<!--QuoteBegin-"dhu"+-->QUOTE("dhu")<!--QuoteEBegin-->Amazingly, <b>the parts they have been insisting as history have turned out as parodies.</b> So when they insist on the parody nature of "alexamenos worships his god" (the crucified donkey) as well as of tacitus claiming that a donkey was worshipped in the Temple, we can be assured that it is indeed history. <b>The Deity was Set from Egypt. Egyptians and Phoenicians were a symbiotic regime which needed to be rent asunder.</b>
These inferiority-ridden, dark comedian, fratboy, toilet-humor obsessed <b>western clowns made the association between "ass" and ashva as part of their mockery of the Jewish Messiah.</b> The Mock Messiah King enters the Holy City on an ass. Abu Ghraib is only a small taste of this mindset.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dhu, Please explain this Egyptian and Phoenican symbiotic regime that was dominating the Mediterranean. In fact after Cleopatra, Egypt slips from history and remains ahistorical. The Old Testament keeps talking of the crossing of the Red Sea as the end of that relationship. Why did the Romans/Westerners need to break up this symbiosis?
And explain the Deity is Set so that others can come up to speed with you. I guess this would need a description of the theogony of Egypt. How did Pharonic Egypt decline to lead to Greek Ptolemic Egypt?
12-13-2007, 05:57 AM (This post was last modified: 12-16-2007, 07:29 AM by dhu.)
Phoenicians were given free reign in N. Africa by the Egyptians. Hannibal also had an association with Mithridates clan of the Pontus region (S. black sea) who were descendants of Darius and also with Persian-derived Armenians. There was also the Yuva connections of the Mittani to Egypt (alluded by Kak). The interconnections are all there. But Greek and Roman royalties are never included. Both Cleopatra and Berenice, even though western origin, were derided in Orientalist terms by the westerners.
12-13-2007, 11:23 AM (This post was last modified: 12-13-2007, 12:34 PM by dhu.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Mark Cohen states that it seems that all the monotheistic religions in power throughout the history have felt it proper, if not obligatory, to persecute nonconforming religions. Therefore, Cohen concludes, Medieval Islam and Medieval Christianity in power should have persecuted non-believers in their lands and <b>"Judaism, briefly in power during the Hasmonean period (second century BCE) should have persecuted pagan Idumeans". </b>Cohen continues: "When all is said and done, however, the historical evidence indicates that the Jews of Islam, especially during the formative and classical centuries (up to thirteenth century), experienced much less persecution than did the Jews of Christendom. This begs a more thorough and nuanced explanation than has hitherto been given."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Beginnings of Jewishness' seems like it ought to be essential reading for both Christians and Jews who wonder where they came from. In the book, Cohen avoids reading back into the Bible itself and considers a great deal of other historical and literary evidence to determine when being a Jew changed its meaning from 'being from Judea', the geographical location, to 'being a member of the Jewish religion'.<b> He finds the first traces of this in the Hasmonean period, expansions of it in the Roman and up through history. </b><i>Along the way he is also tracing the beginnings of Rabbinic Judaism after the fall of the Jerusalem Temple, which is quite different from what constituted Judaism before that event. </i>All of this would probably be very surprizing to those who hold anachronistic visions of Jesus as a Rabbinic Jew!. Cohen also goes into quite a bit of detail on matrilineal descent and conversion, maybe more than some would want, but interesting nonetheless. Good book.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The popular academics who specialize in Christian study try to prove the New Testament's veracity by showing how it fits in with the Old Testament(Brown, et al)Â <b>But most scholars don't know that the Old Testament was created in order to retrofit with the New Testament. That is the primary reason that the Romans burned the torahs.</b>
People don't take Jewish scholars seriously who have explored this area. They dismiss Abelard Reuchlin's work and are afraid to be put into his category of scholarship. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->_The first half solidly deconstructs and demolishes any claim to historical accuracy or legitimacy for the Holy Books of the Jewish, Christian, and Moslem religious traditions. All Holy Books are the work of men, not of God (including Gnostic books, but Gnostics realize this.) Personally, while I was aware of the Mesopotamian and Egyptian sources in the Tanakh, I was amazed to find that it appears to have been compiled as late as the first century BCE- and by the Maccabees in order to justify a rule so ruthless that it would put the Taliban to shame. Nor did I realize that the Romans were actually allies of the Maccabees against their Syrian Greek foes (which explains much in terms of creating a false religion and history for political ends.) An excellent case is also made for the origin of monotheism among the Greeks and not the Jews (read your Heraclitus, Pythagoras, and Plato.) It is also this first half that emphasizes the difference between the Gnostic and Literalist traditions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The popular academics who specialize in Christian study try to prove the New Testament's veracity by showing how it fits in with the Old Testament(Brown, et al)Â <b>But most scholars don't know that the Old Testament was created in order to retrofit with the New Testament. That is the primary reason that the Romans burned the torahs.</b>
People don't take Jewish scholars seriously who have explored this area. They dismiss Abelard Reuchlin's work and are afraid to be put into his category of scholarship. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[
[right][snapback]76089[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes,
i also wonder why Septuagint Bible is more acurate then jewish Masoretic text or protestant text despite it was writen in greek.
If we compare for exemple ,years in the patriarh list from genesis ,betwin Septuagint and other versions,we easely observ who is more acurate.
This can show when Bible was modified for the last time,or why the jews and christians have exactly the same book canon made in the same time.
12-13-2007, 02:25 PM (This post was last modified: 12-13-2007, 02:36 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-sarangadhara+Dec 12 2007, 01:18 AM-->QUOTE(sarangadhara @ Dec 12 2007, 01:18 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->...
There is one question though that has troubled me the most ...I have seen a few explanations in other threads in the forum explaining the attitude of Indian Modern Guru's in their writings to praise the jesus...in attempting to reach out to western audiences...
but the writings of most Modern gurus do not stop short of just mentioning...but go on to raise the praise to a crescendo level...
...
Looking in Hindsight ...the damage being done by the so called baba's in justifying false christiniaty is helping the masses get converted more easily....
My two cents...
Apologize once again if any followers of babas are hurt......
[right][snapback]76039[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And my statement might well hurt some others - but I write it from my own view and experiences.
You forgot to add in your list what I think ought to be #1: ISKCON.
I own and have read a lot of their books (mainly the ones written by Srila Prabhupada, not so much the later ones). They equate Krishna with jehovallah. AND they go one step further, saying that Krishna is not Shiva, not Devi - that the latter are merely "demi" Gods; that they can not give Moksha. That Krishna is the ONLY God. Meanwhile, allah and jeebus make the grade for "the real thing" in their view <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
(Did ISKCON's guru Srila Prabhupada ever see Krishna during his life, I wonder though - did not come across it in the books of his that I have. But the proof is in the pudding isn't it? Others - even the "minor deity" worshippers who worship Mahavishnu along with the rest - <i>have</i> seen Krishna.)
Also, Rama and Mahavishnu in ISKCON's understanding is not the same as Krishna who they claim is the full version, the only one worth pursuing.
Even pure Vaishnavas (that is, of traditional Hindu background) do not say that jehovallah is the same as Krishna, even if they regard other central Hindu Gods as minor. And Vaishnavas have recognised Krishna is wholly the same as Rama/Mahavishnu. For some Rama takes more prominence in their personal lives than Krishna (but this is considered personal choice - a common thing in Hindu Dharma).
Before someone thinks I am knocking Krishna: *no* way.
I just can't warm to ISKCON anymore, it's totally alienated me. After ~2 years of being blindly infatuated with their books (this was only in my early teens - between my 10th and 12th year and only because I had been growing up overseas then) I decided it wasn't right for me and went back to the traditional view of Hinduism.
If others find meaning in ISKCON - good for them. But I will not accept any claims they make on "Shiva and Uma and Murughan and the rest are not equal to/same as Krishna". That is an opinion, not a fact in Hindu Dharma.
And I will never accept that "Krishna is jehovallah". He is not.
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Dec 13 2007, 02:25 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Dec 13 2007, 02:25 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-sarangadhara+Dec 12 2007, 01:18 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sarangadhara @ Dec 12 2007, 01:18 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->...
There is one question though that has troubled me the most ...I have seen a few explanations in other threads in the forum explaining the attitude of Indian Modern Guru's in their writings to praise the jesus...in attempting to reach out to western audiences...
but the writings of most Modern gurus do not stop short of just mentioning...but go on to raise the praise to a crescendo level...
...
Looking in Hindsight ...the damage being done by the so called baba's in justifying false christiniaty is helping the masses get converted more easily....
My two cents...
Apologize once again if any followers of babas are hurt......
[right][snapback]76039[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And my statement might well hurt some others - but I write it from my own view and experiences.
You forgot to add in your list what I think ought to be #1: ISKCON.
I own and have read a lot of their books (mainly the ones written by Srila Prabhupada, not so much the later ones). They equate Krishna with jehovallah. AND they go one step further, saying that Krishna is not Shiva, not Devi - that the latter are merely "demi" Gods; that they can not give Moksha. That Krishna is the ONLY God. Meanwhile, allah and jeebus make the grade for "the real thing" in their view <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
(Did ISKCON's guru Srila Prabhupada ever see Krishna during his life, I wonder though - did not come across it in the books of his that I have. But the proof is in the pudding isn't it? Others - even the "minor deity" worshippers who worship Mahavishnu along with the rest - <i>have</i> seen Krishna.)
Also, Rama and Mahavishnu in ISKCON's understanding is not the same as Krishna who they claim is the full version, the only one worth pursuing.
Even pure Vaishnavas (that is, of traditional Hindu background) do not say that jehovallah is the same as Krishna, even if they regard other central Hindu Gods as minor. And Vaishnavas have recognised Krishna is wholly the same as Rama/Mahavishnu. For some Rama takes more prominence in their personal lives than Krishna (but this is considered personal choice - a common thing in Hindu Dharma).
Before someone thinks I am knocking Krishna: *no* way.
I just can't warm to ISKCON anymore, it's totally alienated me. After ~2 years of being blindly infatuated with their books (this was only in my early teens - between my 10th and 12th year and only because I had been growing up overseas then) I decided it wasn't right for me and went back to the traditional view of Hinduism.
If others find meaning in ISKCON - good for them. But I will not accept any claims they make on "Shiva and Uma and Murughan and the rest are not equal to/same as Krishna". That is an opinion, not a fact in Hindu Dharma.
And I will never accept that "Krishna is jehovallah". He is not.
[right][snapback]76100[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not far ago ,during my philosophical quest, i become friend whit Iskon members of Romania and even go and visit the temple during a holyday.
I had a 3 hours discussion whit the romanian vedic teacher(who teach Veda philosophy at the University) regarding christian-vaishnava diference and similarites in theology.
The first point was comparation betwin vaishnava statement -there are infinite persons sharing the same essence(bedha-abedha,dvaitaadvaita statement);and christian statement-one essence 3 persons.
The similarity stop here ,as in vaishnava all persons have the same essence whit God,including limited persons like humans.
The God have infinite expansions s of 2 types
1-expansions-persons unlimited in power (like Balarama )and
2-expansions-persons limited in power(like humans )
Regarding persons of the first type in "christians" terms we could talk about Holy Infinity(comparative whit Holy Trinity).The diference here stay in number.
I ask the teacher ,is not a contradiction that in the same essence to be more then one person?(as Islam teach for exemple)
Answer was that acording to vedic philosophy we talk about the logic of the finite and the logic of the infinite.Practicaly all notions of God(be them impersonal,islamic or sickh)are contradictory if we look them in detail.
What seem contradictory for the finite logic in perfect rational for logic of the infinite.
Krishna is consider Brahman and is both personal and impersonal;but personal aspect is seen more important then impersonal aspect and the goal of life is the eternal happiness living next to personal Krishna.This is Vishnu-vedanta
This teaching is diferent the Mayavada(impersonal) schools of hinduism ,which subordonate personal aspect of God the the impersonal one(person is just a temporaly ilusion),among impersonal school being shaiva and buddhism.
SHiva is consider a great devotee of Krishna and he is responsable whit management of Maya(ilusion).The porpose of ilusion is the wish of some limited personal expansions to live whitout God(and they forget their havently state and incarnate in the material world).
Continuation from the first post
Th other hindu Gods are seen as lesser gods ,stil they (and we humans) are personal expansions of Krishna.
The second part of the talk was about WHY many members of Iskon see christian God or Jesus as a manifestation of Krishna.
The answer was that God manifest even in other religions not only in India land,that christian Bible or islamic Quran are corupted by later christian or muslims and the Jesus teaching must be in original much more similar whit vedic teachings.
That Jesus was the son of Father(Krishna),that Krishna dont have only 2 expansions(son and holy spirit) but a infinte number of sons(expansions).
When i mention the texts from Quran were muslims are advise to kill non-muslims,the vedic teacher say he didnt know about this texts.
In fact Iskon members want to spiritualise christian and islamic belives by bringing them
to their real basic belives(love your God ,love your neighbour and so one).
I can mention here a case when a vaishnava convert a muslim to hinduism by explaining how muslims scholar missinterpret the nature of God presented in Quran(platonic influence in islam theology?) .
12-13-2007, 06:03 PM (This post was last modified: 12-15-2007, 08:08 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Krishna is consider Brahman and is both personal and impersonal;but personal aspect is seen more important then impersonal aspect<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The Gita supports both views of Krishna equally. (Not the interpretation given in ISKCON's "The Bhagavad Gita As It Is", I admit, but they take a lot of liberties in interpreting certain shlokas and go off on some distant tangent for each verse.)
In fact, if you read just a translation of the Gita - that is, a translation without ISKCON "interpretation" bits - then you come to the part where Krishna talks about Brahman. He uses the exact same ideas to describe Brahman as are used in parts of the Upanishads. Then he explains to Arjuna that he (Krishna) is Brahman, so Arjuna may know who he is and recognise him from Arjuna's schooling in Hindu Dharma.
The personal and impersonal views of Brahman are supported in Hinduism no matter what our Ishtadevams are. There are example shlokas for Devi, Shiva, Ganapathi and Skanda (Murugar) that describe them all as Brahman. Krishna most certainly is Brahman. But so are these others I've listed.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Th other hindu Gods are seen as lesser gods ,stil they (and we humans) are personal expansions of Krishna.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->One may substitute the name "Krishna" there with any other of the Hindu Gods I've mentioned and the second half of the sentence still holds true (the first half is a point of view only). Many Vaishnavas do see the other Gods as minor or having specific abilities/fields of action and therefore not capable of giving final/lasting liberation. But that is not the view of any other Hindu streams where different Gods are central.
In Hindu Dharma in general, humans, as also other creatures, are seen as quantitatively - but not qualitatively - less than Bhagavan (and only while our delusion of separateness from Brahman lasts). This view is not unique to ISKCON's reworked views of Vaishnavism.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The second part of the talk was about WHY many members of Iskon see christian God or Jesus as a manifestation of Krishna. The answer was that God manifest even in other religions not only in India land,that christian Bible or islamic Quran are corupted by later christian or muslims and the Jesus teaching must be in original much more similar whit vedic teachings.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I know God/Kamisama/the Grand Spirit manifests in all countries. But jesus simply never existed. Regardless, nothing about the religion around him even brought forth good. If it did, it should not have mattered whether he existed or not. (Quran got corrupted? Must be the entire Quran and the uncorrupted bits were either never there or are lost forever.)
This ambivalence in ISKCON (and there are others guilty of something somewhat similar) is what annoys me. No: christianity and islam are not saying the same thing as Taoism or Hindu Dharma. They've had ~1.5 millennia to prove where they stand on universality, and yet every single action and treatise has shown that their teachings are diametrically opposed to that of Natural Religions.
(But good people do have the ability to draw good from everything - which says more about them than it does about their christoislamism.)
My question is, why can ISKCON allow for jesus and allah but will not budge an inch on Shiva and Ganapathi for instance?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This teaching is diferent the Mayavada(impersonal) schools of hinduism ,which subordonate personal aspect of God the the impersonal one(person is just a temporaly ilusion),among impersonal school being shaiva and buddhism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You are mistaken about Shaiva tradition. Like devotion to Krishna, it comes in both impersonal and personal understanding of Shiva. The personal view of Shiva is no less deeply devotional than the more well-known (outside India) one about Krishna.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->SHiva is consider a great devotee of Krishna and he is responsable whit management of Maya(ilusion).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->All Hindu Gods are great devotees of each other (whenever there is another God in the picture). But you will never find Krishna saying that Shiva is a lesser God. Simply because Krishna acknowledges he *is* Shiva. In fact, I think it is in the (<b>EDITED</b> previous error Mahabharata, where Krishna has a big explanation on who Shiva is and how Shiva is GOD. But of course Krishna would say that, because he is Shiva.
Have you ever heard of the God "Shankara Narayanan" - he is the famous amalgamation of Shiva and Mahavishnu, just like Ardhanareeshwarar is one of Shiva and Uma. As Shankara Narayanan, this manifestation shows the oneness of both these forms of the Hindu understanding of God.
Shiva is said to be the Universe (all of creation) and Mahavishnu is said to be in the soul of every particle thereof. It is two ways of saying the same: infinite space is Shiva and infinite innerspace is Mahavishnu. Where does one begin and the other end? Everywhere and nowhere. They are the same.
There are Shlokas were Shiva alone is described as creator, preserver and dissolver of the Universe. The same is said of Krishna (and so too Devi). But that is because these - our central Gods - are *all* Brahman.
In the Shaiva view, Shiva is seen as the origin of all. In the Vaishnava view, Mahavishnu is. And the same goes for Uma. But in each view, the central God's qualities is described exactly the same: Brahman. They are the same.
Anyway, I've digressed. My point was: where does ISKCON get this incredible understanding and sympathy for the unrelenting christian and islamic ideas of "God" and yet will not give equal dues (as they give for jehovallah) to the rest of Hindu Dharma's views on manifestions of Brahman.
You may think I am petty in arguing that Jesus/christian god and allah are not the same as the Hindu view of God. That reminds me of something. Long ago, I had a very foolish conversation with a Korean christian where I listed all the qualities of the general "God" idea: good, powerful, blablabla (I was using simple basic ideas so she could agree with me), then I explained how that proves that the Hindu God was no different and she needn't think Hinduism was 'evil'. But everytime I got to Hindu God she would shake her head violently and say that our God was not at all the same and was false. I argued that if hers was the creator of everything and mine was too - if hers was infinitely good and parent of all, and mine was too - then (said I) was it not sensible that both our Gods were the same. NO she yelled (several times) and I never tried reasoning with her about *that* again. But the futile exercise did teach me a lot. I was taken aback by her adamant refusal to see sense then, but now I understand what it is in christoislamism that makes them so contrary.
In time I learnt to see what she meant, but from <i>my</i> end - because I learnt of her religion by reading the bible. Her god and my God are not the same, as trite as it sounds now that I am (superficially regarded) repeating her. The Christian view of God really is utterly different. It will not stand any other name nor any other description for God than that laid out in the Bible. Everything else is regarded "false, hateful, anti-christian". Their way or the highway. Hindu/Natural Gods are not like that. For instance, their god must be and *is* male. Because genderlessness is something beyond their understanding (until the Hindu introduces the more open people among them to the idea).
For ISKCON to compare and equate the universality of the Hindu idea of God/Natural Religions idea of God with christianism, is to fall into the same trap of the general Hindu mindset: assuming that every other religion has the same understanding of God. It is something I have to learn and relearn regularly, as I find it has several layers. Christianity and islam have very *very* particular descriptions of God - and these descriptions do not match with Hinduism at all (other than on the surface where we use terms like "creator", "good" - until we dig deeper and find the meanings for these as given in the respective religions), except when applying the usual strained interpretations Hindus (the usual suspects) give for the Bible and Quran. The Hindu is capable of great self-delusion and will see the whole Hindu literature magically mirrored in the bible/koran. Let me ask this, why is the Hindu capable of understanding/making such profound interpretations of the bible and koran - when not a single christian or muslim has ever viewed the material in the same way (unless influenced by Hindus). Answer: because we are projecting Hindu views of divinity onto the bible and koran. We tend to twist their passages that are obscure enough into what we would like them to say. (And we are very good at doing this, because we are desperate enough to do it. Everyone likes to think the world is rosy and "all everyone wants, is to live in peace". By way of comparison, there's very little effort required on my part to see similarities with the North American native American Grand Spirit or with Taoism.)
So much for the common mistake that ISKCON makes. But it's thereafter that it makes a mad misstep. Though they are able to extend this Dharmic universality to the christian and islamic concepts of God, they will not dream of allowing the same for other central Gods in Hinduism - even though these are known to be Brahman, same as Krishna. (In fact, ISKCON behaves rather christoislamic in this insistence - the way they make this insistence about Krishna is very christoislamically monotheist. It's almost like they want to swallow the name of Krishna up in some Abrahamic worldview and segregate the name from the rest of Hindu Dharma.)
As I said, it's alienated me entirely.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->a vaishnava convert a muslim to hinduism by explaining <b>how muslims scholar missinterpret the nature of God presented in Quran</b>(platonic influence in islam theology?).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->As I said, Hindu's capability of self-delusion: "we know islam better than muslims do". (Really?)
But no matter. In this case, the muslim convert obviously has the same understanding of God as the Hindu. Hence the end result is that the muslim merely wandered from his personal religion that he thought was called "islam" to the same religion he now calls Hinduism. (Or alternatively, once exposed to the Hindu idea/Natural Religion's idea of God, the former muslim found it resonated with him/her better.) But the islamic idea of "God" and Natural Religions's understanding of what God entails are <i>not</i> the same.
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Dec 13 2007, 02:25 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Dec 13 2007, 02:25 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> AND they go one step further, saying that Krishna is not Shiva, not Devi - that the latter are merely "demi" Gods; that they can not give Moksha. That Krishna is the ONLY God.
meanwhile, allah and jeebus make the grade for "the real thing" in their view <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
(Did ISKCON's guru Srila Prabhupada ever see Krishna during his life, I wonder though - did not come across it in the books of his that I have. But the proof is in the pudding isn't it? Others - even the "minor deity" worshippers who worship Mahavishnu along with the rest - <i>have</i> seen Krishna.)
Also, Rama and Mahavishnu in ISKCON's understanding is not the same as Krishna who they claim is the full version, the only one worth pursuing.
Even pure Vaishnavas (that is, of traditional Hindu background) do not say that jehovallah is the same as Krishna, even if they regard other central Hindu Gods as minor. And Vaishnavas have recognised Krishna is wholly the same as Rama/Mahavishnu. For some Rama takes more prominence in their personal lives than Krishna (but this is considered personal choice - a common thing in Hindu Dharma).
Before someone thinks I am knocking Krishna: *no* way.
I just can't warm to ISKCON anymore, it's totally alienated me. After ~2 years of being blindly infatuated with their books (this was only in my early teens - between my 10th and 12th year and only because I had been growing up overseas then) I decided it wasn't right for me and went back to the traditional view of Hinduism.
If others find meaning in ISKCON - good for them. But I will not accept any claims they make on "Shiva and Uma and Murughan and the rest are not equal to/same as Krishna". That is an opinion, not a fact in Hindu Dharma.
And I will never accept that "Krishna is jehovallah". He is not.
[right][snapback]76100[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seem you see as traditional hinduism only advaita vedanta and smarta tradition.
Gaudya vaishnava is as traditional hinduism as any other branch of hinduism.Iskon is an adaptation for westerners.
Step by step
There can be more Brahmans(Absolutes)?Acording to vaishnava Brahman is personal-is a real person.This person is the origin of all the other persons;how to say?Krishna is Shiva but SHiva is not Krishna.
Demi-gods is a translation for westerners of the word devas.Krishna being the absolute is also all powerfull,and the other gods are as powerfull as Krishna want them to be.
Krishna is Vishnu ,in fact Krishna is the intimate aspect of Vishnu,or Vishnu is the oficial aspect of Krishna.
If each god is an Absolute-Brahman the are more Absolutes (which contradict the definition of the Absolute).
In fact advaita vedanta dont belive the same? I talk extensevly about Moksha whit a practicant brahmin from Himalaya.They say that personal gods are only empty shells ,that love for them exist only in this dual world.After obtaining moksha the god ar eevaporated in the impersonal Brahman.Love and relationship whit them is only temporary.They say that eternal relationship whit gods is a wrong thing(an ilusion)and can lead to moksha more by accident.
A fact for some,an opinion for others;but thats the hinduism-a place were even contradictory belive coexist in peace(contrary to other intolerant semitic religions).
Of course a Rama worshiper can see Krishna,Krishna is in Rama.Krishna is the super-soul.
Now the real problem-why Iskon member equate their Krishna person Absolute whit Yahve and Alah?(not all Iskon belive this as i heard Iskon members very critical toward these 2 religions,refuting Prabupadha opinions)
The answer is because of the IGNORANCE
Iskon see the conception of a personal Absolute in christianity and islam and imediatily equate whit their conceptions about God.
But let see the diferences
Most christians see God as trinity contrary to Iskon who see God as a infinity of persons
Muslims see God as being whitout form ,unlike Iskon who see God as having form(a favorite basic form and an infinity of other secundary forms).
Unlike thoose religion were God have a diferent essence from our essence,Iskon belive that we have the same essence whit God.
I think that is enough to show that Krishna concept is diferent then christian or islamic concepts.
Most of the Iskon members simply dont know christian or islamic theology ,they dont know bible or quran so they make this mistake.
ADD-Iskon belive that Krishna fullfil our wishess.If we worship Shiva we go to Shiva,if we worship Murugan we go to Murugan.If we wish the impersonal aspect of God ,we go there(see advaita).
Advaita-temporary personal relationship -eternal nonduality
Dvaita and co-temporary nonduality,eternal personal relatioship.
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Dec 13 2007, 06:03 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Dec 13 2007, 06:03 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->egin and the other end? Everywhere and nowhere. They are the same.
Thduism was 'evil'. But everytime I got to Hindu God she would shake her head violently andan that laid out in the Bible. Everything else is regarded "false, hateful, anti-christian". Their way or the highway. Hindu/Natural Gods are not like that. For instance, their god must the Hindu. Hence the end result is that the muslim merely wandered from his personal religion that he thought was called "islam" to the same religion he now calls Hinduism. (Or alternatively, once exposed to the Hindu idea/Natural Religion's idea of God, the former muslim found it resonated with him/her better.) But the islamic idea of "God" and Natural Religions understanding of what God entails are <i>not</i> the same.
[right][snapback]76105[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Im surprized about a couple of your statements here.
First ,in christian and islamic theology God is genderless.In islam to call God father is a heresy.Yes in bible God is call father(why not mother or neutral parent?).I know that in folk thinking God is seen as male but is not the case in theology.
In Iskon God is seen as a real male ,not genderless.Being a person Krishna has wishes.He like to be a man,he like to be blue and play whit his cows and cowherd friends.We can say that Krishna have particular wishes.
For Iskon to be Brahma or Shiva is more like a function ;i can be Brahma or Shiva,you can be Brahma or Shiva(have their functions,or have the same desires as they).Universalism and particularism are complementary .The gods are as universal as they are particular(whit their own preferces).
However ,unlike biblical God,Krishna dont like(dont wish) to comand his subjects to kill the heathens.
Krishna can be whatever he wants but he like the most some specific things.
Gender or genderless is not a virtue ,nor a sin.
Same about universality or particularity.
I dont belive that God concept lead to intolerance (though some forms of theologies can lead to this),but when i was christian the thing that stop me to make a reason was the fear of eternal hell.I was so afraid that i try to not think at something that seem out of place.When i got a more strong disease i was so afraid that im gona die and go in eternal hell and have panic attacs frecvently.I even go to chuch in front of the Jesus icon and ask him to show himself if he is the real God.I was so bad that i must go to eternal hell?But no answer came.(nearbie the priest discuss whit some students how to stop a gay manifestation).
12-13-2007, 07:40 PM (This post was last modified: 12-15-2007, 08:13 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Honsol+Dec 13 2007, 06:27 PM-->QUOTE(Honsol @ Dec 13 2007, 06:27 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Seem you see as traditional hinduism only advaita vedanta and smarta tradition.[right][snapback]76106[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> I have never said that .... I merely referred to the Gita and a few Upanishads I read in translation. If Vedantam happens to agree with me on what I did say, then woohoo I reinvented the wheel all by myself. I must be cleverer than I thought. (Or not.) It's merely all my own opinion formed from my reading the said scriptures.
By the way, Vaishnava stream is an ancient tradition in S India. It's part of the three ancient Agamic streams. Older than Advaitam.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Gaudya vaishnava is as traditional hinduism as any other branch of hinduism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Indeed I did not know of the Gaudiya Vaishnava branch until I learnt of it in the context of ISKCON.
My gripe is not with the view that Krishna is the centre of the universe. Of course he is. (Besides, Ishtadevam, Kuladevam - or for that matter, the God of any established Hindu school of thought - is part of traditional Hinduism anyway.)
But as I said repeatedly (in spite of my digressing left and right) my problem lay with ISKCON being incapable of recognising other main Hindu Gods as equal while their books readily elevate jehovah and allah to Krishna's level. Am unable to reconcile with or even understand that.
<b>ADDED:</b> From my own #228 -
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Many Vaishnavas do see the other Gods as minor or having specific abilities/fields of action and therefore not capable of giving final/lasting liberation. But that is not the view of any <b>other Hindu streams</b> where different Gods are central.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Note, here I am not speaking of Advaitam or Smarta tradition or anything, merely of the two other Agamic Hindu streams and those related to Ganapathi and Murugar (and Ayyappan too). In other words, I am speaking of what I know only - that is, my locality.
What can i say?even the biggest yoga school from Romania( it has 30000 practicants) mixes yoga whit christian belives and even whit nationalism.
The heysichast practicant Andrei G, travel in India and today he and his folowers practice Jesus endless praying mixed whit yoga meditation.
Is a phenomen far beyonde Iskon.And more,ex-christians seem to bring christian elements in their practice.
12-13-2007, 08:24 PM (This post was last modified: 12-15-2007, 08:17 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Honsol+Dec 13 2007, 07:30 PM-->QUOTE(Honsol @ Dec 13 2007, 07:30 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Im surprized about a couple of your statements here.[right][snapback]76108[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->What I meant to say was that the reason she (christian girl of Korean origin) did not agree with me was that her fundamental ideas of who God was, was entirely different from what Hindus think of when we think of God. The word "God" disguises too many dissimilarities and brings ideas separated by a great chasm together though the chasm in reality is unbridgeable.
The classmate was right though - perversely: our Gods turned out not to be the same. We <i>were</i> talking about different entities/ideas after all.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->First ,in christian and islamic theology God is genderless.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->"God is an angry male .... with a beard" (<- ex-Baptist's explanation to me).
The OT god is male. As in, specifically male and <i>not</i> female.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In islam to call God father is a heresy.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->He may not be considered father, but allah is still very much male. Just like Allah's three daughters (as initially accepted by Mohammed, but then denounced by him afterwards) were female Goddesses.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In Iskon God is seen as a real male ,not genderless.Being a person Krishna has wishes.He like to be a man,he like to be blue and play whit his cows and cowherd friends.We can say that Krishna have particular wishes.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Krishna is Shyama (blue-black) by nature. That's part of Krishna's symbolism, like blue Mahavishnu's profound depiction with his 5 implements (Shaarnga, Kaumodaki, Sudarshana, Nandaka, Panchajanya) or Shiva's neela-kantha. Mahavishnu is male, but his form as Mohini is female; his form as Varaha is a Boar.
Our Gods have already taken those gendered forms - but Brahman is genderless and formless.
We don't insist that our God is the "only form" and then insist he is also male - which makes no sense, to me anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I dont belive that God concept lead to intolerance (though some forms of theologies can lead to this),but when i was christian the thing that stop me to make a reason was the fear of eternal hell.I was so afraid that i try to not think at something that seem out of place.When i got a more strong disease i was so afraid that im gona die and go in eternal hell and have panic attacs frecvently.I even go to chuch in front of the Jesus icon and ask him to show himself if he is the real God.I was so bad that i must go to eternal hell?But no answer came.(nearbie the priest discuss whit some students how to stop a gay manifestation).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"I dont belive that God concept lead to intolerance" - IMO it depends on how we define God. The God of the bible threatens to punish those who violated his laws upto the third generation (including for tolerating polytheists and idolators). The God of the NT portion of the bible threatens with eternal damnation for not believing/accepting he saved us from sin and was resurrected.
Honsol, don't ever worry about "hell" again. Worst case scenario: all of us at IF and all your pagan ancestors and my pagan ancestors will all be there.
If you ever panic about it again - during your sleep or when ill or in some unreasonable waking hour - just try to remember that <b><i>at least you won't be alone</i></b>. There's some great company to be had. Shivaji, Confucius, Thomas Paine, Hypatia, Aurobindo, native American chiefs.... list is endless. We'll party down-under in the firey pits, if it ever came to that.
In my ISKON gathering the reader was saying how Islam is another path etc. I so thoroughly made all of them quiet on Jesus and Allah by invoking CM and the Quran, hadiths...and this was months ago. They had to agree that Islam was man made. Now this has permeated upwards. I do not think ISKON is going to stay the same. Keep working on things, things change. Dhimmis are a dime a dozen. Correct them, and you will be surprised at how ready they are to listen. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
12-13-2007, 08:34 PM (This post was last modified: 12-13-2007, 08:39 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Shambhu+Dec 13 2007, 08:27 PM-->QUOTE(Shambhu @ Dec 13 2007, 08:27 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dhimmis are a dime a dozen. Correct them, and you will be surprised at how ready they are to listen. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[right][snapback]76113[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Now Shambhu, where were you a few years back when I was a Hindu apologist for christoislamism? You could have cured me in a short space <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> compared to my growing out of it most painfully.
Honsol, your #232 does not bother me AS LONG AS
- Andrei G and others don't try to convert Hindus to christianity with their mix of christianity and Hinduism (Yoga)
- they don't pretend Yoga is christian
- they don't pretend Yoga is secular (Indian "culture")
- they know and will admit (at least when asked) that Yoga is indeed Hindu - in this statement Hindu is not a cultural or merely ethnic identity but rather a particularly religious identification
For the rest, if it makes them happy and comfortable, good luck to them. Live and let live.
I no more believe that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary than I believe that Krishna was born of the virgin Devaka, Horus was born of the virgin Isis, Mercury was born of the virgin Maia or Romulus was born of the virgin Rhea Sylvia. As the preceding examples help to demonstrate, parthenogenesis would in any case not be proof either of divine paternity or of the truth of any subsequent preachings. The authors of St Matthew â whose account cannot be squared with the one offered by Luke â in any case seem to have mistranslated the Hebrew word almah, meaning âyoung womanâ, from the original legend in the book of Isaiah. Christianity insults our intelligence as well as our innate morality by insisting that we believe absurdities that are drawn from the mythology of paganism and barbarism.
<!--QuoteBegin-prem+Dec 14 2007, 06:54 AM-->QUOTE(prem @ Dec 14 2007, 06:54 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Christopher Hitchens
...Krishna was born of the virgin Devaka,...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Somebody is spreading this false rumour. Krishna was eighth son of Vasudeva and Devaki.
Maccabean era was also the transition point between Alexandrian Seleucids and the new Roman guard. Do we have any examples of a renewed social engineering as British passed the baton onto the Americans. What about the appointment of Bush Sr. from the intelligence agency; was that occasioned by any significant policy shift or new engagements.
During 69, the Year of the Four Emperors, after the emperor Galba failed to provide a donative for the Praetorians, they transferred their allegiance to Otho and assassinated the emperor. Otho acquiesced in the Praetorians' demands and granted them the right to appoint their own prefects, ensuring their loyalty. After defeating Otho, Vitellius disbanded the guard and established a new one sixteen cohorts strong. Vespasian relied in the war against Vitellius upon the disgruntled cohorts the emperor had dismissed, and reduced the number of cohorts back to nine upon becoming emperor himself. <b>As a further safeguard, he appointed his son, Titus as Praetorian Prefect.</b>[1]
While the Guard had the power to kill off emperors, it had no role in government administration, unlike the personnel of the palace, the Senate, and the bureaucracy. Often after an outrageous act of violence, revenge by the new ruler was forthcoming. In 193, Didius Julianus purchased the Empire from the Guard for a vast sum, when the Guard auctioned it off after killing Pertinax. Later that year Septimius Severus marched into Rome, disbanded the Praetorians and started a new formation from his own Pannonian Legions. Unruly mobs in Rome fought often with the Praetorians in Maximinus Thrax's reign in vicious street battles.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
12-14-2007, 08:12 AM (This post was last modified: 12-14-2007, 12:37 PM by dhu.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->post 237 :
Christianity insults our intelligence as well as our innate morality by insisting that we believe absurdities that are drawn from the mythology of paganism and barbarism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hitchens is the typical westerner. What we have to note is that he will attack the monotheistic priests of the church and flirt with sympathy for the noble savage pagan, but he will never touch the ethical part of the duality of ethical monotheism, most recently transfered to the nebulous entity of the <i>anglosphere</i>. At most, Ethics is present in every society( another case of equal equalism ) and is not an exclusive for the Church. The narratives of Krishna are simply those of the amoral heathen to Hitchens. Their presumed absurdity can be resolved by faith in the ethical anglosphere.
This should signify that the important transforming component was the ethical part of <i>ethical monotheism, </i>not the monotheism part.
Contrary to what our authors claim, however, there are both a difference in degree and differences in kind: the former when one compares the Greek and Roman ethics with contemporary moral philosophy; the latter when one compares Indian writings on the subject with either of the two.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mahabharata, where Krishna has a big explanation on who Shiva is and how Shiva is GOD. But of course Krishna would say that, because he is Shiva.