Can it Be That the Hare Krishnas Are Not Hindu?

[Guest guest]

Me according to you is krishna, Me according to me is Brahman. There is a contradiction in which we understand the same scripture again.

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

Raghuramanji

 

Doesnt Krishna himself says in Gita that for a wise man , vedas is like well in place already sorrounded by water. So vedas are not necessary to reach mukthi . Then why hold on to that .

 

 

You are wrong. Vedas themselves say that Vedas are necessary to understand TRUTH. Vedas are unauthored and that is why it is called Sruti and Veda(source of Knowledge). The point Lord krishna makes is that it is not necessary for a Self(GOD)-Realized person. That is why Vedas are necessary for you and me. Vedas truly show WHO is GOD, that it is LORD VISNU and not Lord Rudra.

 

To a Self-realized person the Vedas are as useful as a reservoir of water when there is flood water available everywhere. (2.46)

 

 

All these puranas u mentioned are made by the vaishanavas so surely it will contain what they need. For a seeker of truth all this will not help.

 

 

The same can be told about Shiva puranas and the quote of Lord Rama praying to Lord Shiva. That all these were created by advaitists and Shivites to confuse simple people.

 

That is why we take Vedas as Sruti. Vedas are unauthored and apaursheya. They confirm Lord Visnu's superiority.

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

Me according to you is krishna, Me according to me is Brahman. There is a contradiction in which we understand the same scripture again.

 

 

Just an example of blinded advaitists.

 

Hear again My supreme word, the most secret of all. You are very dear to Me, therefore, I shall tell this for your benefit. (18.64)

 

Fix your mind on Me, be devoted to Me, offer service to Me, bow down to Me, and you shall certainly reach Me. I promise you because you are very dear to Me. (18.65)

 

The above two verses are direced to Arjuna. Note the use of words Lord Krishna uses like "my friend" etc. It is clearly the reference to the PERSON KRISHNA.

 

According to advaita. Brahman is the only reality. Since Lord Krishna is realized, whom is HE talking to. Advaita is self-contradictory here.

[Guest guest]

You have a wrong perception about me. Iam not vouching for Shiva here as well. Why does the scriptures say "Aham brahmashmin" ,"tat twam asi","pragnyanam brahma ", etc

[Guest guest]

Me according to you is krishna, Me according to me is Brahman. There is a contradiction in which we understand the same scripture again.

 

that's why hare krishnas are not hindus.. we do not want to be mixed with your conception, not because you are a bad person, but because we do not want any confusion with advaitism when we preach

[Guest guest]

Me can be perceived like this, since krishna is a self realised soul ( the atman) he his pointing to that in ME not his body. Which he himself says dies.

[Guest guest]

.....HKs

1.Divert the topic,

2.Run away

3.Aviod answering

4.Confuse

5.Quote the Pro Vishnu statements from Vedas

6.Call Pro Siva Verses as Tamasic

7.Have selective amnesia.

8.Give a totally different answer.

 

 

And I am just visualising, what goes on in HKs head.

It might be something like terminator 1, where the optins get highlighted in the brain and the Cyborg selects one of them. Hahahaha

[Guest guest]

yes, you have a nice competence in terminator and other movies... speak of them

[Guest guest]

Great you have chosen option #1

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

You have a wrong perception about me. Iam not vouching for Shiva here as well. Why does the scriptures say "Aham brahmashmin" ,"tat twam asi","pragnyanam brahma ", etc

 

 

I don't think I had any wrong perception here. An advaiti wants to prove that Lord Rudra is supreme to prove his advaitic point of view.

 

As for Abheda Srutis, it does not point to Jiva, but those words like Aham, Tvam etc. point to Brahman(Lord Vishnu)

 

 

that's why hare krishnas are not hindus.. we do not want to be mixed with your conception, not because you are a bad person, but because we do not want any confusion with advaitism when we preach

 

 

and we Vaishnavas want to make it clear that Advaita is wrong period and that advaita is nothing but Buddhism. So what about Vaishnava sects ? They also teach that advaita is mayavada.

[Guest guest]

Pl go back and read all my post , where is the place that i have tried to prove the supremacy of rudra. You didnt answere me , why are you worshipping the form of krishna . Krishna died at the end of that yuga. Brahman is also vishnu if you want to name it one. Dont name me as an advaiti try to answere my queries.

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

Pl go back and read all my post , where is the place that i have tried to prove the supremacy of rudra. You didnt answere me , why are you worshipping the form of krishna . Krishna died at the end of that yuga. Brahman is also vishnu if you want to name it one. Dont name me as an advaiti try to answere my queries.

 

 

Lord Krishna does not die. HE is the BRAHMAN. Oneneeds to read Bhagavad Gita to see it.

 

Advaita is a wrong philosophy.

[Guest guest]

Krishan dies as in mahabharat.You might have a different stroy which might satisfy your philosophy.You cannot limit almighty to a shape and a form when he says he is omnipresent.

 

 

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

Krishan dies as in mahabharat.You might have a different stroy which might satisfy your philosophy.You cannot limit almighty to a shape and a form when he says he is omnipresent.

 

 

When Lord Krishna says that HE is the Brahman and Lord to Arjuna in Bhagavad Gita, how can HE(Lord Krishna) die. May be the verse in Mahabharatha is added to delude people like you.

[Guest guest]

Let us agree with what you say.

We are all wrong and Only your gumbal is right.

 

Does it mean Lord Krishna is still alive?

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

Lord Krishna is Bhagavan Visnu HIMSELF. They are IDENTICAL. So your question is illegitimate. Bhagavan cannot die and so Lord Krishna cannot die. It is advaitists who think that Lord Krishna is a man.

 

The ignorant ones, not knowing My supreme natures as the great Lord of all beings, disregard Me when I assume human form. (9.11)

 

[Guest guest]

Raguramanji

 

I thought you would be mature to understand what i was saying. The omni present is not contained only in the form that krishna took. He claims to be omni present in gita and you are saying he is contained to his form, which is totally opposite.

 

Anything that does not satisfy your philosophy is tamasic and are added. Anything that satifies your points is correct. When you claim you are different from lord you are contradicting his own point of omni presence.

 

[Guest guest]

Even Vaishnavas think Krishna is an avtar of Vishnu. He had a life like a man. And died like a man.

It is not advaitins. It is Vaishnavas themselves who think like that.

[Guest guest]

"The ignorant ones, not knowing My supreme natures as the great Lord of all beings, disregard Me when I assume human form. "

 

Krishna is the human form of the lord according to this, then y are worshipping the human form. Actually you shld worship the real form of the lord if you what it is ?

[Guest guest]

Ok if krishna did not die what happened to him at the end of the yuga ?

 

 

[Guest guest]

Krishan dies as in mahabharat.You might have a different stroy which might satisfy your philosophy

--if you read all the stories on sacred scriptures about sri krsna it will be very easy for you to understand that to die for an arrow in a foot was obviously a lila to stop his activities on this planet

 

.You cannot limit almighty to a shape and a form when he says he is omnipresent.

--if there's form in the relative, there's form also in the absolute because absolute cannot miss anything... so in the relaitive world we have mortal forms, in the absolute we have sat cit ananda forms and personalities

 

the biggest problem is that you believe in shiva negating his existence

 

if you are personalist, if you believe in lord shiva as the supreme, we have not serious difference, because if one goes to siva or krishna or varaha or matsya or vishnu he stops samsara... eternally

 

but if one thinks to annihilate himself in nirguna brahman, he remains in this material world suffering

[Guest guest]

Even Vaishnavas think Krishna is an avtar of Vishnu

--not exactly, but it is not a problem.. they are the same personality, they are the same person... person not nirguna brahman

 

He had a life like a man. And died like a man.

--this is your opinion, if you see krsna as a man you have not studied him very well.... and avatara of vishnu is a man? avatara is a way that uses vishnu to come in this world.. so vishnu is god and avatara is god

 

It is Vaishnavas themselves who think like that.

--no, vaishnavas would have slight differences on who's the more blissful aspect, but there's no disagreement on the fact that krsna is god and not a mortal human being

 

[Raguraman]

Harre Krishna,

 

 

Raguramanji

 

I thought you would be mature to understand what i was saying. The omni present is not contained only in the form that krishna took. He claims to be omni present in gita and you are saying he is contained to his form, which is totally opposite.

 

 

Your or my limitation to know that Lord Krishna is omnipresent is not Lord Krishna's limitation. The form of LORD Krishna is transcendental and beyond both of us. What you see as though Lord Krishna is limited is your fault or avidya.

 

 

Anything that does not satisfy your philosophy is tamasic and are added. Anything that satifies your points is correct. When you claim you are different from lord you are contradicting his own point of omni presence.

 

 

I provide Sruti verses, didn't I. I think you need to understand fully about Vaishnavism before you argue with me.

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

"The ignorant ones, not knowing My supreme natures as the great Lord of all beings, disregard Me when I assume human form. "

 

Krishna is the human form of the lord according to this, then y are worshipping the human form. Actually you shld worship the real form of the lord if you what it is ?

 

 

The verse clearly says that Lord Krishna in that human form is Brahman. Simple. So if Brahman assumes a form it is ABSOLUTELY REAL. This is what Lord Krishna is saying, that deluded people(like advaitists) disregard HIM, when HE takes human form.

 

 

Ok if krishna did not die what happened to him at the end of the yuga ?

 

 

Your question is illegitimate. Lord Krishna is Brahman. So there is no begining or end for HIM. HE is IMMORTAL and omnipresent.

[Guest guest]

let us not go OT... we are discussing here if vaishnavas or gaudya vaishnavas are hindu

 

if hindus come discussing gaudya vaishnava belief.. and the opposite.. it is clear that vaishnavism, right or wrong, true or false, is not inside hinduism and that a vaishnava has the right and duty to say "i am not hindu"

 

the other subjects.. if krsna is god, if krsna is more than vishnu or siva, if god is a person or brahman are very interesting but out of topic

 

in my opinion