• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I used to be a hindu

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
Wisdom is the ability to use knowledge in a beneficial way. So, when I say that I observe much wisdom, I am saying that I read many teachings that are potentially very beneficial.

Besides, how can a book be transcendental? They were written by humans.

There may be many readings that are potentially very beneficial like you say. Still, there is difference between material and spiritual deeds. Unless you share the 'wisdom' I can only assume and may be way off-mark.

Besides, anything spiritual is transcendental. In the spiritual world there is no difference between the name and the named. Meaning - a 'mango' and 'word' mange are non-different in the spiritual world. It is the Absolute platform. So, even the book with Lordṣ pastimes is transcendental (spiritual).

I thought Vaishnavism was the largest sect of Hinduism in India.

No. It is the smallest.

But even still, just because the events may not be exact history, that does not make them any less valuable; if anything, them being more mythological makes them FAR more rich.

Rāmāyan, Mahābhārata etc. are facts, not fiction. Although it is not needed, still I will say; there are places where Mahābhārata says temples existed/were built, river was etc. and we find they are either there or they were there at some point. If it was mythology, how could the so called 'novelist' know what exists in Sri Lanka or South India or North...and write a 'novel' with everything coming together perfectly...even write a scripture like the Bhagavad Gītā to validate a novel like Mahābhārata...that too thousands of years back!

The source of science is observation. That is timeless.

What science observes is 'material'. Source of material is 'spiritual'. Thus, what is spiritual cannot be known by material observations, till the source makes itself known.

Something like - if all the torches and lights of the world are used at night to see the Sun, can one see the sun? Sun can be seen only through it's mercy (own rays). No other way to see the sun is possible.

I disagree. Not all sex is pure sense satisfaction. It can also be a huge expression of deep love, and a way to build connection. While I don't really adhere to the notion of sex and sexuality being a path to the Supreme, it's not necessarily a hindrance, either.

Sex is sense gratification. I love you because you give pleasure to my senses and vice-verse. This is the way of material love. This is not love - it is lust.

Sex is not a hindrance when it is engaged in, for the purpose of raising God conscious children. Not for sense gratification.

Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita:

balaḿ balavatāḿ cāhaḿ
kāma-rāga-vivarjitam
dharmāviruddho bhūteṣu
kāmo 'smi bharatarṣabha​

I am the strength of the strong, devoid of passion and desire. I am sex life which is not contrary to religious principles, O lord of the Bhāratas [Arjuna].[B.G. 7.11]

That doesn't answer my question.

Spiritual field exists. The proof is there in the scriptures with method to progressing on the spiritual field clearly shown. You have to walk the path to know. Something like - proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Can't inquire without doubt of the established state of things. Spirit of doubting is not disbelief. I don't know who told you that, but he/she is misinformed in this matter.

There are 4 kinds of people who inquire into the Absolute Truth. It is stated as follows in the Bhagavad Gita by Lord Krishna:

catur-vidhā bhajante māḿ
janāḥ sukṛtino 'rjuna
ārto jijñāsur arthārthī
jñānī ca bharatarṣabha​

O best among the Bhāratas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me — the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute.[B.G. 7.16]

As for doubt, I have already provided the verse earlier:

ajñaś cāśraddadhānaś ca
saḿśayātmā vinaśyati
nāyaḿ loko 'sti na paro
na sukhaḿ saḿśayātmanaḥ​

But ignorant and faithless persons who doubt the revealed scriptures do not attain God consciousness; they fall down. For the doubting soul there is happiness neither in this world nor in the next.[B.G. 4.40]

Therefore I say, one should inquire and not doubt.

Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, a Great Shaiva Sage, has taught that the highest level of understanding is qualified non-dualism, which is the recognition of both paths being necessary, with the first step being dualism, and the next being non-dualism.

What the scripture say is as under:

vadanti tat tattva-vidas
tattvaḿ yaj jñānam advayam
brahmeti paramātmeti
bhagavān iti śabdyate​

"The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases of understanding by the knower of the Absolute Truth, and all of them are identical. Such phases of the Absolute Truth are expressed as Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān."[S.B. 1.2.11]

Brahman = Formless feature of Supreme Lord - the all pervading light
Paramātmā = localized feature of Supreme Lord in all our hearts - the four armed Viśnu.
Bhagavān = The original fountainhead Personality of Godhead - Kṛṣṇa.

Those Scriptures were written at one point, before which they did not exist. The Puranas are not timeless.

All knowledge has been derived from the Vedās. Vedās are timeless and as they are not authored by anyone, they are called apauroshaya. Puranas were derived from the Vedic wisdom by Srila Vyasadeva. Vyasadeva is the literary incarnation of Supreme Lord. He is not a conditioned soul like you and me.

Argumentum ad numerum: argument from the number of people who believe it, is logically fallacious. Just because a large amount of people believe something to be true, does not make it true. But just because they may be wrong, does not make them mad and foolish. So, yes, they may be wrong, and no, I do not think they're necessarily mad and foolish for it.

Besides, I don't think Yoga and Ayurveda are completely invalid. Both are great modes of everyday living, and could almost certainly help cut down the visits to the hospital. But they aren't infallible, and there's much they don't have that modern science does. They should supplement each other, rather than working against each other.

Ayurveda is a science. It is derived from the infallible Vedās and therefore is infallible. So, half the world is not wrong. Also, Ayurveda is not working against modern science. What makes you say so?

So, you have read all 18 Puranas?

Besides, I have also done research, and I am not convinced of anything beyond the existence of Gods. We shall see what further research will bring, because there's always going to be that one small bit of information that could potentially change one's entire paradigm about the way things are.

What convinces me need not necessarily convince you and vice-verse.
I did my research and am convinced.

I think we somewhat disagree as to what the English word "Spirituality" refers to. It means, to increase one's spirit, which in this case is somewhat related in concept to the word "attitude."

...if that's not further proof as to how much English as a language sucks, when the same word can have two completely different meanings, I don't know what is.

I am speaking of spirituality from the Hindu religion perspective.

Inquiry cannot exist without doubt.

Please see my reply above.

Why won't you answer the question? Is there no reason?

I felt the question did not qualify for a reply, so I did not answer. Had Lord Krishna not spoken the Bhagvad Gītā, it would have got detected over the last 5,000 years (after Lord Krishna wound up His pastimes and left). It is a scripture accepted by all traditions of Hindu Religion.

It seems that there's a lot of fluff in that word-by-word translation. Again, based on some research, the word "ajnah" simply means one without knowledge, without specifying what that knowledge entails.

There is no fluff. If you see the context of the discussion, you will understand the specifics of knowledge being spoken of. It is no rocket science.

So, whoever wrote that worked in a personal interpretation into the translation. Though considering how poorly Sanskrit translates into English, that's almost impossible to avoid. That's why multiple translations from multiple viewpoints are vital.

If it is a word-to-word, it will be the same in 'spirit', even if worded differently in different translations and languages.

Besides, the word "samshaya" may literally translate into "doubt", but that doesn't mean the concept is actually the same. The word might have had different connotations when that verse was composed.

Samshaya DOES mean doubt. You can read the other verses or the whole of Bhagavad Gita to understand that it means what it is saying.

And if the word is meant to be the same, then that part of the verse is wrong.

Lol! What makes you think you are an authority to decide that?

Seems yours is 'half-a-hen' theory. You will accept the portions which suit you (like egg giving back portion of a hen), and will reject the mouth which needs to be fed. See for yourself the irrational approach you are taking in 'inquiring' into something. This is 'doubt', not inquiry.

Then how is "real" happiness defined?

Real happiness is the eternal bliss the soul experiences after reviving it's forgotten eternal relationship with Supreme Lord. We seek happiness in the material relations, this is a perverted reflection of our spiritual relation with the Supreme Lord, which we are seeking here in the material world.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Note: I had to cut parts of your responses out of mine to get under the word limit. Rest assured I did read your entire response.

There may be many readings that are potentially very beneficial like you say. Still, there is difference between material and spiritual deeds. Unless you share the 'wisdom' I can only assume and may be way off-mark.

You've never read the Dao De Jing?

Besides, anything spiritual is transcendental. In the spiritual world there is no difference between the name and the named.
Words are man-made entirely. Therefore, in the Spirit World, there are no names.

Rāmāyan, Mahābhārata etc. are facts, not fiction.
Modern novelists write about real places all the time, with extreme accuracy, even about places that haven't existed for centuries.

These people weren't isolated in their own small little villages or towns; they traveled. They traded. They talked to travelers and traders. The ones who were literate read about other places. Their ability to navigate and pinpoint locations via the stars was accurate to a point.

Therefore, the existence of the actual places proves nothing.

What science observes is 'material'. Source of material is 'spiritual'. Thus, what is spiritual cannot be known by material observations, till the source makes itself known.
We can see the sun (assuming we want to go blind in the process :D:D) when the side of the earth we are on is facing it via its rotation.

And even if the sun itself did not shine of its own accord, it could still be detected indirectly.

Sex is sense gratification. I love you because you give pleasure to my senses and vice-verse. This is the way of material love. This is not love - it is lust.

Sex is not a hindrance when it is engaged in, for the purpose of raising God conscious children. Not for sense gratification.
Uh... that verse is vague to the point where it doesn't really support your argument. Besides, it's clear you do not understand sexual love at all.

I love my girlfriend not just because she gives pleasure to my senses and vice-versa. She is also my friend. I love her like Siva loves Parvati. I love her the way Krishna loved the Gopis. (Though I don't steal her clothes while she's bathing. lol)

Sex can bring spiritual upliftment when performed at the right times, and when both partners are perfectly in unison. This is not something easily understood by renunciates.

Spiritual field exists. The proof is there in the scriptures with method to progressing on the spiritual field clearly shown. You have to walk the path to know.
Not a very good analogy. Pudding is something tangible. The spiritual field by its very nature is not tangible.

In addition, what is being experienced as the spiritual field can be attributed to other tricks of the brain. The human brain is quite possibly the greatest trickster of them all.

There are 4 kinds of people who inquire into the Absolute Truth.
...no, that says there are four kinds of people who render devotion. That's not the same thing as inquiry.

And we're talking about inquiry in general, not inquiry into something specific like absolute truth.

As for doubt, I have already provided the verse earlier:

Therefore I say, one should inquire and not doubt.
I addressed that.

What the scripture say is as under:

Brahman = Formless feature of Supreme Lord - the all pervading light
Paramātmā = localized feature of Supreme Lord in all our hearts - the four armed Viśnu.
Bhagavān = The original fountainhead Personality of Godhead - Kṛṣṇa.
Of course, that's a Purana that glorifies the Bhagavan. Other Puranas and Scriptures will emphasize different aspects as Supreme.

All knowledge has been derived from the Vedās. Vedās are timeless and as they are not authored by anyone, they are called apauroshaya. Puranas were derived from the Vedic wisdom by Srila Vyasadeva. Vyasadeva is the literary incarnation of Supreme Lord. He is not a conditioned soul like you and me.
...no, the Puranas are derived from a single Purana, which has sadly been lost to time, but was mentioned in the Mahabharata:

"The Rishi replied, 'The Purana, first promulgated by the great Rishi Dwaipayana, and which after having been heard both by the gods and the Brahmarshis was highly esteemed, being the most eminent narrative that exists, diversified both in diction and division, possessing subtile meanings logically combined, and gleaned from the Vedas, is a sacred work. Composed in elegant language, it includeth the subjects of other books. It is elucidated by other Shastras, and comprehendeth the sense of the four Vedas.

They have been heavily edited over time, and reached the forms they are in today in the last centuries. The oldest ones are thought to be the Vayu Purana and Markandeya Purana, reaching their current forms about 2000 years ago.

The Vedas are knowledge itself. They are beyond the verses that bear the name.

Ayurveda is a science. It is derived from the infallible Vedās and therefore is infallible. What makes you say so?
You implied that.

If Ayurveda were infallible, then why do other forms of medicine even exist? Why can it not cure cancer? Why can it not cure STDs? It can surely help prevent them, but what about those already infected?

What convinces me need not necessarily convince you and vice-verse.
I did my research and am convinced.
Actually, yes, it should, if Truth be 100% infallible, it should be absolutely convincing to anyone with rationality.

As it stands, the most logical conclusion that can be reached is not definite; it can only go so far as "this has so far proven to be true." There is always the possibility of being wrong.

I am speaking of spirituality from the Hindu religion perspective.
From one philosophical standpoint in Hinduism, rather.

Had Lord Krishna not spoken the Bhagvad Gītā, it would have got detected over the last 5,000 years (after Lord Krishna wound up His pastimes and left). It is a scripture accepted by all traditions of Hindu Religion.
Hate to burst your bubble, but the Sage Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, again whom I have great respect for, had this to say about the Bhagavad Gita (and let it be known that I vehemently disagree with him on this):

"in this century the Smartas, along with many Vaishnavas, have taken the Bhagavad Gita as their prime scripture, a text which is not a revealed scripture at all. It is smriti, specifically Itihasa, meaning history, a poem excerpted from the Mahabharata epic. Whereas, the Vedas -- the four divinely revealed and most revered scriptures, shruti, of all Hindus, the most ancient of all books in the world, the bible of the Sanatana Dharma -- promoted ahimsa, nonviolence, the Gita condoned war and has thus been critically called kolai nul by eminent swamis, "the book of carnage," a book that gives divine sanction to violence."

And in any case, the Gita was relatively unknown until Adi Shankaracharya wrote his commentary on it.

There is no fluff. If you see the context of the discussion, you will understand the specifics of knowledge being spoken of. It is no rocket science.
Well, having just looked at the context, it still comes off as fluff.

If it is a word-to-word, it will be the same in 'spirit', even if worded differently in different translations and languages.
I know, but outright adding words that aren't there will change the message entirely.

Samshaya DOES mean doubt. You can read the other verses or the whole of Bhagavad Gita to understand that it means what it is saying.
Then that verse is wrong.

Lol! What makes you think you are an authority to decide that?
Because my experience has told me otherwise. It's clearly different from the experience of the Gita's author.

I am young, let it be known. If in the rest of my years my experience changes to match that of this verse's, then and only then will I retract my statement.

Seems yours is 'half-a-hen' theory. You will accept the portions which suit you (like egg giving back portion of a hen), and will reject the mouth which needs to be fed. See for yourself the irrational approach you are taking in 'inquiring' into something. This is 'doubt', not inquiry.
You are making a rash conclusion based on your perception of this issue. There is much in the Gita that I know to be true and wise, yet I have trouble following.

This is rational doubt. If my first-hand experience clashes with something I've read about from third or fourth hand Scripture, I'm going with my first hand experience. That's simply a rational approach.

This whole time, I've been inquiring into the matter of this verse, since I did not know. Since my conclusion thus far differs from yours, it would seem you do not accept it as inquiry. Were you under the impression that all inquiries must finally end up agreeing with your view?

Real happiness is the eternal bliss the soul experiences after reviving it's forgotten eternal relationship with Supreme Lord. We seek happiness in the material relations, this is a perverted reflection of our spiritual relation with the Supreme Lord, which we are seeking here in the material world.
Then "real" is not an accurate word. "Temporary" would be a far more accurate word to use. The happiness experienced here is very much real; having experienced both spiritual bliss and material happiness, I can say that they're both real. But one is far more permanent (and more potent, I might add, you know which one), while one is transitory and linked with sorrow.
 
Last edited:
Even some Sri Vaishnava web sites don't take it as an historic fact. It seems up in the air.

I suspect that it might be Sri Vaishnava propaganda?

I always have read about Sri Ramanujacharya's pastimes, and there was always an air of persecution. Even watching an English subtitled story of the life and teachings of Sri Ramanujacharya had the gouging eyes pastime, and the acharya with his disciples trying to run from the Shaivite army. :sarcastic
 
I have never been told by a Siva Worshiper that my faith was less then or false. I can't tell you how many times follows of Vishnu have. It is not only Iskcon who have done it. They don't even get along with each other. A person from the Pushtimarg will not even eat prasad from a Gaudiya Vaishnava temple. Even eat at a wedding of a family member. I have a friend who took in a young college student. When he converted to a Vaishnava he won't even eat at their home now because they offer everything to Shiva.

I can tell you that the Vaishnavas each have a different attitude that varies among the individual, but it's very unfortunate that way.

Pushtimargis tend to be strict about their devotional practices in general, and generally were prejudiced enough to visit and see the Deities at GV temples, but not eat the prasadam. Swaminarayanis tend to preach and try to convert, but onyl to Gujaratis even if they are Vaishnavas from another denomination.

I am not too sure about Shaivism, but in Vaishnava Dharma, all adherents tend to be staunchly monotheist. We are told that there is no need to worship the devatas if one worships the Supreme Lord, Sri Vishnu/Krishna, and worshipping the devatas is not proper worship, as interpreted from Sri Gita.

We (Vaishnavas) all know that worship of Shiva is still pleasing to Lord Narayana (and that Lord Shiva himself will lead his followers to Lord Vishnu). It is unfortunate indeed that instead of being a proper Vaishnava and being kind to every living being, their prejudices and anarthas prevent them from being kind to everyone.
 

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
Note: I had to cut parts of your responses out of mine to get under the word limit. Rest assured I did read your entire response.

I too have read your entire post. It is suggesting to me you are arguing with me for the sake of arguing. I could be wrong, but I think I am not. :)

You are not quoting any scriptures to justify what you are saying. Meaning, you are just stating your point-of-view without any scriptural quote/basis.

Sometimes you are accepting scriptures and sometimes you are rejecting. This is convenience of mental speculation. It is neither Hindu religion, nor a discussion.

What conforms to your point-of-view; you are accepting. What does not, you are rejecting. That is why I called your's half-a-hen theory.

Therefore, I do not see any objective of your here, except the fact that you want to argue.

If it is not the case, please support your claims with scriptural evidence/verses. I am quite sure, you will not be able to provide any.

In the absence of scriptural verses, I do not see it as Hindu religion but see it more as time pass. And, I am in no mood to waste your/my time. :)
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
I too have read your entire post. It is suggesting to me you are arguing with me for the sake of arguing. I could be wrong, but I think I am not. :)

Nope. If that were, then it would be an indication that I, deep down, have accepted what you're saying. That is not the case at all.

You are not quoting any scriptures to justify what you are saying. Meaning, you are just stating your point-of-view without any scriptural quote/basis.

Sometimes you are accepting scriptures and sometimes you are rejecting. This is convenience of mental speculation. It is neither Hindu religion, nor a discussion.

What conforms to your point-of-view; you are accepting. What does not, you are rejecting. That is why I called your's half-a-hen theory.

Therefore, I do not see any objective of your here, except the fact that you want to argue.

If it is not the case, please support your claims with scriptural evidence/verses. I am quite sure, you will not be able to provide any.

In the absence of scriptural verses, I do not see it as Hindu religion but see it more as time pass. And, I am in no mood to waste your/my time. :)
I am not a slave to the Scripture. I do not believe them to be infallible, so just because it says so in them does not automatically make it so.

I do not just arbitrarily accept or reject Scriptures based on what I like or dislike. The Bhagavad Gita is up there on my list of Most Holy Books, alongside the Tirukkural, Nasadiya, Purusha Suktam, Agni Suktam, Ten Principle Upanishads, Devi Mahatmyam, and others from beyond Hinduism like the Dao De Jing, Sermon on the Mount, etc.

I do not blindly believe them, either. I use my discriminating intelligence to determine what is accurate and what is not. Even verses that are physically inaccurate (such as verse 14 from chapter 3 of the Bhagavad Gita, or the idea that if the Agnihotra isn't performed every morning and night by Brahmins, the sun will stop rising, which is taught in the Shatapatha Brahmana) can contain great wisdom to be followed. Both the two examples are linked, in that they can contain the same subtle wisdom: if rituals are not performed correctly and with the proper mindset, the spiritual life will suffer. Again, my experience has taught me as much. And keep in mind, I do not like that at all. But it's still true.

This is what drew me to Hinduism in the first place, because it's so different from Christianity. That kind of sola scriptura and complete blind belief has done little to no good from what I've seen, so I see no reason why such a mindset would be any more beneficial in Hinduism.
 
Last edited:

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
Nope. If that were, then it would be an indication that I, deep down, have accepted what you're saying. That is not the case at all.

RiverWolf...please! I am not playing psychology here. We are arguing means that we are NOT accepting what the other is saying.

I am not a slave to the Scripture. I do not believe them to be infallible, so just because it says so in them does not automatically make it so.

I do not just arbitrarily accept or reject Scriptures based on what I like or dislike. The Bhagavad Gita is up there on my list of Most Holy Books, alongside the Tirukkural, Nasadiya, Purusha Suktam, Agni Suktam, Ten Principle Upanishads, Devi Mahatmyam, and others from beyond Hinduism like the Dao De Jing, Sermon on the Mount, etc.

I do not blindly believe them, either. I use my discriminating intelligence to determine what is accurate and what is not. Even verses that are physically inaccurate (such as verse 14 from chapter 3 of the Bhagavad Gita, or the idea that if the Agnihotra isn't performed every morning and night by Brahmins, the sun will stop rising, which is taught in the Shatapatha Brahmana) can contain great wisdom to be followed. Both the two examples are linked, in that they can contain the same subtle wisdom: if rituals are not performed correctly and with the proper mindset, the spiritual life will suffer. Again, my experience has taught me as much. And keep in mind, I do not like that at all. But it's still true.

This is what drew me to Hinduism in the first place, because it's so different from Christianity. That kind of sola scriptura and complete blind belief has done little to no good from what I've seen, so I see no reason why such a mindset would be any more beneficial in Hinduism.

I will simply say, even logically, a whole civilization based on religion and scriptures cannot be wrong. There must have been far more intelligent persons than you and me to have pointed out the fallible nature of scriptures, had it been so.

Even in Christianity, people do not follow what the Holy Bible teaches. So, how can you expect 'good' or any 'benefit'? For example, the Holy Bible teaches "Thou shall not kill." Quite contrary to the teaching, I see one of the largest meat-consuming population.

If we do not follow the revealed scriptures, due to our shortcomings; it does not qualify the scriptures as redundant, my friend. It is we, who have become slaves to our senses and therefore are not following the infallible scriptures.

Fact still remains, what I accept necessarily does not need to be accepted by you.
 
Last edited:

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
I will simply say, even logically, a whole civilization based on religion and scriptures cannot be wrong. There must have been far more intelligent persons than you and me to have pointed out the fallible nature of scriptures, had it been so.

Why?

Besides, that's not much of a problem when a few other factors are considered.

1. Most people in ye olde days were illiterate, and so even people of great intelligence would not have known about the fallacies.
2. Populations were FAR smaller in ye olde days, so people of greater intelligence than you or I would have been very rare, indeed.
3. Nowadays, we have far more time on our hands to think about these things; back then, most people were focusing their intelligence on their professions rather than on Scriptural Study. Such things were relegated to Brahmins and Sannyasis, who made up a small minority of people, and the latter of whom didn't have much interaction with other people.
4. Are all mythological stories of every ancient civilization correct?
5. There were several variations in the Vedic religion through the ages; the fact that there's several recessions of the Vedas, several versions of the Epics, several Puranas, several cults dedicated to different Gods, etc., attest to that.

There's a few other things, but I think you get the idea.

Even in Christianity, people do not follow what the Holy Bible teaches. So, how can you expect 'good' or any 'benefit'? For example, the Holy Bible teaches "Thou shall not kill." Quite contrary to the teaching, I see one of the largest meat-consuming population.
The Bible does not forbid eating meat; in fact, there are several instances of the Torah where God commands animal sacrifice.

In addition, early sects of Christianity didn't even have the Bible, and when they finally did, there was GREAT disagreement as to what Scriptures ought to go in it.

If we do not follow the revealed scriptures, due to our shortcomings; it does not qualify the scriptures as redundant, my friend. It is we, who have become slaves to our senses and therefore are not following the infallible scriptures.

Fact still remains, what I accept necessarily does not need to be accepted by you.
Indeed. I've seen every indication that the Scriptures are fallible (and I've given several examples of that), and none whatsoever that they're infallible. Why, then, should I believe them to be so?
 
Last edited:

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
Early Vedic civilization and the Vedas tell us things like the total elements in the material creation, number of species on the planet, structure of the universe.

There are persons who are doing research on it and EVERYTHING conforms to what the modern science has been able to ascertain so far.

Check out: Bhaktivedanta VedaBase 2003.1
The persons who are doing research are PhD.s in modern cosmology.

Is this a symptom of an unintelligent & illiterate civilization?:facepalm:

Also, what does an intelligent person understand by a simple statement: "Though shall not kill." You can twist it and derive meanings from mental speculation to suit your convenience. Does not change the fact that you are not following it for what it says.
 

Shuddhasattva

Well-Known Member
Oy vey, fundamentalism.

It invariably leads to completely unsupportable positions; blatant delusions, which only the claimant considers credible by 'reason' of eschewing discriminating awareness for blind faith.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Wow. I'm not surprised, but that's terrible.

As a Shaiva, I do not hold there to be much difference between Shiva and Vishnu. Vishnu is auspicious ('siva') and Siva is all-pervasive ('vishnu').

Sivasya hridayam vishnur vishnoscha hridayam sivah "Vishnu is the heart of Siva, Siva is the heart of Vishnu" from the Skanda Purana, and a view held by Sri Swami Sivananda (and me ;)).
 
Sivasya hridayam vishnur vishnoscha hridayam sivah "Vishnu is the heart of Siva, Siva is the heart of Vishnu" from the Skanda Purana, and a view held by Sri Swami Sivananda (and me ;)).

Hahaha, there will always be difference in opinion.

I hold my bias, not necessarily from Scripture or authority, but from personal experience and habitualisation to Vaishnava culture. I find that all truths are relative before the Absolute Truth.

Especially when every Purana will be biased to its own opinions. Like Padma Purana, for example: :)

aradhananam sarvesham
vishnor aradhanam param
tasmat parataram devi
tadiyanam samarchanam


Lord Shiva says to Srimati Parvatidevi: Out of all forms of worship, the worship of Sri Vishnu is the highest. But, my dear Devi, what is higher is the worship of those surrendered unto Him.

So there's no problem in worshipping Shiva at all! :)

:angel2: *please don't stone me!*

AUM Namo Narayanaya!
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
And then there is the mantra Sri Rama Rama Rameti Rame Rame Manorame Sahasranama tat tulyam Varanane "Lord Shiva saying to Maa Parvati: “O Varanana (lovely woman), I chant the holy name of Rama, Rama, Rama and thus constantly enjoy this beautiful sound. This holy name of Ramachandra is equal to one thousand holy names of Lord Vishnu".
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Early Vedic civilization and the Vedas tell us things like the total elements in the material creation, number of species on the planet, structure of the universe.

There are persons who are doing research on it and EVERYTHING conforms to what the modern science has been able to ascertain so far.

Check out: Bhaktivedanta VedaBase 2003.1
The persons who are doing research are PhD.s in modern cosmology.

Is this a symptom of an unintelligent & illiterate civilization?:facepalm:

Uh, excuse me, but the number of species on the planet is always changing. The structure of the universe is still somewhat up in the air, and there's only five elements in Hindu philosophy, whereas in modern science, there's dozens: that's the periodic table. In fact, some of them are man-made.

Besides, I said most people. The ones who did focus on the sciences of the time were as literate as you or I, with actual intelligence probably varying. But they still would have made up a minority, not a majority.

I get the sense that you don't really understand what intelligence is an indicator of. It's not an indicator of how much knowledge one has, but how much information one is capable of processing. In addition, there's several variations on it. Just because a person has a large amount of intelligence, does not necessarily mean that that person is capable of understanding abstract concepts. It also does not meant that that person is necessarily literate. After all, even the most intelligent person can be illiterate if he or she was never exposed to writing.

Also, what does an intelligent person understand by a simple statement: "Though shall not kill." You can twist it and derive meanings from mental speculation to suit your convenience. Does not change the fact that you are not following it for what it says.
This is actually an area where I can use Scripture to back up what I said:

From Exodus:

21:21. An altar of earth you shall make for Me, and you shall slaughter beside it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your cattle. Wherever I allow My name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you.
23:14. Three times you shall slaughter sacrifices to Me during the year.

In addition, the Torah teaches capital punishment:

12. One who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.
14. But if a man plots deliberately against his friend to slay him with cunning, [even] from My altar you shall take him to die.
15. And one who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.
16. And whoever kidnaps a man, and he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.
17. And one who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.


These are all from the same chapter as the Ten Commandments.

Seems like "Do not kill" has more to do with not killing when the Law does not ordain it. The Law does not forbid killing for food(so long as everything's kosher) or sacrifice. Therefore, the Bible does not teach vegetarianism.

This isn't your so-called "mental speculation" (I still don't fully understand what you mean by that); this is actual Scripture that you misunderstood.
 
Last edited:

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
And then there is the mantra Sri Rama Rama Rameti Rame Rame Manorame Sahasranama tat tulyam Varanane "Lord Shiva saying to Maa Parvati: “O Varanana (lovely woman), I chant the holy name of Rama, Rama, Rama and thus constantly enjoy this beautiful sound. This holy name of Ramachandra is equal to one thousand holy names of Lord Vishnu".

(I) In the Brihad-vishnu-sahasranama-stotra, Uttara-khanda, Padma Purana (72.335) it is said:

rama rameti rameti, rame rame manorame;
sahasra-namabhis tulyam, rama-nama varanane.​

Lord Shiva addressed his wife, Durga: “O Varanana (lovely-faced woman), I chant the holy name of Rama, Rama, Rama and thus constantly enjoy this beautiful sound. This holy name of Ramacandra is equal to one thousand holy names of Lord Vishnu (Vishnu-sahasra-nama-stotram).”

(II) In the Brahmanda Purana it is stated:

sahasra-namnam punyanam, trir-avrittya tu yat phalam;
ekavrittya tu krishnasya, namaikam tat prayacchati.​

“The pious results (punya) achieved by chanting the thousand holy names of Vishnu (Vishnu-sahasra-nama-stotram) three times can be attained by only one utterance of the holy name of Krishna.”

(III) In the Brahma-rahasya it is stated:

krishna-chaitanyeti nama, mukhyan mukhyatamam prabhoh;
helaya sakrid uccarya, sarva-nama-phalam labhet.​

“The holy name Krishna Chaitanya is the topmost even among all the important primary holy names of the Lord Krishna. By chanting this name just once, a person attains the results (punya) of chanting all the other holy names of the Lord.”

So from the above three very important verses we can easily come to the following conclusion:

1000 Names of Lord Vishnu = 1 Name of (Vishnu-sahasra-nama-stotram) Lord Rama
3 Names of Lord Rama (or 3000 Names of Lord Vishnu) = 1 Name of Lord Krishna
1 Name of Lord Shri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu = Sum Total Results of all the Names of Lord Krishna, Rama and Vishnu


In theVishnu-yamala it is said:

krishna-chaitanya-namna ye, kirtayanti sakrin narah; nanaparadha-muktas te, punanti sakalam jagat.​

“Those who chant the name of Krishna Chaitanya even once, become free from all offenses and purify all the worlds by their very presence.”

Shrila Jagadananda Pandita says in Prema-vivarta:

gaura ye vishala nama sei nama gau; anya saba nama-mahatmya sei name pau.​

“The most powerful names of God are the names of the most merciful incarnation of God, who is known as Lord Gaura. The glories and power of all the other names of God are completely present in the names of Lord Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.”
 

Shuddhasattva

Well-Known Member
As you are so fond of copy pasta, perhaps you will also be appreciative enough of its sources to reference them rather than passing such posts off as your own?
 

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
Uh, excuse me, but the number of species on the planet is always changing. The structure of the universe is still somewhat up in the air, and there's only five elements in Hindu philosophy, whereas in modern science, there's dozens: that's the periodic table. In fact, some of them are man-made.

Friend, I will just quote the scriptures. You can choose to believe, ignore, disbelieve...whatever!

Padma Purana tells exactly how many species there are.

jalaja nava-laksani
sthavara laksa-vimsati
krmayo rudra-sankhyakah
paksinam dasa-laksanam
trimsal-laksani pasavah
catur-laksani manusah​

"There are 900,000 species living in the water. There are 2,000,000 nonmoving living entities [sthavara] such as trees and plants. There are 1,100,000 species of insects and reptiles, and 1,000,000 species of birds. As far as quadrupeds are concerned, there are 3,000,000 varieties, and there are 400,000 human species."

Besides, I said most people. The ones who did focus on the sciences of the time were as literate as you or I, with actual intelligence probably varying. But they still would have made up a minority, not a majority.

I get the sense that you don't really understand what intelligence is an indicator of. It's not an indicator of how much knowledge one has, but how much information one is capable of processing. In addition, there's several variations on it. Just because a person has a large amount of intelligence, does not necessarily mean that that person is capable of understanding abstract concepts. It also does not meant that that person is necessarily literate. After all, even the most intelligent person can be illiterate if he or she was never exposed to writing.

In the earlier times, almost all persons would follow the Vedic way of life. The level of intelligence of people was such that they could memorize all of Vedās and pass on the knowledge to the others. Vedās are known as Śrutī for the same reason. It was only for the person of Kalīyuga (present modern age), that Vedāvyasa felt the need to write the Vedic knowledge, owing to the poor memory, intelligence, understanding etc. of the modern man.

This is actually an area where I can use Scripture to back up what I said:

From Exodus:

21:21. An altar of earth you shall make for Me, and you shall slaughter beside it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your cattle. Wherever I allow My name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you.
23:14. Three times you shall slaughter sacrifices to Me during the year.

This is the Vedic ritual of animal sacrifice. There was an elaborate process mentioned, needing to be followed, to be able to eat meat. Also, the person performing sacrifice will get only a little for himself. Major portion will get distributed to others first.

Also, if you see, the number of such sacrifices was restricted (to three in a year).

The Vedic method of sacrifice is so designed because it will dissuade a person from meat-eating. If a person has to go through an elaborate process for sacrifice, then distribute to all, getting only a little in the end and finally can do it only 3 times in a year...persons will get dissuaded from meat eating this way.

* This also proves something else which I said earlier - everybody in the earlier days followed the Vedic way of life.

In addition, the Torah teaches capital punishment:

12. One who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.
14. But if a man plots deliberately against his friend to slay him with cunning, [even] from My altar you shall take him to die.
15. And one who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.
16. And whoever kidnaps a man, and he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.
17. And one who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.


These are all from the same chapter as the Ten Commandments.

Seems like "Do not kill" has more to do with not killing when the Law does not ordain it. The Law does not forbid killing for food(so long as everything's kosher) or sacrifice. Therefore, the Bible does not teach vegetarianism.

This isn't your so-called "mental speculation" (I still don't fully understand what you mean by that); this is actual Scripture that you misunderstood.

"Though shall not kill" does apply for meat-eating. As the modern man lacks the qualification to perform Vedic sacrifices to eat meat, meat-eating is banned. It has a religious context. What you are enlisting above are the punishments for irreligious acts. These are there for non-adherence to God's rules.

Please pick up a scripture - Manu Smrītī, and read. It is the law book for mankind and has all the punishments you have mentioned above, there. Please do not confuse being religious (not eating meat) with punishments for being irreligious. Two are totally different things.

Food for thought:

Manu, as per scriptures, is the father of mankind.
Mankind = Humankind
Man = Human being (English)
Manav = Human being (Sanskrit)
 

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
As you are so fond of copy pasta, perhaps you will also be appreciative enough of its sources to reference them rather than passing such posts off as your own?

If you know the scriptures, know the verses, know what is what, what to look for, and where; you too can do it...:rolleyes:but you:sarcastic...you can't! :no:
 
Top