Brahma kumaris

[yasodanandana]

"You are evidently no student of history. ..."

••••it is ok that what is moral for me can be immoral to you... but there's an intolerance of who wants to impose his theory on others and the intolerance of who says "all theories are the same".... and there's also the insincerity of who cannot demonstrate that he is right and he find shelter in the principle "everything is the same"

 

in the practical life we do not live like that, we choose every nanosecond what is good and what is wrong for us.. so there's nothing to change when we speak of spirituality

 

(when i try to explain to my wife Purnima D.D. that all the girls are the same, and i can embrass them all, after a second i see her with a big stick... is she in maya? is she conditioned in the illusory world of individuality and differences? is she a product of the judeo/christian/individualist culture? /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Please address the statements of Bhagavad Gita cited above rather than trying to bring up unrelated material.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

In case you missed the post, I will repost it for your convenience below. Please address these points rather than bringing up completely unrelated topics in an attempt to avoid the actual discussion.

 

You imply that those of us believing Krishna to be the Supreme Person have not read the Gita, nor are we very knowledgeable about history. Please demonstrate your higher learning by addressing these points directly. I could have followed your example and simply replied that "You are evidently no student of the Gita", but I will not resort to this cheap tactic. I will let your own words speak for themselves, and honest readers can decide what is the actual conclusion of the Gita.

 

Regarding your latest reply, what tribals in Madhya Pradesh do, or what Zulus in Africa do is really irrelevant. Those who are sanatana-dharmis accept the authority of the Vedas and regard them as apaurusheya. Right and wrong is not based on one's whims and feelings, but rather on the statements of the Vedas:

 

dharman tu sakshad bhagavat pranitam

 

Dharma is not based on our choice and whim, it is defined as the direct injunctions of God given in the Vedas. As such, sanatana-dharmis accept right and wrong according to the Vedic statements, not according to cultural whims.

 

[Repost about the form of Krishna:]

 

 

Please go through the story wherein it is clearly explained how the Supreme(in this case Vishnu) took birth in human form for delivering the earth from evil.

 

 

Unfortunately ignorant people misunderstand the Lord's divine birth and appearance and consider him to be an ordinary man:

 

avajananti mam mudha

manusim tanum asritam

param bhavam ajananto

mama bhuta-mahesvaram

 

"Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be."

 

Some people consider Lord Krishna to be a human manifestation, but they fail to understand the Lord's divine nature, His param-bhavam. Throughout the Gita Lord Krishna is referred to as Bhagavan and Purushottama, both of which indicate His divine personality. Purushottama literally means "the Supreme Person". Lord Krishna is eternally the Supreme Personality of Godhead as confirmed throughout the Gita:

 

yasmat ksharam atito 'ham

aksarad api cottamah

ato 'smi loke vede ca

prathitah purusottamah

 

"Because I am transcendental, beyond both the fallible and the infallible, and because I am the greatest, I am celebrated both in the world and in the Vedas as that Supreme Person."

 

Please note that Lord Krishna is celebrated in the Vedas as the transcendental Supreme Person.

 

Nowhere in the Gita does Lord Krishna state his form to be mundane, material, temporary, or ordinary. On the contrary, every verse speaks about his divine transcedental form and personality. Krishna's own words are that he is purushottama, the Supreme Person.

 

Lord Krishna's birth and activities are not material. Lord Krishna states in the Gita that they are divine (divyam). Simply by knowing them one becomes free from the material existence:

 

janma karma ca me divyam

evam yo vetti tattvatah

tyaktva deham punar janma

naiti mam eti so 'rjuna

 

"One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna."

 

And simply by remembering Lord Krishna at the time of death one attains the divine abode of Lord Krishna, param dhama.

 

anta-kale ca mam eva

smaran muktva kalevaram

yah prayati sa mad-bhavam

yati nasty atra samsayah

 

"And whoever, at the time of death, quits his body, remembering Me alone, at once attains My nature. Of this there is no doubt."

 

In the Upanishads Lord Krishna's spiritual form is confirmed as follows:

 

sac-cid-ananda-rupaya krishnaya

 

Lord Krishna's rupa (form) is eternal, full of knowledge, and full of bliss. He is not an ordinary human manifestation as the ignorant proclaim.

 

Brahma-ji sings his glory in the Brahma-samhita as follows:

 

isvarah paramah krsnah

sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah

anadir adir govindah

sarva-karana-karanam

 

"Krishna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes."

 

The great sages Asita, Narada and Vyasa all consider him the Supreme Person:

 

arjuna uvaca

param brahma param dhama

pavitram paramam bhavan

purusam sasvatam divyam

adi-devam ajam vibhum

 

ahus tvam rsayah sarve

devarsir naradas tatha

asito devalo vyasah

svayam caiva bravisi me

 

"Arjuna said: You are the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate, the supreme abode and purifier, the Absolute Truth and the eternal divine person. You are the primal God, transcendental and original, and You are the unborn and all-pervading beauty. All the great sages such as Narada, Asita, Devala, and Vyasa proclaim this of You, and now You Yourself are declaring it to me."

 

What is Arjuna's conclusion of Lord Krishna?

 

svayam evatmanatmanam

vettha tvam purusottama

bhuta-bhavana bhutesa

deva-deva jagat-pate

 

"Indeed, You alone know Yourself by Your own potencies, O origin of all, Lord of all beings, God of gods, O Supreme Person, Lord of the universe!"

 

According to Arjuna, Lord Krishna is the God of gods (devadeva), the origin of all (bhuta-bhavana), Lord of all beings (bhutesha), and the Supreme Person, purushottama.

 

And Lord Krishna's conslusion is as follows:

 

yo mam evam asammudho

janati purushottamam

sa sarva-vid bhajati mam

sarva-bhavena bharata

 

"Whoever knows Me as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, without doubting, is to be understood as the knower of everything, and He therefore engages himself in full devotional service, O son of Bharata."

 

One who knows Lord Krishna as the Supreme Person knows everything. Other's, regardless of how educated they may think themselves to be, are in the darkness of avidya. This is the self-evident conclusion of the Gita.

 

 

Vishnu incidentally is the name given to one of the facets of the supreme Lord and nust not be thought of as the guy reclining on the Cobra.

 

 

No, Vishnu is the supreme Absolute Truth, who is unsurpassed and equaled by none including Brahma and Shiva. Lord Krishna confirms this as follows in the Gita:

 

mattah parataram nanyat

kincid asti dhananjaya

mayi sarvam idam protam

sutre mani-gana iva

 

"O conqueror of wealth [Arjuna], there is no Truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread."

 

The Supreme Person (purushottama) Bhagavan Sri Krishna has stated Himself to be the supreme truth. No where does he say some unmanifested higher principle is supreme. Rather He says He Himself is Supreme.

 

Throughout the Gita Lord Krishna uses words such as "I", "Me", "My", etc., yet foolish people conclude that these words do not actually refer to Krishna. Despite no indication anywhere in the Gita, they propose that these words actually refer to something "higher" than Krishna, some unmanifested truth not mentioned anywhere in the Gita. One who reads the Gita with an honest heart will see the self-evident message clearly, that Lord Krishna is the Supreme Truth whom we should surrender to:

 

aham sarvasya prabhavo

mattah sarvam pravartate

iti matva bhajante mam

budha bhava-samanvitah

 

"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who know this perfectly engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts."

 

 

The Supreme three facets are Brahma, Vishnu, Maheshwara (shiva ) otherwise called the creator, sustainer and destroyer.

 

 

This looks to be something picked up from a 5th grade text book on Hinduism written by an Englishman.

 

The Upanishads state:

 

narayanad brahma jayate, narayanad prajapatih prajayate, narayanad indro jayate, narayanad astau vasavo jayante, narayanad ekadasa

rudra jayante, narayanad dvadasadityah.

 

"From Narayana, Brahma is born, and from Narayana, the patriarchs are also born. From Narayana, Indra is born, from Narayana the eight Vasus are born, from Narayana the eleven Rudras are born, from Narayana the twelve Adityas are born."

 

Thus Narayana is clearly established as the Supreme Person.

 

eko vai narayana asin na brahma na isano napo nagni samau neme

dyav-aprthivi na naksatrani na suryah sa ekaki na ramate tasya

dhyanantah sthasya yatra chandogaih kriyamanastakadi-samjnaka

stuti-stomah stomam ucyate.

 

"In the beginning of the creation there was only the Supreme Personality Narayana. There was no Brahma, no Siva, no fire, no moon, no stars in the sky, no sun. There was only Narayana, who creates all and enjoys all"

 

And from the Puranas:

 

narayanah paro devas tasmaj jatas caturmukhah tasmad rudro 'bhavad devah sa ca sarva-jnatam gatah.

 

"Narayana is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and from Him Brahma was born, from whom Siva was born."

[Guest guest]

Prabhu JNDas, there is also this verse:

 

brahmano hi pratisthaham amrtasyavyayasya ca

sasvatasya ca dharmasya sukhasyaikantikasya ca

(B.gita 14.27)

 

Sri Krishna says: Brahman is my effulgence, my aura.

 

- murali

[Guest guest]

The realization of the transcendental nature of this world is needed in order to understand the Avatar of God in this world.

 

What is matter ?

 

Matter is simply a transformation of God,We exist within

God,God exists onto infinity.

 

 

when we take a human body we do not have full consciousness in every sub atomic space within our body,

we don't exist as one with our body,we exist as a consciousness inhabiting a body,we do not have awareness

of every atom doing the work within our bodily functions.

 

For God it is the opposite experience,God has full consciousness present at every point in the totality

of the infinite reality,when God takes a human form

every atomic space is fully conscious,even though

the body is made of molecules or matter,God is fully

one with that body,it is non different with God,

our bodies are different from our selves,not so with God's

Avatars,God is fully one with everything,so in this way

the body God assumes on Earth is not considered material,

Even though it is made of matter,matter itself is God,

And the Avatar form is fully God.

 

For example our bodies are fully God with our consciousness

included pervading the body.

 

God's body is purely God,no other substance is present,

He is not a conscious being within a body,He is an all pervading consciousness,the body itself like all matter

is 100% God,therefore there is no difference between God's

Avatar form and God,they are one and the same substance,

calling something material or spiritual substance is

only to classify what the particular function is of the

substance, Matter and spirit are not really different

substances,they are both the exact same substance manifesting in various ways.

 

So Krsna's body is called spirtual because it's function

is spiritual,the person under the influence of the illusory conception is said to inhabit a material form,

when that person is enlightened his body is said to be spiritual,there is no difference between matter and spirit,

the difference is in perception .

 

The idea of the Vedanta when it states we are one with God and upon enlightenment merge into the infinite should be properly seen in light of the true nature of reality.

 

We are always one with God,we are always merged in the infinite,`the delusion is that we are not,Moksa means

the veil of illusion is lifted,We see the truth,

God is everything,everything is one with God,including

our selves.

 

This doesn't mean that we are 100% one with God,we do not exist everywhere,we do not have the power of the infinite

at our beck and call, we do not control the cosmos.

 

We are one with God but we are not the same,whereas the Avatar of God is one with God and the same,that form is

in control of the cosmos,that form is purely God the full consciousness of God is present in every atom in the infinite cosmos,the Avatar form is a manifestation of that

consciousness,so is our body,but we are not the same as our body,God is.

 

so to say the Avatar form is a temporary material form

God takes is a misunderstanding,the enlightened person sees

the Avatar form as being non different from the infinite ,

labels like material or spiritual are concepts that

apply to ourselves,for us a material object is made up of

atoms,molecules,solid substance,for the enlightened soul

matter is seen for what it truely is , molecules,atoms

and matter are the same as spirit,fully conscious,

fully God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[REASWARAN]

I am afraid I cannot agree with you. The tradition of the Hinduisim has never been autocratic and we have all been encouraged to think. I studied under a realised teacher and there was never one of us who would accept teachings at face value. we always did our own thinking and arrived at our own conclusions which is the only way at least for me. Hence you see the scriptures only point the way- you have to walk it yourself. There is you will agree a difference in knowing the way from your house to the temple and in actually reaching the temple. Which is perhaps why I would prefer cogent original arguements on a subject rather than pure cut and paste from the scriptures.

The point I made stands valid, that it is the social situation which influences most of our beliefs, which is where our ethical concepts are derived from.

 

 

[Guest guest]

which teacher did you study under, out of curiosity?

 

And are you any relation to Eknath Easwaran?

[Guest guest]

REASWARAN : "I studied under a realised teacher and there was never one of us who would accept teachings at face value. we always did our own thinking and arrived at our own conclusion'

 

REASWARAN (elsewhere, as an example of doing your own thinking and arriving at your own conclusion): "I think you forget that the purpose of all idols, icons, etc is a very simple one- bring in front of you into focus an object on which you can concentrate as a representation of the lord.

Ultimately you must move from the concrete to the abstract, from the Lord with form to the formless , otherwise there would be no progress."

--------------------------

 

Quating scriptures is not just cut and paste. It is to show that there is a basis for what one says, based on the great lituratures of India.

 

Not that one can just make general statements like you do, such as "In all the Vedas" or "In the Gita." , but then not produce a single specific verse that backs up what you say.

 

Who was your realised teacher.

 

If you or he cannot back up your statements with scriptual verification from the great acharyas of the past, then you are baseing "right and wrong" on your own "whims and feelings".

[yasodanandana]

or... dear reaswaran you have come to your conclusion reasoning and using your free mind... also let us to do like that... so (as your realized master have done with you) bring logical or scriptural demonstrations to help our understanding..... not "I THINK THAT", this is not a help... absolutely

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

First you speak about how others are ignorant of the Gita because they believe Lord Krishna to be the Supreme Person. You stated that even a casual reading of the Gita would make it clear that their view point is wrong. Yet when presented with substantial evidence from the Gita itself, suddenly you are not interested in discussing the Gita, but instead want to discuss social anomalies in Madhya Pradesh?

 

I think it is obvious you really do not have a clear understanding of the Gita and its message, yet you want to pose as though you know. You laugh at the personalists for their ignorant understanding of scripture, yet oddly enough it is you who are speaking absurdities such as "the supreme trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva" (something manufactured for 5th grade "World Religions" text books).

 

Bhagavan Sri Krishna is Purushottama, the Supreme Person, and this is echoed on every page of the Gita. Those with a poor fund of knowledge sometimes profess that the Gita speaks of surrender to an unknown, unmanifest divine beyond Krishna. Nowhere in the Gita is such a concept ever introduced. Throughout the Gita Lord Krishna affirms that He Himself is the Supreme Absolute Truth and that surrender to Him is the ultimate goal of life. Great saints such as Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, and Chaitanya have demonstrated practically the application of these divine instructions of the Gita. None of these saints and acharyas have hypothesized an unknown, unmanifest divine beyond Krishna.

 

Krishna's own statements in the Gita are crystal clear and require no speculation as to his intent:

 

sarva-dharman parityajya

mam ekam sharanam vraja

aham tvam sarva-papebhyo

mokshayishyami ma shucah

 

"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear."

 

Krishna tells to Arjuna, "mam ekam sharanam vraja", "Take Me as your only shelter!"

 

aham tvam sarva-papebhyo mokshayishyami, "I will liberate you from all sinful reactions!"

 

Krishna the Supreme Person, Purushottama, is speaking to Arjuna, the person, and instructing him directly what to do: "Surrender to Me and take Me as your only shelter. I will deliver you!"

 

And Arjuna's conclusion after hearing the Gita: karishye vacanam tava. "I will act according to Your instructions."

 

The concept of an unmanifest impersonal divine beyond Krishna and superior to Krishna is a fairy tale never touched upon in the Gita.

[Guest guest]

you said

 

"The tradition of the Hinduisim has never been autocratic and we have all been encouraged to think. "

 

that is maybe your experience,but we are not speaking about hinduism,we are speaking of Vedanta,"Hinduism" can mean

anything,Vedanta is that which is presented in the Vedic

shastra.

 

All Vedantic schools are autocratic by definition,they present the views of the Vedic shastra,that is by definition

autocratic.

 

Otherwise there is no meaning to Vedanta,you may as well call it "hinduism" and present your own philosopy,

when you accept the Vedic shastra then you are accepting

an autocratic system of thought,in the same way if you

go to university and study you do not create your own version and then expect to get a passing grade,you must

study what the teacher presents,then if you have

passed the exam ,then you get your diploma,that is the

process of accepting any type of knowledge,if you want

to create your own philosophy or your own school or university that is fine,but then you will be seen as

a pretender if you claim that your version

is the same as the autocratic version.

 

Vedanta is the philosophy of the Vedic school,if you claim

your philosophy to be Vedanta and it differs from the

text ,if you also claim that Vedanta allows for

deviation in it's name in the form of arriving at your own conclusions then what is the point of refering to your own

philosophy as Vedanta,Vedanta by definition is that

which is presented by Vedic shastra,not by you or any other source.

 

there is a class of "teacher" who want to capitalize on the good name of the Vedic shastra by presenting their own philosophy and calling that Vedanta,if the Vedic siddhanta

is worthy of their promotion why do they insist on you

making your own interpretation ?

 

It's like saying I am a Christian,I teach Christianity,

but what Jesus actually said isn't as important as

speculating on the nature of absolute truth,

why involve Jesus in my philosophy ?

 

clearly it would only be to capitalize and exploit

the name of Jesus in my quest for followers,wealth,

or fame, if I was sincere in my path i would either

present Christianity as that which Jesus taught,

or I would present my philosophy without calling it

Christianity.

 

so this is what you and your teacher are doing,presenting

your own philosophy and claiming that to be the teachings

of a philosophy which insists on absolute obedience,

if you want to present your own philosophy,fine,

why drag Krsna or the Vedic shastra into it ?

 

you will only lose respect if you present your philosophy

as being Vedic to those who know what Vedic dharma is.

 

Vedic Dharma is based on submission to the Guru,

not speculative philosophising or mental creations

of what is truth and what is not,the

vedic path is acceptance of ....the Vedic path.

[ShegavichaRana]

I would like to know, whether they believe in transmigration of sould and eternity of souls? The human soul pervades the whole body, so can we say that it is located only in one place? I am not sure.

[REASWARAN]

 

I would like to know where exactly I have made this statement. According to me this is something which is an interpretation that you have given to my posts. Secondly whenever a view is expressed my me, it seems to be taken as an attack on you or your beliefs. This is what I meant earlier too, that rather than an effort to broaden one's perspectives my opening the mind to other vistas, you seem to promptly condemn any view which differs from your own and attempt to refute it with reams of cut ans paste material but hardly any reasoned views of your own.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Reaswaran, everyone has an opinion, this doesn't mean everyone's opinion is correct. You make statements about Krishna, and what He meant, but these are not substantiated in any way with the statements of Krishna. When JNDas says something about Krishna, he backs it up with direct statements from Krishna. You may not like that since you only back up your opinion with your own opinion.

[Guest guest]

And this itself is an opinion !

The true test of assimilation of a philosophy is your ability to defend it on the strength of your own understanding and not by repeating the text of the philosophy.

 

[Guest guest]

If you are going to say this is what Krishna means then back it up with what Krishna says. Otherwise it is your own philosophy and you really should start your own religion. I can say "Eating meat has no karma because animals have no soul, this is sanatan dharma". On what basis is this. "I don't need to repeat the text that this is based on after all I've assimilated the philosophy".

[Guest guest]

you complain that people are cutting and pasting quotes

but not giving their realization,simply repeating rhetoric,

not speaking from realization.

 

well they are pasting quotes,but for you to say they are not speaking from realization is speculation on your part,

in fact you do what you complain about,for instance;

 

No it is not Krishna who is saying this- the Supreme unmanifested formless is saying it- Krishna is only the human medium through which the supreme is acting-

If you remember my earlier posts wherein I had mentioned that the Purusha is inactive and when in contact with Prakriti can acts come into being. I believe you are confusing Krishna to be the Supreme himslef instead of an Avataar- do not forget Krishna (the human form) dies of an arrow in his leg at the end of the Mahabharat. This is consistent with a human manifestation only.

 

Sorry my two earlier posts came out as Guest- I had forgotten to log in- the cookie does not seem to be doing its job too well.

 

 

 

you are repeating the rhetoric of the Advaita school

word for word,where is your experiencial realization,

why are you only pasting dogma ?

 

The fact is that "your" philosophy is not based

on your realiztion,obviously it's been programed

into you,we can tell by the absurdity of your claim.

 

The same exact absurdity of the advaita school,

Purusha is inactive until in contact with prakriti ?

 

Do you even know what the words mean ?

 

What do you think that statement means,in english please.

 

your advaita rhetoric is seen as nonsensical by all

Vaisnava schools,"the formless is speaking",

what kind of realization do YOU have to make such a claim ?

 

saying that because people quote shastra that they have no realization is in error,many people here have full realization but do not have much confidence in relating

that experience in their own words,isn't the

mantra you probably worship "the tao which can be explained is not the real tao" or " the truth is beyond

words" etc ?

 

Many people here can explain in their own words

but find repeating themselves to insincere people

a waste of time, they may just post some

quotes from the Gita and leave the results to God

and your ability to progress beyond your

Ahankara,or false sense of realization.

 

what realization have you had that prompts you to

spout advaita dogma ?

 

Have you had direct conscious communication with

the supreme intelligemce ?

 

if not then your so called realization is piffle,

mental imaginings,real realization comes

from the supreme being,not from our "feelings",

or conceptions,Self realization means direct

communion,direct communication with the supreme,

until you have THAT experience,which many here have had,

all your claims of a superior open minded

state is nothing more then self aggrandizment,

cheap promotion,valueless and self descieving.

 

[Guest guest]

My dear friens,

I think u have been misunderstood by some one.

GOd Shiva is not nirgun, but he is Nirakar(bodyless).

He is the ocean of attributes(Gun) but still he is Nirakar!!!!!1

Why?

I can explain u. Nirakar does not mean no existance of himself at all. Nirakar means no body. He is nothing but a form of LIGHT. Yes, like star in the night, like a candle. And how can u believe that God shiva is a form of Light?

Look, in Hindu philosophy, the Holy Geeta says, God is Nirakar. Jesus Christ has said, GOd is a Light, in Holy Bible. THat's why, they light up candles in Church. Muslims say Allha is a NOOR. That means God is Light.

Hence, all holy book of all religions have taught us that there is only 1 God & we r all children of thesame.

 

What do u think?

Think & Think

Replay

See u

[Guest guest]

My dear frd,

Lord Krishna, was the No.1 human being in personality in the whole world. He was having all attrributes, powers, qualities, which should have to have a great personality.

Howevver, my frd. He was a Lord but not God. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN Lord & God. Lords were many like Krishna, Ram, Narayan. But who created all of them so great. That is he-God

U say the creator of Gita is Krishna. Then tell me, there is a point in Gita-"I will come on this earth & i will take a body of a human being who has taken the maximum births on this earth, at that time when this world becomes guilty, all religions in this world become irreligious, when there is utmost voilece, crime, etc. in this world. ANd I will change this world from Hell to Heave."

This is the promise which had given by the creator of Gita in the Gita itself. Now tell me, there are all types of happinings happining in this world today. Thsi world has become Hell. Now, tell me where is Krishna, coz he has to arrive on this earth to keep his promise. WHERE IS HE>

THis proves, that Krishna is not the God he is just teh Lord, God is different & he has ARRIVED ON THSI EARTH, my friend.

Come, jaoin ur hand wiht the Almighty God & he will take u to teh Heave with him. Reallyyyyyy

Do Replay

See uuuuuu

 

[Guest guest]

GOd Shiva is not nirgun, but he is Nirakar(bodyless).

•••••not bodyless.. without material body, very different. The figure you see in the paintings and in the murtis is the spiritual body of shiva, not our imagination or speculation

 

Nirakar does not mean no existance of himself at all. Nirakar means no body

••••body means personality.. wich kind of existence is the one who lacks personality?

 

He is nothing but a form of LIGHT.

••••mmh

 

the Holy Geeta says, God is Nirakar.

•••where?

 

Jesus Christ has said, GOd is a Light,

•••where?

 

THat's why, they light up candles in Church

••••no, it is an offering to god or to the saints.. like indian puja/arati to the murti or the spiritual master

 

Hence, all holy book of all religions have taught us that there is only 1 God & we r all children of thesame.

••••being us with body, how can our father miss the body

 

harekrishna

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I will come on this earth & i will take a body of a human being who has taken the maximum births on this earth, at that time when this world becomes guilty, all religions in this world become irreligious, when there is utmost voilece, crime, etc. in this world. ANd I will change this world from Hell to Heave."

••••all it is quite right... except the "i will take the body of a human"

 

yada yada hi dharmasya

glanir bhavati bharata

abhyutthanam adharmasya

tadatmanam srjamy aham

 [bg. 4.7]

 

where is the word human body?

 

Now, tell me where is Krishna, coz he has to arrive on this earth to keep his promise. WHERE IS HE>

••••in the holy name and in the teachings of the pure vaishnava spiritual master.. the fact that we are speaking of these subject demonstrates that krsna is there

 

Come, jaoin ur hand wiht the Almighty God & he will take u to teh Heave with him.

••••oh yes, but you have not come to join hands.. you have come with fake interpretations to make religious wars. if you believe that god is allmighty, ominpotent.. you have also to admit that he can shows himself in infinite ways.

 

this is also an omnipotence

[SubashRao]

PAMHO

Dandavats to all

 

 

Just when I thought I've came to a conclusion that 'GOD' is a person...another mind bogling question just entered my brain to drive me crazy...and that is:

 

Do 'I' the 'Atman/jiva' has a form? or am 'I' just all pervading 'light/consciousness'?

 

[theist]

Not only do you have a form you are that form. In the spiritual world we are the body unlike this material world.

 

Siddha-svarupa.

 

But even if you consider yourself to be just light you are certainly not all pervading. More like a localized insignificant pencil-point. Which is also a form by the way.

 

First idea to accept is that you are not God. If you were God you would not have forgoten it. God suffers no identity crisis like we tiny jivas are prone to do.

[SubashRao]

 

thanks Theistji... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Guest guest]

a group of devotees and myself where once preaching in a multicultural place. At a fair diff religious groups had stands. So a debate ensued between a Brahmakumari and a passionate Hare Krishna. Soon all the lights went out....electrical fault....the Brahmakumaris could not meditate on their red light anymore and the Hare Krishna' just ecstically chanted....chanting proces is not limited or dependant !!!!!