whatever happened to respect?

[soulflyer]

I am new. My name I choose not to disclose because nothing is safe on the internet.

 

I have for the past 3 days been reading through this site, and under the spiritual section I have found numerous threads about how Krishna is Supreme, and other "incarnations" such as Dattatreya, Swaminarayan, Sai Baba etc are all fakes.

 

This has appalled me. We are Hindu. We are one big Family. We respect all other faiths, yet for some reason we do not respet our own.

 

People have different spiritual paths in Hinduism, and through the grace of reincarnation we find the right path and thus gain moksha at the end.

 

This is a fact, this is one of the 9 fundamental beliefs of Hinduism. We are taught to be tolerant and respect all.

 

I feel that all those who have created threads tha have made indrect taunts, or slandered any other hindu faith should really consider penance for their actions.

 

At the end of the day, this kind of writing is slandering God, be it supreme or a devta. It is still a form of worship for us.

 

Respect All, Trust Few, Follow One.

[gHari]

 

You may appreciate this article - Nonsectarian Religion.

 

I would have to agree that while diplomacy is frowned upon, still much direct criticism here does not come from Godly intention. Perhaps we can follow your example.

 

gHari

[Kulapavana]

well... you can respectfully disagree with certain philosophies or conclusions of other people. nonsense is nonsense. dont accept some bogus philosophy just to show your respect. Truth is not whatever you like.

[Guest guest]

I have found numerous threads about how Krishna is Supreme, and other "incarnations" such as Dattatreya, Swaminarayan, Sai Baba etc are all fakes.

--different.. you have found numerous threads where is said that fakes masters are not incarnations only because some people say it

 

We are Hindu. We are one big Family.

--so let us protect our hinduism and family from cheaters. Let the rest of the world see that it is a serious path, not complete madness

 

People have different spiritual paths in Hinduism, and through the grace of reincarnation we find the right path and thus gain moksha at the end.

--reincarnation gives no grace. In karma/reincarnation we get exactly what we deserve. If we are devoted to cheater we get cheating and spiritual involution, so we take birth in a more materialistic life's condition

 

We are taught to be tolerant and respect all.

--that includes not to put together criminals with real saints... that includes respecting people wanting spiritual knowledge showing reality, not cheating

 

I feel that all those who have created threads tha have made indrect taunts, or slandered any other hindu faith should really consider penance for their actions.

--they'll be happy to chant one more hare krsna mantra: "hare krsna, hare krsna, krsna krsna, hare hare, hare rama, hare rama, rama rama, hare hare"

 

At the end of the day, this kind of writing is slandering God, be it supreme or a devta.

---if everything is god or devata, why are you criticizing people who are gods and devatas? If Sai Baba is god, i am also god.. so do not criticize me..

 

Respect All, Trust Few

--that's the point.......... trust few....

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna!

 

All glories to Srila Prabhupada! I offer my humble obeisance unto him!

 

I would like to give my 2 cents worth reply to the first post.

 

Your claim that there is less tolerance in the different post is correct to a certain degree but also we should be smart to differentiate truth from bogus.

 

Srila Prabhuapda says that we should speak the truth and not compromise it. So, may be, in that process, when people talk their version of the truth, it sometimes crosses limits.

 

However, in order to maintain the truth of GOD and the true believers of GOD one has to fight and argue to defend GOD and HIS followers.

 

In the Bhagavad Gita, i will give an analogy, Krishna talks about Non-Violence. Non-Violence simply means not just hurting somebody it means one should maintain DHARMA and that is why Krishna allowed Arjuna to kill and fight and not allow him to the forest.

 

Also, there is another example, Saint Madhavacharya once was practicing Mouna Vradha but during the period he was practicing Mouna Vradha, he was talking to no one but only preaching Bhagavad Gita. So, which means he was talking. But the point is he was only talking about Krishna and no other. So, the essence is talking about uneccessary things is deemed Mouna Vradha and not about GOD.

 

Same way, tolerance should be practiced but not at the cost of BLASPHEME of KRISHNA. That is not TOLERANCE.

 

In the Nector of Devotion written by Srila Prabhuapada expalins the duties of a devotee and how a devotee should counteract blaspheme arguments. If i remember correctly, the book says 3 or 4 points on what a devotee should do, i cannot remember all,but i remember only 3 points

 

a devotee should argue with counterarguments effectively quoating from scriptures defending his/her stance.

 

if a devotee listens to blaspheme and cannot countarargue, he should slit his throat killing him/herself or

 

a devotee should just walk away from the scene.

 

 

So, the point is tolerance at the cost of what, we should only tolerate so much to protect the scriptures and the devotees and GOD and not listen to . people throw. This is true non-violence and true tolerance and not showbottle tolerance.

 

Lack of interest and selfish attitide of we so called HINDUS over the years in our culture has led to the invasion of the British and the Mughals. It is not because we are following Dharma and we are tolerant. Even today, Indians have no clue of their own culture and try to ape western philosophy.

 

Is this tolerance?? NO!!

 

This is just lack of interest and selfish thinking on part of the Indians.

 

Just like Arjuna was encouraged to fight to maintain Dharma and Madhavacharya followed Mouna Vradha by preaching the GITA and a true devotee should counterargue from scriptures to protect the Scriptures and GOD, and ultimately maintain DHARMA is TRUE TOLERANCE and NON-VIOLENCE.

 

Keeping quiet and saying OK to anything and everything is NOT TOLERANCE but a cheater, a lier and a person without character. Simply put, that person is a charlatan!

 

Haribol!

 

anand

 

[Guest guest]

He accepted nonsense called Christianity and Islam even though they aren't Vedic paths. He even called Jesus and Mohammed messengers when their message had nothing to do with Krishna. So was SP a diplomat? Certainly, but his intentions were to convert christians and Muslims to KC by feeding their ego, not by thrashing it. He had noble intentions. So lying for a noble cause (such as getting more people into KC) is justifiable.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna!

 

All glories to Srila Prabhupada! I offer my humble obeisance unto him!

 

"He even called Jesus and Mohammed messengers when their message had nothing to do with Krishna. So was SP a diplomat? Certainly, but his intentions were to convert christians and Muslims to KC by feeding their ego, not by thrashing it. He had noble intentions. So lying for a noble cause (such as getting more people into KC) is justifiable"

 

I am not sure we can speculate!

 

Yes, SP was a diplomat but not in the way diplomats are today. While he acknolwdged Christ and Mohammed and that showed his purity. Also, he did that only because it was truth not because he needed to please the Americans or anybody. So, one should be careful in explaining what SP did.

 

He was a diplomat who preached the truth in a fashion that was scientific and based on scriptures. So, he said Christ and Mohammed are messengers. But he did not lie and pose as a diplomat to make the Americans happy. That is not correct what you say.

 

Although Christ and Mohammed did not directly talk about Krishna, they did talk about the principles of love of God. Remember, do not associate your thoughts with current day christianity and Muslims. SP did not accept the church or the mosque. All he said was Christ and Mohammed (more Christ than Mohammed) are messangers who preached love of GOD. Also he rejected the authority of the Church and its corruption. So we have to be clear in what we say. Now days, christians are christians bcos of a particular church affliation and not bcos they are in love with Christ. So there is a difference and SP made that difference between Christ and CHurch. While he accepted Christ as a messenger, her rejected the Church.

 

So, SP did not lie as a diplomat, he was a diplomat in the sense that he preached KC but also was tolerant if people actually followed true teachings of Christ although not directly in KC, he accepted any religion that taught LOVE OF GOD. Again, this is tolerance in the right mode and we should learn.

 

However, we should not speculate the intentions of SP of his diplomacy and as a pure devotee of Krishna, he did not lie as a diplomat but was a diplomat in a capacity to accept religion teaching LOVE OF GOD.

 

Haribol!

 

anand

[Kulapavana]

Srila Prabhupada tried to emphasize the BEST side of these religions. True spirituality is not limited to the Vedic circles. It was not so much diplomacy in action as the deep love for all living entities that motivated Srila Prabhupada in making these statements.

[Guest guest]

He accepted nonsense called Christianity and Islam even though they aren't Vedic paths.

---prabhupada said that christ and mohammed were real messengers of god.. and it is true. Veda means knowledge, god's knowledge. So if there's a little god's knowledge we have something, even if corrupted, with vedic qualities inside.

In many paths and leaders that you have listed before as hindus, there's absolutely no adherence with any vedic concept or generic religius concept.

Islamism, in comparison with veda can be gross and rude.. but it teaches to respect and fear the true lord, the highest(lord) allah, not some poor human like sa baba or osho.

So what's more vedic? Sai baba because he's indian? naah..

 

He even called Jesus and Mohammed messengers when their message had nothing to do with Krishna.

--you're wrong... jesus's and mohammed's message bring a partial, but true, feature of krsna, the almighty god, the one who his main task is not to love openly, but to correct sins.

Krsna does it for example when he's killing demons..

 

Certainly, but his intentions were to convert christians and Muslims to KC by feeding their ego, not by thrashing it

--that's due your little knowledge of gaudya vaishnavism. Many gaudya masters of the past stated that islamism and christianism are religions, even if not first class.. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu itself gave autenticity to koran using it to explain some principles (even the harinama samkirtana), to some muslim people he met in his mission..

 

so the opinion of gaudyas (=hare krsna) about christianism and islamism... and the opinion about mayavadis, inpersonalist, and self proclamed god.. is not new , and it is not something created specifically by srila prabhupada to cheat westerners

 

get some information... (and give up such cheaters like sai baba, osho and so..) harekrsna!!

 

[theist]

Such small minded opinions. In a universe that is incomprehenisbly large and which is only the size of a small mustard seed in a bag of other larger universes some crippled minded individuals think God only sends His representatives to India. Just like some Jews think He only talks to them etc.

 

This is to be expected but when they display the audacity to to try to explain why Srila Prabhupada didn't really mean what he said about Christ it becomes way too much.

 

Thanks for the invite but many of us have crawled out of our own little sectarian boxes and we prefer the open space and promise of more in our budding God realization.

 

Come on out of your tiny boxes all hindus christians and moslems and let us behold the omnipresent Lord together. Or not, as you may prefer your box instead.

[Guest guest]

"Thanks for the invite but many of us have crawled out of our own little sectarian boxes"

 

where i have invited to sectarism?

[theist]

you are the same guest to accept you position would be to accept sectarianism.

 

Would it be too much to ask the guests to at least adopt an intial at the end of their posts?

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

You are an offender - your EGO prevents you from see that!

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

they won't do that - because these types make comments and they do not want any connection to them after - should they do an about face - which happens often with these kinds of offensive posters - I mean really if they think that strongly about their posts - why not place a name.

 

As you know - when you have multiple guest postings - are there mulitiple guests? It can be disconcerting to the discussions.

 

YS,

[theist]

It really gets impossible when one guest posts to say the other guest posting is not him. Like he is wants to clear up just who is who. LOL!!!

 

"Oh gee thanks for letting us know guest, I was confused there for a moment. I thought guest was you."

[Guest guest]

You talk about Sai baba and Osho being cheaters. True, but then Jesus (if he ever existed) and Mohammed were cheaters too and you must ignore them and concentrate on Gaudiya Vaishnavam. Deal?

 

Their message had nothing to do with Krishna. You can twist their words and say, "look, they talk about love of god" and so on. But the fact remains, there is no mention of Krishna, his name or his pastimes. They used the word 'God' to frighten people, not to enlighten them. They used religion as a political ideology.

 

In short, aside from Vedic religions, there is no truth to any other religion. Christianity and Islam are hoax. Jesus (if he ever existed) and Mohammed were super fraud. Nothing more to say on that. The onus is on you to prove that Jesus and Mohammed were Krishna Bhaktas. Prove from their speeches and writings that they were Krishna Bhaktas, instead of merely giving politically correct messages.

 

If Jesus (or mohammed) says his way to God is the only way (without giving any rational explanation), that not only makes him look like a crackpot but it has nothing to do with Krishna. So your assertion that jesus was a god-lover makes no sense. At best, those men were confused. At worst, they were psycho.

[Guest guest]

"you must ignore them and concentrate on Gaudiya Vaishnavam. Deal?"

 

to concentrate on gaudya vaishnavism.. i have to concentrate on spiritual master's instructions and advices. There's no possibility to follow a path aganinst the spiritual masters. You too must consider it, bhagavad gita says that to be successiful in spiritual life you have to surrender to a "tattva darshinah" .. one who sees the truth.

If you bypass this step, how can you call yourself dharmic, hindu and so on?

 

"Their message had nothing to do with Krishna. You can twist their words and say, "look, they talk about love of god" and so on. But the fact remains, there is no mention of Krishna, his name or his pastimes."

 

there's many vedic scriptures that do not speak of intimate aspect of krsna's divinity.... Krsna is mentioned in a relatively few vedic scriptures, this does not mean that we throw away them. Look at the features of god as depicted in koran and bible, and you'll see easily that they're speaking of the majesty, greatness of god.. even sometime fearfulness... they're speaking of narayana, vishnu...

In the gita you have the parameters, read bible and koran.. apply such parameters (if you are interested) and verify

 

"In short, aside from Vedic religions, there is no truth to any other religion."

 

apply gita's parameters and you'll check what's a religion, what is vedic, what's dharmic or not.

 

"The onus is on you to prove that Jesus and Mohammed were Krishna Bhaktas."

 

it is easy.. if they were not empowered by krsna, they did not teach to so many people (=billions) the love for god, even if in an initial stage.

 

"If Jesus (or mohammed) says his way to God is the only way (without giving any rational explanation)"

 

yes.. for some kind of people it is good to say so. If i do not pay attention to my master he says "look at me only.. there's no one to see, only me is to see". In palestine and arabia there's no dharmic masters, temples, devotees around.. .. so mohammed and jesus have said "look at me only.."

 

And i is good.. now we understand what was his (good and mercyful) purpose

 

--

 

being not surrendered to a spiritual master, you do not belong to any religion.. so what you want? why you make this competition? what this business has to do with you?

 

first understand the guru's principle... follow a real guru, take a spiritual birth.. then come back to discuss.

 

you like dharma? you defend dharma? giving yourself the name "hindu" means nothing

 

so for first BE yourself DHARMIC!!

 

then speak..

[theist]

Jesus IS the only way. So is Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu the only way. Srila Prabhupada is the only way.

 

How can this be?

 

Because bhakti is personal. There is no impersonal bhakti. The absolutely pure devotee is bhakti personified. Bhakti is the only way.

 

That doesn't mean Christianity is the only way. There was no Christian religion at that time.

 

This offensive sectarianist should just be ignored. He wants us to ignore Srila Prabhupada and accept his conclusions on such an important thing. What does that tell you.

[Guest guest]

You can believe in any number of illusions, Theistji. To consider a myth (a horrible one at that) on the same level as Lord Chaitanya or Srila Prabhupada is Vaishnava-aparadha. You have no idea what's in store for you. Surrender to Krishna and Srila Prabhupada and give up other dangerous (semitic) myths. It's for your good.

[theist]

On second thought, please don't tell me.

[Guest guest]

what's surrendering to srila prabhupada if not following his words?

how can you surrender if you think that what prabhupada's instruction is compatible with your opinion is a real instruction and what is not is something to cheat westerners to give them krsna consciousness?

 

follow what the guru says.. otherwise how can you have opinions about krsna consciousness?

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

Quote:

 

If Jesus...says his way to God is the only way (without giving any rational explanation), that not only makes him look like a crackpot but it has nothing to do with Krishna. So your assertion that jesus was a god-lover makes no sense...

 

Reply:

 

Incidentally - this issue of ‘Jesus’ as - the only way to God - is based on a mistranslation of Jesus’ words in John 14.6 - actually - Jesus never claimed that he is the only way to redemption or God.

 

The problem enters in the translation of the word - “comes”:

 

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. ‘No one comes’ to the Father except through Me." [John 14.6]

 

The word "...comes..." is rendered from the Greek word - "eroktai" - a very present tense verb - thus a more proper translation should read:

 

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. 'None here comes' to the Father except through Me."

 

Also to understand what Jesus said look at Bhagavad Gita 4.34:

 

Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.

[gHari]

 

If anyone loves Krsna, he must love Lord Jesus Christ also. And if one perfectly loves Jesus Christ he must love Krsna If he says, “Why shall I love Krsna? I shall love Jesus Christ,” then he has no knowledge. And if one says, “Why shall I love Jesus Christ? I shall love...”, then he has also no knowledge.

 

If one understands Krsna, then he will understand Jesus Christ. If one understands Jesus Christ, you’ll understand Krsna.