Govindaram Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 <font color="blue"> Hare Krishna </font color> I think you already believe some of the facts about Krishna, and you inquires are excellent, but you <font color="red"> force </font color> yourself to Not to believe in Him, therefore your intelligence is covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 "So, that is the first lesson in knowledge which is taught by people much smarter than Einstein and definitely more smarter than Muhammed. The intelligence that they possessed made them write vedas which compose of mathematics, sciences, philosophy, astronomy. " There you go again , talking about Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). I think you need to take english lessons my friends , for all this time I have been quoting from your vedas the concept of GOD that doesnot enter YOUR opened mind. I have not written about your vedas being illogical ( I have been quoting from them , not you , me ) , I say and repeat your beliefs are illogical. Regards SS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 "I think you already believe some of the facts about Krishna" No I donot agree to any facts about Krishna , some facts in vedas yes. But I do believe that the hindu community is being taken for a big ride by the sadhus, saints and priests who probably practice one and preach something else. Regards SS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Govindaram Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 <font color="blue"> Hare Krishna </font color> The Vedas is written by the literary incarnation of Krishna, you comment about sadhus/saints etc they are trying to preach about Krishna as best they can, Krishna is Not so cheap that he can be realised by anybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 Dear SS, You find the verses illogical because you have a narrow minded belief having ample traces of fanaticism. I know you have picked those verses from many of the anti-hindu sites or from comparitive religion section from any of the pro-islamic websites. You will never understand the gist of vedic scriptures by analysing a couple of verses in a narrow minded fashion. Avinashji has already given his response and you don't seem to get convinced. "Ekam evadvitiyam" "He is One only without a second." [Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1] "Na tasya pratima asti" "There is no likeness of Him." [svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19 These verses mean that no other being can match His opulence. When did any of us deny this? "Na casya kascij janita na cadhipah." "Of Him there are neither parents nor lord." It is true that in reality, Krsna is beginningless. So, He does not have any parents. But, when He comes on Earth, then He may consider somebody as His father, somebody as His mother etc. This seems to not convince your dumb brain. When Lord himself says he descends on earth from time to time, who on earth are you question this? Where is your problem, SS?I've started a new thread http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/showflat/cat/hinduism/50606/0/collapsed/5/o/1for you to discuss about the verses that you seem illogical. I hope you have already seen that thread. It seems to me that either you have never read any of the vedic literature and ONLY know about a few verses that hover around anti-hindu websites OR you have considerable knowledge about the vedic literature and did not find any contradictory things. In either case open your stand and go from there. We have tried to give you convincing replies to those verses. If you are unable to get convinced, then wait and hope that someone else can convince and go on to other verses that you find illogical. But I can say for sure you have never read any other scriptures and hold on these verses like a fool who never gets convinced. There are many things which seem illogical to our material brains and there is no benefit in debating about them. We take vedic literature for granted and we don't deny it. The truth cannot be analysed with dumb brains. Definitely great saints like Srila Vyasadeva and others who composed it are higher that other mundane people including prophet Muhammed. You say "may peace be upon him". For some reason I'd say I find this illogical. Who on earth are you to say this when the person has already left the planet and no matter what you wish, its not going to have an impact on him. Unlike a narrow minded fool who debates on this thing, I take it for granted without questioning with a broad mind. Now please excuse us for unable to convince you about couple of verses where we don't see any illogical thing. Go on to other verses from vedic literature that you know of. hAriBoL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 "Now please excuse us for unable to convince you about couple of verses " Fine I will take it for granted that these verses are wrongly put in the books because my hindu friend cannot convince me. Further as you have mentioned anti hindu sites. Are they fabrigating the verses. I donot think so , because you cannot convince yourself of your own verses. "the word Allah(swt) in Hindu scriptures: Word "Ilah" is used in Rigveda Book 2 Hymn I verse II Even in the Rigveda which is the most sacred scripture of the Hindus, one of the attributes given to God Almighty in Book no 2 Hymn no I verse II, is ‘Ila’ which if pronounced properly is the same as 'Allah'. Now can I also take this for granted that this is also wrongly input in your books. Regards SS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 "Now please excuse us for unable to convince you about couple of verses " Fine I will take it for granted that these verses are wrongly put in the books because my hindu friend cannot convince me. Again this clearly explains how BAD your understanding of English is. You happily ignored the last part of my sentence. I said "Now please excuse us for unable to convince you about a couple of verses where we don't see any illogical thing ". This doesn't mean that verses are wrongly put in the books and we don't have the understanding. Going by your logic and your Poor understanding, I should safely conclude that its difficult for me to convince the dumb brain of my muslim friend. I pray Lord Krishna to give my muslim friend some intelligence. Further as you have mentioned anti hindu sites. Are they fabrigating the verses. I donot think so , because you cannot convince yourself of your own verses. I have never mentioned about fabricating the verses. Just because dumb brains don't get the essence of verses doesn't mean the verses are illogical. The truth cannot be analysed by fools and it is definitely not a symptom of scholarship to say that we cannot convince ourselves about the verses just because the essence is not going into your dumb heads. Coming to the point you raised: "the word Allah(swt) in Hindu scriptures: Word "Ilah" is used in Rigveda Book 2 Hymn I verse II Even in the Rigveda which is the most sacred scripture of the Hindus, one of the attributes given to God Almighty in Book no 2 Hymn no I verse II, is ‘Ila’ which if pronounced properly is the same as 'Allah'. No logical person would agree that there is a similarity between 'Ila' and 'Allah' when properly pronounced. Now there is no reason why you should conclude that Allah is mentioned in this verse. You don't seem to be clear in what you are trying to say. You don't appear to be methodical in your inquisitiveness. I've advised you to list all the illogical things you have in that new thread and it appears you don't have modesty and have come here just to bash the scriputes with your puny understanding based on half knowledge. hAriBoL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 SS, You are not qualified to understand the Upanishads or Vedas. It requires a minimum level of intelligence and its attendant humility. I don't think it is just a language barrier that makes your responses look feeble and insincere. It is best you stick to a subject with which you are familiar, like Islam. Your attitude is not conducive for anyone, especially Sri Krsna to offer you any assistance. We are not fools, SS. Treating us as though we are simply reveals your own lack of sophistication and your disqualification to associate with God and men of God. Again, 'donot' is not a word. gHari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_love_krishna_ Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 Thank you Ghari prabhu, SS is not qualified because to understand something, you should be willing to understand. If not, then it will be like my grandmom used to say, It goes into one ear and comes out from another! /images/graemlins/smile.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 When a person has no rational explanation he finds his way out using cheap methods. Further you want me to believe all that you have mentioned , I don't think so. You cannot answer the questions that I put to you regarding verses from your books. Individuals like you should keep away and just watch the discussions as you are being very irrational. The way I see it you have no knowledge about your own religion , let some intellectuals with logical sense and explanation come in. I donot find any.. Sorry for being straight. But I have not used any inappropriate words to question your beliefs. If you cannot answer either stay away or try to get correct info. Don't get excited . There are always questions in life.... Regards SS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 "You are not qualified to understand the Upanishads or Vedas. It requires a minimum level of intelligence and its attendant humility." ARE YOU??????. Not with your reasonings. Regards SS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Govindaram Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 Hare Krishna who do you think you are? you say you understand 'our' books more than yourself. yet at the same time you deride Lord Krishna, you have NOT understood at all my friend, you read with your eyes closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 SS, The so-called illogical things in Hinduism appear to only people with small intelligence like you. We have tried to explain you and it is upto you to believe them or not. But blashpeming them is not which someone will ignore which has been happening before. There are umpteen illogical things in Islam that you have to sort out before attempting to even find illogical things in Hinduism, let alone finding them. What about sadistic circumcision, forceful interpretation of some junk to fit into scientific phenomenon... Archaic veiling, preventing your people from covering ankles.. These are all silly, foolish illogical things to any sensible person. Now try refuting these things. Failure to attempt refuting or saying "first give convincing replies to my questions.." only tells that you don't have enough sense or backgroung and have come here just to blashpheme and criticize some randomly chosen verses that fail to convince your dull brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinash Posted July 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 I am finding from your posts that when somebody says something, you will interpret his post to mean what he never intended and what is not the logical conclusion of his post. You keep on using circular logic. Then, you say that we are not able to answer your questions. The fact is that you are not interested in answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_love_krishna_ Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 When a person has no intention of listening to a rational explanation then he will use all methods of logic to see the rational explanation as an irrational one. "You cannot answer the questions that I put to you regarding verses from your books." That proves it. Individuals like you should keep away and just watch the discussions as you are being very irrational. Also you should first try to open your mind even if that mind is irrational. Sorry for being straight. Aree moork,I have used inappropriate words to question your qualification. There are always questions in life.... and there are always answers to those questions too, my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 To answer your question when a muslim prays and I emphasize PRAYS , he only prays to Allah and doesnot include any person or deities eg : Prophet Mohammed, Moses, Jesus, Abraham, Noah, ( PBUT) and all the others. So all the love and praises every thing belongs to Allah. In Islam, belief in One God is the most important belief. Allah in arabic refers to the One God. It is a known fact that every language has one or more terms that are used in reference to God and sometimes to lesser deities. This is not the case with Allah. Allah is the personal name of the One true God. Nothing else can be called Allah. The term has no PLURAL OR GENDER. This shows its uniqueness when compared with the word god which can be made plural, gods, or feminine, goddess. It is interesting to notice that Allah is the personal name of God in Aramaic, the language of Jesus and a sister language of Arabic. The One true God is a reflection of the unique concept that Islam associates with God. To a Muslim, Allah is the Almighty, Creator and Sustainer of the universe, Who is similar to nothing and nothing is comparable to Him. (monotheism) I still didnot get any answer for this one. SS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 Yajurveda The following verses from the Yajurveda echo a similar concept of God: "na tasya pratima asti "There is no image of Him." [Yajurveda 32:3]5 "shudhama poapvidham" "He is bodyless and pure." [Yajurveda 40:8]6 "Andhatama pravishanti ye asambhuti mupaste" "They enter darkness, those who worship the natural elements" (Air, Water, Fire, etc.). "They sink deeper in darkness, those who worship sambhuti." [Yajurveda 40:9]7 Sambhuti means created things, for example table, chair, idol, etc. The Yajurveda contains the following prayer: "Lead us to the good path and remove the sin that makes us stray and wander." [Yajurveda 40:16]8 No answer for this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hare_krishna Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 An open mind is very important, but if people believe in certain religious values it could be better to stick with them even if they have lost the discussion. As an example for me as a Hindu it would be stupid to stop doing Sandhya prayers because some Muslim proved that Sandhya prayers are worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 ""there are some scriptures, like bhagavata purana, who speak with great precision of the personality of godhead, sri krsna and all the main personalities (avataras) coming from him." What is that personality which you have differntianted it from krsna and the other avataras. As a muslim Among the various attributes of God, one of the beautiful attributes mentioned in the Rigveda Book II hymn 1 verse 3, is Brahma. Brahma means ‘The Creator’. Translated into Arabic it means Khaaliq. Muslims can have no objection if Almighty God is referred to as Khaaliq or ‘Creator’ or Brahma. However if it is said that Brahma is Almighty God who has four heads with each head having a crown, Muslims take strong exception to it. This is what is the root cause of a major difference. By the way thanks to Allah I am a muslim and not a buddhist. No answer to this one. SS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hare_krishna Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 "na tasya pratima asti "There is no image of Him." [Yajurveda 32:3]5 There is no image of Him whose name is "mahadyasha" Here the impersonal brahman is mentioned. "Andhatama pravishanti ye asambhuti mupaste" "They enter darkness, those who worship the natural elements" (Air, Water, Fire, etc.). "They sink deeper in darkness, those who worship sambhuti." [Yajurveda 40:9]7 This is a philosophical saying. Air, water etc. are worshiped with various vedic mantras. So you probably gave a wrong interpretation. This mantra means that somebody who thinks that this material creation is everything are wrong. Deity worship is a medium to worship Brahman in his impersonal and personal form. Like muslims worship kabaa and vedic people worship sacred fire. "shudhama poapvidham" "He is bodyless and pure." [Yajurveda 40:8]6 The correct tranlsation is : "He is pure and not bound by sins" The Yajurveda contains the following prayer: "Lead us to the good path and remove the sin that makes us stray and wander." [Yajurveda 40:16]8 Yes, let us do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinash Posted July 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 I have already talked about this. I reproduce my reply here:- "In Sanskrit scriptures, there are two words both of which are written in Roman script as "Brahma". Actually, there are transliteration schemes to distinguish between the two, but those schemes can not be used in an ordinary text editor. Lord Brahma (pronounced as Brahmaa) is not considered as the supreme. Vedas talk about Brahma (pronounced with clipped 'a' at the end). " What is so difficult to understand here that you say that you have not got any answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_love_krishna_ Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 He is the creator of everything even if you agree with me or not. Every thing he created now that you see before you has a form, thus proving that all forms exist in him initially. In other words, he has all forms, thus he is full of forms , not formless. We call him Krishna. The Vedas do not say he has no form at all and he is just nothing. You can say he is formless if you would like, but that would mean you have to agree that your body has no form and it is nothing. It is no where in site and you cannot think because to do something you need a form and thinking is doing something!. Allah is formless, so you too are formless. Because you have no form, you are then above all physical laws etc. Allah is helpless, because you have no form. He has to look at you formful people enjoying yourself in this world. So sad... I feel bad for the guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 Now in all this that has been translated , show me any where the name Krsna is mentioned. I donot want assumptions that it is being reffered to him. I need names and facts. We are talking about religious books here. All the other books , mention the names of all the Prophets ( PBUT). Why does the Yajurveda not mention the name of Krsna, Brahma, Manu, Saraswati IN THIS CASE. Regards SS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingentity Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 making yourself dirty by hanging out and conversing with us infidels? What would your friends think? Run run and cleanse yourself quickly and do not fall into the temptation of returning here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 "He is the creator of everything even if you agree with me or not. Every thing he created now that you see before you has a form, thus proving that all forms exist in him initially. In other words, he has all forms, thus he is full of forms , not formless. We call him Krishna. The Vedas do not say he has no form at all and he is just nothing. You can say he is formless if you would like, but that would mean you have to agree that your body has no form and it is nothing. It is no where in site and you cannot think because to do something you need a form and thinking is doing something!. " Why do you compare your form with his. Just because you are a man so he is a man. My friend man has weaknesses so ..... What I am trying to say here is that your books donot give him a form but you as a reader have given him one . WHY THE DIFFERENCE. Regards SS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts