonal ultimate reality...this is the feature of pluralism.

 

You mentioned Catholics, well they come under Christianity, but they don't believe exactly the same as other Christians (e.g Protestants), and these differences forms their community, yet they still come under Christianity. And even within catholics you got different sects.

 

Hinduism consists of much more sects and tolerance of other sects as valid paths to God is a part of the very fabric of Hinduism. It's only certain secarian movements whose followers reach a huge amount that they feel they are more important than other sects and decide they want to be "......" (as a religion) rather than Hindus.

[Guest guest]

the spiritul truths you have mentioned say not too much to find something in common because they are interpreted in opposite ways by the many schools..

 

so i remain in my idea tha hinduism does not exist... and it is a good thing for everyone, there's no need to inject proud in indians

 

"They substitute one personal god with another or even view god as the impersonal ultimate reality...this is the feature of pluralism"

>this is the sign of opposed belief not of pluralism

 

"It's only certain secarian movements whose followers reach a huge amount that they feel they are more important than other sects and decide they want to be "......" (as a religion) rather than Hindus."

>and this is a sectarian interpretation... maybe they want to be accurate, precise and sincere.. why think bad.. or one can think bad also of the nationalist/hindu revivalist stuff

 

we are making this debate by months, in a thread or in another, no one has given a strong reason to call all the more or less indian groups under the same name..

 

the only one is madhaav that adamantly wants this union, stopping also the religious activities, to join some sort of politic nationalism against the muslim enemy, dictating to the masters to stop initiating brahmanas but instructing ksatryas

 

and even it shows a sincere need of the indian people, it is not enough to give a common name to many opposite things, and definitely the thing useless also for the purpose of stopping terrorism and tirthas defense

 

let us not vaticanize india ... going in your direction very soon we will need a pope..

 

sai baba?

 

namaste

[Guest guest]

You are a jnani not a bhakta. A bhakta is at peace with the entire universe. It is the jnanis who think themselves liberated and try to discriminate between different cultures rather than to find the similarities between them.

All your dislikes of indianism are borne out of false ego.

[Guest guest]

*********however, they understand gita a lot better than many hindus,and practice bhakti very well.***************

 

 

They do not practice Gita at all. They have only ugly abuses for others who have different perspectives.

 

And such sects are the weaklinks in Hinduism.

 

[Guest guest]

"I have seen many Indians with a hindu background having a very difficult time coming to one pointed Krishna bhakti. Even after they take diksa in vaisnava sampradaya, still some of them want to put Durga Devi or others on the same alter as Radha Krishna. They will not consent to putting her on a separate alter or lower alter. Now tell me, in the kunj where Radha and Krishna are doing their Nitya Vilas... can Durga Devi gain entrance there? Does even Laxmi Devi have the adhikar? Sri Narsingadeva? What about Yashoda mata and Nanda Baba? Will Kishori Kishor feel free to engage in madhur pastimes in front of them? These are all points of rasa siddhanta. And one who is desiring a very personal and bhavuk relationship with the Divine Couple will consider these things very deeply. Bhakti is not a pot of Kitchri in which you can mix up dahl, rice and vegetables at same time. "

 

I have a question...If Krishna is present in everything..krishna is present in ma durga too, so basically ma durga is one form of kirshna...so whats the problem with placnig them on the same altar?? how can one say one form of krihna is better than the other, when in both their cores is krishna??

 

"then I do in a hindu mandir where many murtis of various Devas/Devis ar"

 

Isn't the whole point of having various devtas and murtis to finally come to the realization that god is present in everything i.e one god is all and all is one god.

In a mosque or a synagogue I don't get the feeling that god is everything and everything is god....because it lacks the diversity(including diff murtis) that a temple has.

One main difference between musims/xtians and hindus is that they get very offended when we tell them that our soul is part of god....I have had many arguments with xtians/jews and muslims and they can't simply understand how god can create soething and still be present in it??

 

they always ask me ...if god is present in everything whats the difference between god and his creations??...for them to hear that we are in soul part of god is very very offensive. Hinduism is the most monotheistic religion in the world even though the abrahamic religions always call us polytheistic....we believe that everything is god and god is present in everything...they fail to realize that.

Diversity is unity and unity is diversity ... a little paradoxical but real hinduism explains that better than any other religion.