DarkEye Posted November 19, 2003 Report Share Posted November 19, 2003 does anyone over here heard of Brahma Kumaris?....any comments?.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yasodanandana Posted November 19, 2003 Report Share Posted November 19, 2003 new age... atheism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PN Prasad Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 Long time ago I met few of the Brahma Kumaris during Shivarathri festival (Shiva's night). They are sort of confused souls who speak lots about 'Nirguna' form of the Lord. These days they have started preaching at government offices of various states in India. They also contend that Krishna and Rama were common men. They concentrate completely on the formless aspect of the Lord. I have also heard few of them preach against God. So, it's confusing as well as boring philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2003 Report Share Posted November 24, 2003 they also disagree that the soul is located in the heart, but it is located at the middle of forehead that is between the eyebrows?.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2003 Report Share Posted November 24, 2003 Brahmakumaris are no a confused lot and although many people may not agree with their philosophy of Nirgun Shiva; it is naive of you people to dismiss it as atheistic in approach. I used to assume that you ISKON people were very tolerant and open-minded. But I have now realized that most of you are like 'frog in the well.' You people seem to have a problem with anyone who does not agree with your ideologies and theories. Really absurd... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yasodanandana Posted November 24, 2003 Report Share Posted November 24, 2003 the tolerance is in appreciating the effort of people who is trying to know something in religion and spirituality, like you, me, some or all followers of brahmakumaris, baha'i, ananda marga, sai baba etc. the tolerance is appreciating the persons, but if the philosopy is illogic and atheistic, we have to call it with his name.. (and there's no problem because we are not in the middle of the road but in a "specialistic" forum a brahmakumari follower can surely develope more good qualities than me (very easy) and he will have a better next life than mine... but the philosophy in itself is cheap and atheist, more similar to american new age than anything vedic traditional, shankaracharya's advaita and so it is a frog's well also to think also that everything is the same (ehem... i take as an honour to be called "iskcon people", and in my heart i consider me "iskcon people"... but i am not initiated by an "official" iskcon master) why not explain why you think that my "iskconist" judgement is wrong? following a reasoning maybe i can change my idea, thing that i want not to do only to show some sort of false ecumenism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2003 Report Share Posted November 24, 2003 Nirguna means just that Nir (without) guna (attributes)- in other words formless- why should it strike anyone as being a "cheap" philosophy ? That the lord is formless only means that he pervades throughout the universe and cannot be restricted to any one place or form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yasodanandana Posted November 24, 2003 Report Share Posted November 24, 2003 yes, god is "feature-less" or "without quality" from a material point of view... he's not subjected to death or illusion.. and he surely pervades all the universe and sustain every existence... but he's also a person, he can have a form and he can go in a place.. all these features and qualities are "sat, cit , ananda" not material so god is nirguna if we compare him to an ordinary conditioned person, but he's "gunagrahi"(full of qualities) if we see him in his original spiritual reality bhagavan = he who possesses all the opulences krsna = the all attractive (because he possess infinite attractive qualities) ............ this is the reason why vaishnavas see with suspect the philosophies where the "nirguna" or "impersonal" or "all pervasive" feature of god is considered the supreme one.... how can he, without personality, create us with personality... how can he give what he have not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2003 Report Share Posted November 24, 2003 Why should we restrict God to being Nirguna? Why should we restrict God to being Saguna? Why can He not be both Nirguna and Saguna? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2003 Report Share Posted November 24, 2003 Although I am myself a neophyte, I am pleased with the fact that they are looking at the Lord's brahmajyoti. However, their point of focus is not vague. They concentrate on brahma jyoti that emanates from a source (usually a bulb). They teach bhakthi to the source of the light, which ofcourse is krishna. It is so wonderful to see such a thing. Their aim is to merge with it, which is sahajiya ofcourse. It is slightly different from our aim, where we serve the source of light. No matter what we think, the goal is the same, it is time to stop listening to maya and start listening to krishna. -TU -TU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2003 Report Share Posted November 24, 2003 "That the lord is formless only means that he pervades throughout the universe and cannot be restricted to any one place or form." Means He is 'Vishnu'. A form of Krishna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PN Prasad Posted November 24, 2003 Report Share Posted November 24, 2003 --------------------------- That the lord is formless only means that he pervades throughout the universe and cannot be restricted to any one place or form. --------------------------- Vishnu means "All-pervading"...So, you're right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2003 Report Share Posted November 24, 2003 also "the preserver" so if he pervades and if he preserves, he's acting and he's a person Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkEye Posted November 25, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 but the problem now is,....Brahmakumaris do not accept Krishna as the supreme personality of godhead.....for them Krishna is only a normal human being....but for the ISKCON ppl there is no other god than Krishna....so which path is a 100% true path?....since the Brahmakumaris accept the existence of Krishna, then how can they deny Bhagavad Gita?....are they telling that krishna is true but the gita told by Krishna is not?.....to know that god is all pervading does not mean to know god exactly!....it is only a concept just like Christianity and Islam..... (i'm not a member of ISKCON, but a soul looking for the truth)..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShegavichaRana Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 will not appeal to most of the ordinary people like you and me. Simply because, our body-consciousness supercedes everything. We are used identify everything (that is visible) with its typical shape, size, colour etc. We cannot perceive the Nirguna God so fast!!! The way to Nirguna God is Saguna Bhakti. Where Saguna Bhakti ends, Nirguna begins. So for a true and pure devotee there is no real cause to worry. There is no need to comment adversely on ISKCON people, as they are engaged in doing devotional service through Saguna Bhakti. Let me tell you, Nirguna Bhakti is not everyone's cup of tea!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yasodanandana Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 who is doing bhakti is very well aware and expert of what is impersonalism or nirguna stuff. The thing is not that one is in a bodily consciousness, so he sees god in a bodily way, no. The thing is that God has to have a body, otherwise how he can create bodies? Obviously he has not a mortal body like us, but a "satcitananda" body like we read in the song "damodarastakam": "namam isvaram satcitananda rupam... i offer my obeisances to the eternal, conscious, blissful form of the lord". actually is more bodily conscious to think that god has no body... we see mortal bodies, maya says to us that bodies are only material, and we say "if body is mortal, god has no body" and from the material point of view it is right, but it exists also a spiritual point of view: if we have bodies in the matter, we must have bodies (not mortal, but eternal) in the spirit. and... nirguna & bhakti are two words that do not go together, how can you love one who has not qualiies? wich quality attracts you (beauty, intelligence, power, humbleness, mercy..) if he has not qualities.. if you show your thoughts and theories there's nothing bad, but if you say that "saguna bhakti" is something simple for neophite practitioneers you are wrong, because these practitioneers know wery well what you are saying and they can discuss and demonstrate.. if you cannot do the same... you have not arguments, f one's advanced he has plenty of ways to convince the ignorants Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REASWARAN Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 The Bhavgad gita is part of the mahabharat- elsewhere in the epic it is clearly stated that the Lord has taken human form (Krishna) for a specific purpose :" yada yada hi dharamasiya ..etc" The Mahabharat also end up with the Lord giving up his human body, the purpose having been acheived. Nevertheless, krishna is worshipped because he was a full avatar , and aware of his divine birth. Nevertheless, it would not be very enlightened on our part to deny the existence of the Lord's other births..Rama for example or even Jesus. It is worth mentioning here that the pinnacle of Hindu scriptures- the Vedanta ie the Upanishad's do not talk about specific Gods..Vishnu, Brahma, shive , krishna etc. They only talk about Brahman- which is a generic name for the Lord of the Universe. It is egoism of which only mankind is capable to think of such a God only in human form. -this is the form to which we relate and that is how he has shown himself to us. In the millions of planets which he has created, there may be other forms of life totally different in physical structure to us- I daresay he would show himself in other forms to such life forms. As in all forms of spirituality, it is the end which is more important than the path. Let us not deride any path that a seeker takes-to each his own - for in the end all of us are made of the same cast and will ultimately return to the same source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 ":" yada yada hi dharamasiya ..etc krsna said : "i come"... not "i am formless brahman but i take a human mortal body to come to you" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REASWARAN Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 That's precisely the point. when Krishna said "I" that I was the Brahman since Krishna himself was a human manifestation of the brahman. I've noticed that the word formless seems to bug people in this forum and I have yet to understand why. By definition a being which prevades the entire living and non living world has to be formless in nature. Why is there so much aversion to that concept ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 "I've noticed that the word formless seems to bug people in this forum and I have yet to understand why" –––because to say that god is only "formless" is not true. god is: brahman=formless, all pervasive paramatma=companion of every jiva bhagavan=person, individual, with name, form, associates, activities to say that the brahman is the ultimate reality and the other aspects are illusory is to give to god less features than humans you have a "pervasive" and "energetic" aspect, if i come in your house i can feel your existence, your energy, your personality even if you're not there, i see the books, the records, the style of the furniture, the colors, the cleanliness.. and i have some experience of who you are.. but the more complete is when you come back home and we meet, we talk together, we read a book, we take prasadam or so and i would be mad to think that you person is emanating from your house, your environment that surely is another aspect of you in this way we find mad and blasphemous to say that the krishna (or vishu, varaha, narasimha, vamana etc), beloved by all the vaishnavas is only an illusion so vishnu/krishna 1)pervades al the material and spiritual universes 2)is at your side as a "guardian angel" in christian tradition 3)is in front of you as the "all attractive" spiritual person that we know from gita, bhagavatam, mahabharata, ramayana etc. all the three aspects are real, there's no maya in them.. so if we find in bhagavad gita "bhagavan uvacha.." this is "god speaks"... and who speaks is acting, and who's acting is a person (sat, cit ,ananda). When Krsna whant to say "brahman" , He says Brahman, no confusion, no problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REASWARAN Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 This is the line of thought followed in ISKCON. There are several schools of thought in India which have different views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 no this is the line followed by gaudya vaishnava sampradaya and the vaishnavas, personalists, big and ancient realities.. not only iskcon... (=thousands of people all over the world) so if you want, explain your ideas with logic and scriptures there's no problem, this subjects are our life, we are not ready to accept a view or another very easily especially if we find them illogic or blaspheme.. even if many induists think like that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REASWARAN Posted November 26, 2003 Report Share Posted November 26, 2003 No my dear Guest (would be far easier to address you if you would log in with a name), the idea here is not to make you accept mine or any other views. Whether you like it or not the traditional schools in India have views similar to those expressed by me. In any case, I thought the idea of this forum was to have an exchange of views- which I have found refreshing- However there has never been an attempt on my part nor should there be an attempt on the part of any member of the forum to make his views "acceptable" to another who follows a different teacher. To do so would be demeaning teh teacher and school of thought to which one s since by Hindu religious thought is broad enough to embrace all types ov views and sometimes even other religions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2003 Report Share Posted November 26, 2003 "Whether you like it or not the traditional schools in India have views similar to those expressed by me" –––yes, of course, but there's also traditional schools that preach the views expressed by me.. big and ancient realities "However there has never been an attempt on my part nor should there be an attempt on the part of any member of the forum to make his views "acceptable" to another who follows a different teacher." ––it is ok, one make a question and another give his answer.. and, like between friends talking in group about a subject, there's no problem if one is not agree with a given answer : "hey reaswaran, what are you saying? for me it is not true, demonstrate it!" it is not an email private exchanging, in a forum many people are partecipating and they giive opinions on the questions and on the answers too for us, to say that krsna is not a person (in the sat, cit, ananda sense.. not as a mortal human) is not a little detail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2003 Report Share Posted November 26, 2003 I have been a very keen observer of the different posts in here and the common denominator has always been that Advaita Vedanta and similar ideologies have always been ridiculed at and disregarded as being worthless. I seriously wonder why is it so. Some people just cannot bear to imagine that God can be formless and formless 'Niraakaar' Bhakti is possible. Most of the posters here think that it is rubbish and humanly impossible. As a child, I always used to believe that God was too huge a figure to be captured in our idols and figures. I always believed that there is one Supreme Being who is beyond our understanding and reasoning. Later on thanks to a very good person I came to know of Advaita Vedanta. Though I have lost touch with that person, I consider him my Guru and thank him each day for his generous and benevolent nature. My only request to all in here is please do not criticize other practices just because you cannot agree with their philosophies. Will post later to let you all know more about my views on the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.