Comments on halfsatori: Dichotomy of Light and Darkness

Let me drink my cup of hot milk and say to you tha...

2011-02-25T09:43:18.934+01:00

Let me drink my cup of hot milk and say to you that all these religions (including fictious and bygone personages like Radha Krsna, Rama Sita etc) had been devised as any other religion by the smart priests and politicians to exploit you poor fellows, so that you'd become slaves in the hands of the religious Gurus and Popes who are supporting these numorous doctrines which are naturally forced to fight against each other. Like Vedas are a controversial symbiosis combining Advaita and Dvaita which are fighting against each other. Hindu and Muslim, Muslim and Christian, Christian and Hindu ... worlds are fighting against each other, Materialsts and Spiritualists are fighting against each others. These fighting tendencies were very profitable for those who supply both parties the various means for fighting between each other. So be as natural as you are and forget all these good and bad stories and be yourself without struggling against others to prove your inner being to be holly and wholly, and to support, nourish and enrich various ideological slave-holders.
Be Yourself and be free of all devised concepts to control and exploit your freedom!

gah.
i only have 1 mn left in my hr of internet...

2009-03-16T10:30:00.000+01:00

gah.
i only have 1 mn left in my hr of internet.

i whish i'd take the time to read more of your writing. this is very nice stuff indeed.

keep on writing and sharing your knowledge.

with love Manue and Bikash.

Miss Anonymiss

After reading your funny ran...

2008-12-30T03:09:00.000+01:00

Miss Anonymiss

After reading your funny rant I laughed pretty hard because you reminded me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLSP05bGHkU&fmt=18

Regrettably much of the "parallel pointing" betwee...

2008-12-29T19:20:00.000+01:00

Regrettably much of the "parallel pointing" between Puranic doctrines and quantum physics is so very wishy and imprecise; so much so that the so-called cryptic descriptions of the fundamentals of existence can be re-interpreted to "magic match" with just about any damn theory...

I concede with the comments on Advaita's steel logic. It's steely all right, in that it refuses to bend and see any contradicting points of view, even if they might be legitimate interpretations of the shastras — what to speak of ideas outside the strict and narrow scriptural theories. But his logical reasoning holds its own like kick-ass killer tomatoes, yeah!

Advaitadas does not debate. By his misrepresention...

2008-12-29T16:18:00.000+01:00

Advaitadas does not debate. By his misrepresention of the tradition, if there would be a debate, he would take the oxygen out of it. He may impress devotees who have not fully outgrown their Iskcon and Gaudiya Math samskars but will never satisfy those who are looking for genuine realization. His are essentially mechanical citings of chapter and verse.

Killer logic? I will concede killer, of course, but absolutely not logic.

Incidentally, haven't we had enough guardians of devotion and watch dogs of the sampradaya?

The only "dark energy" Ananda can understand now i...

2008-12-29T15:18:00.000+01:00

The only "dark energy" Ananda can understand now is the "skidmarks" in his boxers, now that he has renounced yellow stains in his kaupins.

And

Madhavanandadas, Sorry to nip your budd...

2008-12-29T12:40:00.000+01:00

And

Madhavanandadas, Sorry to nip your buddhist bud this early.

I have just read that physicists think that even void contains so-called dark energy.

I like that-- makes me think of Shyamasundar's energy.

btw, the Gvism door is still open for you!

Haribol!

Madhavanandadas, bring it on!

And Vegman an...

2008-12-29T11:53:00.000+01:00

Madhavanandadas, bring it on!

And Vegman and Shiva will throw their wisdom against yours.

And hey, you gutless anonymous, and those with jealous streak for him, Advaitadas just has it: a KILLER LOGIC. Even Jagat, with his PHD, will find it hard to escape Advaitadas' logic. And I will say this AGAIN: Advaitadas is one of the best minds and hearts of Gvism. Not to mention that he has the the full backing of the shastra and our acharyas. How can he lose in a debate?

In the recent months, my 17 year old son has been giving me lectures on quantum mechanics which sparked my interests in physics and cosmology. And the more I read about physics and cosmology (mostly from the prestigious magazine Scientific American) the more I can understand what the Vedas is saying about the transcendental realm, eg. Goloka,the age of our universe, about time and space.

Although, I still think physics will NOT FIND GOD , the world of physics is also talking about multiverses -- many universes with different properties or law of physics different from our own universe. So those "mythical stories" some of you here think are illogical and improbable, just think about a world with a different law of physics.

I was reading Sri Krishna the God of Love by Baba Premananda Bharati (available from Nitai das' bookstore) and he talks about time as always is and time as motion of change and I can relate that to an article in Scien. American that theorizes that time does not flow. (BTW, time is one of the most misunderstood concept in physics, even scientists/philosophers concede that). Obvioulsy, Baba Bharati had mined his ideas from the Vedas, the springeternal of the GV theosophy.

I was reading in the same magazine an interview with Brian Greene, a prominent proponent of the string theory from which the multiverses idea hinges on and I was wondering if he gets his ideas from the Vedic literature because I think his brother is a devotee, an SP disciple.

I have read a few times that science reckons that our universe, our observable universe is 14 billion years old (this universe includes our solar system , sun + planets which is 5 billion years old) the same estimate (14 bil.) the Vedas gives. What a coincidence!

Of course, my faith does not hinge on the validity of the cosmology or physical concepts in the Vedas, but I can only think that my faith helps me realize that THERE MUST BE SOMETHING and BIG SOMEONE OUT THERE.

Believe me I have walked on many different paths, but none as beautiful and elaborate in its ontology and philosophy as the system of Gvism

(This is not to show off my little knowledge of physics, but my interest in understanding the system and philosophy of Gvism led me to it).

Hare Krishna

Get over it Shiva you will never be one of the hot...

2008-12-29T08:10:00.000+01:00

Get over it Shiva you will never be one of the hotties. Ananda, blooped and all, still comands more attention at any random silly post he throws out there these days than you have managed to gather in nearly a decade of your long and boring posts everywhere on the net. Jagat, you have even seen the dust left by Jagat; even the dim witted Advaitadas is more interesting than you!

Just face it pal, you just don't have it.

In a galaxy far far away out there perhaps someone is ready for your brand of spaceballs.

Meanwhile here on earth, what can we say, Kshamabhudi has stated it best, "We love Uranus".

I don't even need kaupins on to tell you in be...

2008-12-29T01:07:00.000+01:00

I don't even need kaupins on to tell you in between joints you can just use regular HTML tags like < i > and < b > (remove spaces) for special effects.

Mano.... said...
a short question ananda, how d...

2008-12-29T00:50:00.000+01:00

Mano.... said...
a short question ananda, how do I use tags in blogger. The italics etc?

end quote>>>>

Ananda is very stoned now. He will reply to you some time after the new year when he sobers up and get's his dick back in his kaupins.

a short question ananda, how do I use tags in blog...

2008-12-28T05:17:00.000+01:00

a short question ananda, how do I use tags in blogger. The italics etc?

thx

Shiva thx for replying to me.

Shiva said "I...

2008-12-28T05:10:00.000+01:00

Shiva thx for replying to me.

Shiva said "It's interesting how different people develop different ideas about what is reality when they gain faith in Vaishnava Puranic world views."

Yes indeed it is interesting. I presume for various reasons, one being the impressions we accept and formulate in our ongoing thought. Which is congruent with your Rig Veda understanding of God, I feel, in some ways.

Shiva said "They take literally Krishna's statement in Gita 2.12 to mean that we have always existed as we are now, when more likely and logically Krishna simply meant that we have lived previous lives to the present one, and that being a part of God we have always existed in an abstract metaphorical sense, not that we have literally always lived as individuals somewhere."

In Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's speech 'Relative Worlds' he presses home very strongly the reality of a transcendental Goloka. Therefore he refutes forms of anthropomorphism, gnosis etc. But instead coins a phrase 'beautiful gnosis'. Now, that seems to be the whole crux of current Gaudiya practice and bhajan - acceptance of the trancendent realm and re-tainment of individual existence within that pinnacle.

The idea of the individual soul having a spiritual body eternal, is only a formulation or description in my opinion. I feel Shiva, not to take a stand on these issues directly (or deny), but to consider the possibilities - and that 'which will remain'.

For example, if consciousness is an eternal substance something will remain, whereas that substance may have very little to do with the grosser matter of my body (but saying that the gross is a vehicle and the subtle lies within it presently,manifesting that which will be). Sheldrake (if my recall and understanding is correct) suggested an over-soul. A novel idea that the total soul expresses itself in manifestation and evolves that way. Similar to your ideas of Rig Veda maybe. Even that deserves some consideration - considering the subject of transcendence etc...surely the fundamentalist cannot hold claim to complete knowledge. Even if he backs it by scriptural verse as you suggest, it is still an interpretation of that which is not fully understood. Whereas if we hold to an unfoldment of understanding in consciousness, then the understanding is an evolutionary encounter. Always fresh. This is obvious in the minute individual human encounter, why not in the whole?

If our personal life experience is a morphosis of type (of a whole), and the dividing line, between the transcendent-inconceivable and experiential, is a fine line...I feel there is no need to discount the concept of Goloka. As a description of a pinnacle or Omega. As a cultivation to where we wish to move... Almost as if it, (the omega), is intuited within, and expressed in scriptures.

The problem I find with a Goloka type vision these days, is if all are expected to conform to that set structure. I feel that is limiting the destiny aspired for. Many fundamentalists seem to have that approach, whereas I never considered that in vedanta or consciousness.It always sat poorly with me. I would prefer to hold to the idea that diversity (and humanity) can converge and realize its one wholesome organic destiny...where nothing is discounted. But instead where everything has led to 'Its' manifestation and fulfillment.

Saying that, it will develop ;)

Is all this conducive to Gaudiya bhajan? Unfortunately, probably not.

mano you wrote:

Thx for the article Shiv...

2008-12-28T02:49:00.000+01:00
mano you wrote:

Thx for the article Shiva. Ananda made a good point earlier about moving forward in thinking and not being stagnant (or something to that effect). It would would be nice to hear your thinking now, 4 years after your article, and where you hold the Bhagavatam in your life.

I still believe the same thing, although I only gave a part of my understanding in that article. So much of what people consider to be "Krishna consciousness" or the "Gaudiya Vaishnava Puranic inspired world view" is based upon taking literally -- writings that are ultimately not literally true. The Vamana saga mentioned by Ananda is a good example, as are all the traditional Vishnu avatar stories, of transcendental magical realism, intended to create an exciting romantic fantasy escapist weltanschauung for the average person when taken literally, but which also hold deeper metaphysical truths when understood allegorically.

It's interesting how different people develop different ideas about what is reality when they gain faith in Vaishnava Puranic world views.

Some view all of it very literally, e.g. they believe that there are demigods who control most aspects of our world, they believe in ghosts and the power of amulets and mantras to protect them from malevolent spirit beings, they believe the lila of avatars such as Vishnu and Shiva or Devi when they appear on earth happened (and continue to happen on other planets) in exactly the way they are described in the Puranas, Mahabharata, etc. That is the view preached by many or probably most Vaishnava gurus and their followers in the various Vaishnava sampradayas. They usually preach a literalistic fundamentalist Vaishnavism, more literalistic even than the writers of the Vedas; where for instance we see the devas being referred to as manifestations of the same supreme God. Good arguments have been made to show that the devas in the Vedas also were meant as personifications of God's control over the forces of nature.

Usually the literalistic fundamentalist will reject the idea that what they believe to be literal truth and literally real, is really more often than not, not. They may even claim an allegorical interpretation of what they accept as literal truth - to be blasphemous, the product of a lack of faith, or a deluded mind.

For example a while back I wrote a comment on Advaita Das' blog which he wouldn't post (see at bottom of this post), the reason he gave was that it went against what he considered to be authentic Gaudiya theology, and that it would confuse or mislead people. I was commenting on something Ananda had written on his previous blog about the Rig Veda verses where Ananda thought they were referring to the origin of the world. I said Ananda was wrong, that in fact those verses were about the origin of God. In the fundamentalist literalistic vision of Advaita Das, because the word anadi, beginningless, is used often in sastra to describe various things, e.g. the jiva or God, therefore God has always existed and lived in the exact same way God is doing today.

Gaudiya Vaishnava preachers usually never differ from that point of view. They generally preach that God and God's creation are eternal - to them meaning "no beginning and no end". They don't see the contradiction in that concept, i.e. creation means a beginning, complex purposeful structures like bodies, houses, furniture, etc, had to have been conceived of and designed by a mind before they could exist. Therefore the Vaikuntha worlds where there is a divine human society where God has "eternal" pleasure pastimes, had to have a beginning. Gaudiya preachers usually preach that the Vaikuntha worlds have always existed. Even though logically it is 100% impossible. Usually they write off these logical contradictions in their literalist understanding of Vaishnavism by claiming that we are incapable of understanding how the seemingly impossible becomes possible in the mysterious inconceivable timeless "spiritual world".

They take literally Krishna's statement in Gita 2.12 to mean that we have always existed as we are now, when more likely and logically Krishna simply meant that we have lived previous lives to the present one, and that being a part of God we have always existed in an abstract metaphorical sense, not that we have literally always lived as individuals somewhere.

Another example of literalism gone amok: For years Ananda argued pretty strongly against me when I tried to point out that a literal understanding of Krishna's rasa-lila is logically self-contradictory because the sastras and previous acharyas all agree that Radha and Krishna were the same all pervading supreme being - that the only difference between them is their bodily forms and personas. "Logically and rationally", I argued, "how could God's supposedly most ecstatically enjoyable and highest pastime be centered around a romance with himself in a different body? How could a sane person have a romantic relationship with themself?" I argued that the writings about Krishna lila, and especially rasa-lila, on the literal level, only serves as something to inspire people to take up Krishna bhakti. That in reality it wasn't a literal revelation of God's highest and most intimate pastimes. The true higher pastimes were in those same writings but only seen when taking those writings metaphorically, e.g. Radha and her expansions represent God's enjoying nature (hladini) and Krishna represented what was to be enjoyed by God's enjoying nature. But since Radha and Krishna are the same person, in the writings about rasa-lila Krishna is a symbol for the jivas, i.e. God's highest enjoying pastimes in reality is not erotica and romance with himself in drag, it's with other people - the jivatmas. And since God's enjoying aspect (hladini) is female, therefore God's most intimate pastimes are erotic romantic relationships between God as a female and male jivas - represented symbolically in the writings on rasa-lila between Radha and Krishna. That was the metaphoric intent of Sri Caitanya's lila. Sri Caitanya is said to be Radha and Krishna combined, come in the outward form of Krishna wit the inner persona of Radha. In other words Radha and Krishna are one person, but Radha is really the inner soul of Krishna because she is the identity that Krishna takes on for the most enjoyment.

At first Ananda and others (mostly Jagat) argued that the basis of my statements were faulty because Radha was in fact not God, and that therefore she and Krishna are not the same person. But I proved to most of them by using the sastra and the writings of the previous acharyas that they all consistently said that Radha was God, and that she was Krishna's female aspect - and that there was no authentic sastric teaching where Radha is said to exist in some special category other than God or jivatmas. Then Ananda and others (mostly Jagat) argued that even if Radha is God, still inconceivably she is a different person than Krishna and that the writings on rasa-lila are literally true depictions of the highest reality.

They had fallen into the same type of denial mode as those who claim that the logical contradictions one encounters when taking all of Vaishnava teachings literally, can be written off as mysterious and inconceivable to our limited minds. They rejected the idea of a higher metaphorical understanding because they couldn't believe that they had been so totally mistaken all those many years they considered themselves to be enlightened masters of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

When you think that you know the ontology of absolute reality perfectly well, but then you are confronted with a basic logical absurdity at a very basic level of what you believe to be absolute reality, some people go into denial mode because they can't believe that their world view was based so much upon such an obviously flawed conception. Others accept their past mistakes and move forward.

Some people cannot deal with that blow to their ego and retreat even further into the fantasy they have believed in (Jagat and his endless poetic musings on the love between Radha and Krishna, Advaita and his endless detailing of the minutea of a literal understanding of rasa-lila) or they may eventually lose faith entirely in their faulty world view and adopt an entirely new faulty world view (Ananda).

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

The following is what I posted at Advaita's blog some time back, but he didn't post it because he claimed it goes against Gaudiya teachings.

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

In his [url=http://www.vrajajournal.com/blog/Gods_Forsaken%2C_Paradise_Lost]latest blog Madhava quotes[/url] from the Rig Veda and then gives a comment.

"Then was not non-existence nor existence: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it. What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water? Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider. That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever. Darkness there was at first concealed in darkness this. All was indiscriminated chaos. All that existed then was void and formless: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit. Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit. Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.

Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it? There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder. Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The devas are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being? He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not." - (Rig Veda 10.129.1-7)

Madhava's comment:

'The above, so it seems to me anyway, is in spirit more proximate to the Buddhist doctrine of Pratitya-samutpada or Dependent Arising than it is to the later Hindu creation mythos featuring a personal deity pulling the strings. In general, the Upanishadic versions of creation are worth a study for people who haven't familiarized themselves with anything beyond the Puranic version."

Madhava missed the point. Clearly it says:

"Who knows then whence it first came into being? He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not."

Clearly this first being, "the first origin of this creation", is said to "control this world in highest heaven".

What the above is talking about is no less then the birth of God. While usually in the vedic canon it is taught that God is without beginning, and that the spiritual and material worlds are also beginningless, in the Rig Veda, in the above, is another story, a more complex story.

On the one hand God is without beginning, on the other hand there logically had to be a beginning of God's creations. If we say that Vaikuntha has always existed, then we run into a paradox. Vaikuntha is described as being of people, places, and things. A human like society. There you will find houses, vegetation, food, human forms, animals, furniture, musical instruments, etc. Can any of those things exist without being designed and created? No. A house cannot have always existed. It had to be originally designed. Human forms (contrary to evolutionist folderol) with their complementary complex dual gender natures, likewise had to have been originally designed. They could not exist unless they were brought into existence by a mind which formulated a plan and design and then brought that design into existence. So Vaikuntha had to have been designed and brought into existence by the mental plan and design of it's creator. Likewise the material world.

So that leads to acknowledgment of the pre-Vaikuntha and pre-material world epoch. What was God doing before he designed and created everything? Trying to figure out how to make use of his time and ability! The above verse in the Rig Veda tells us the origin of God, although in one sense God is beginningless, in another sense God changed or evolved from one state into other states over time.

In order for God to create what has been created, God would first have to have needed to figure out how to do it. A mango tree is no easy feat. God actually had to figure out how to design and build a mango tree, from the seed to the fruit. How did God do it? We have to go back to the beginning.

First God had to be able to communicate with him/her-self. The first language was the language God created to enable him/her-self to be able to make sense of everything. If you don't have a language then your mind cannot develop. You need to be able to make sense of reality and a language is absolutely necessary for the mind to develop in any meaningful sense. So before God created anything else, God created a language. Once God was able to use viable language in order to communicate with, then God was able to start to master his/her inherent awesome abilities. From that point on it was just a matter of time until, through trial and error, God was able to gradually educate him/her-self on the extent of God's abilities. What we see today is part of what God was able to accomplish.

But what about before God created a language? A language is a construct, it had to be designed, it had to have an origin. God wasn't always able to communicate with him/her-self with a language, before God created the first language, there was a beginningless period of time. The origin of God as God is what the text from the Rig Veda is about.

"Then was not non-existence nor existence: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it. What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water? Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider. That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever. Darkness there was at first concealed in darkness this. All was indiscriminated chaos. All that existed then was void and formless: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit. Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit. Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent"

Something has always existed. If anything exists then something has always existed. This is because if there was ever a time when nothing existed, then there would have been nothing to cause something to come into existence. Therefore something has always existed. There is no beginning of the primeval state of existence. Whatever that primeval substance was, it was not intelligent, but it was alive, and it was everywhere. As the Rig Veda says:

"That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever."

Intelligence was to come later, then self-searching, then creation of self-communication through symbols and language. Then came knowledge of how to use those discovered inherent powers of infinity and vast intellectual ability.

But before that, from a state without beginning, there was an infinite being of infinite potential, not yet awake to it's full potential. Then something happened. The Rig Veda says;

"All that existed then was void and formless: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit. Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit."

From an unconscious state, that original infinite primeval substance/being, awakened, it became desirous. From an unconscious living infinite field of primeval energy/substance, at some point it awakened and desired to do something. At that point it truly became God, although it would go through a period of self-discovery before learning the extent of it's abilities. The Rig Veda then says:

"Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it? There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder. Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The devas are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being? He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not."

Here we are being told of the situation God found him/her-self in when first awakened to his/her situation:

"Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it? There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder. Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?"

We cannot imagine the situation. These metaphoric words are meant to convey that when first awakened, God was confronted with an awesome reality, a reality of infinite scope, infinite presence, infinite powers, beyond anything which we can possibly imagine. And it is was all unknown how God got to be in that situation to God. Knowledge would come later, after figuring out how to communicate and after searching and learning the extent of his/her reality. God was born into an awesome and complex reality, without knowing where or what was going on. The Rig Veda tells us:

"Who knows then whence it first came into being? He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not"

Here we are told that the being who was the first, he may or may not know how he came to exist, but he is that being "whose eye controls THIS world in highest heaven". Whether or not God knows how he came to exist, whether he is self created or not, he is still in control over everything at this point in time.

God as God had to have a beginning because knowledge is not inherent in anything. Knowledge is something which is only acquired by a mind. Knowledge comes from learning, from experience. Before there is learning and experience there is no knowledge. Therefore all knowledge God has was acquired. Before God acquired knowledge there was a stage of unconscious existence without beginning. The primeval substance of reality was God, but God in an unconscious state. God was originally an infinite field of energy/substance, alive but unconscious. It had to be infinite because nothing cannot exist anywhere, it's a self contradictory proposition to believe that nothing exists. Therefore the primeval substance/unconscious God, existed everywhere and comprised everything in existence. Through some type of reaction a change occurred, the Rig Veda says:

"That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever. Darkness there was at first concealed in darkness this. All was indiscriminated chaos. All that existed then was void and formless: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit."

Something changed in the infinite unconscious being "by the great power of warmth", and it became conscious, self-aware. When did this happen? Who can say? Billions or trillions or trillions to the trillionth power of years ago? Or a trillion trillion times that? In the realm of infinite time even those amounts of time are like a grain of sand on a beach.

Wow! Anandaji, you really know how make it all rig...

2008-12-26T01:05:00.000+01:00
Wow! Anandaji, you really know how make it all right.
Yeah, I remember.
I don't know how to thank you.
I feel so special.

You know Ananda, my kids aren't really Hare Krishna people.

I couldn't subject them to the challenges I faced trying to believe in Krishna and live in secular USA.

But, I love my kids with all my heart, even though they aren't Hare Krishna people.

I never tried to make them as such.

"What the F? I am so hurt."

I'm sorr...

2008-12-26T00:17:00.000+01:00
"What the F? I am so hurt."

I'm sorry, it was mean of me to do on Christmas day. I've made it up in the spirit of good ol' times — I'm sure you remember!! =)

Mr. Ananda said...
"Vegman: "You are just jealo...

2008-12-25T20:20:00.000+01:00
Mr. Ananda said...
"Vegman: "You are just jealous because you don't have a widget devoted to you on this blog.
That my friend is reserved for the elite of the elite."

And right you are. Thanks for the reminder, I have updated the widget accordingly!"

What the F?
I am so hurt.
My widget has been defaced by some hacker who substituted me with a Rakshasa.

Ananda, please get to the bottom of this and correct this disgrace immediately.

If my widget doesn't get purified soon, I will have to rethink my participation on this blog.

Vegman: "You are just jealous because you don't...

2008-12-25T19:48:00.000+01:00
Vegman: "You are just jealous because you don't have a widget devoted to you on this blog.
That my friend is reserved for the elite of the elite."

And right you are. Thanks for the reminder, I have updated the widget accordingly!

Hamburger Das Vodkachary said...
Most people wh...

2008-12-25T19:02:00.000+01:00
Hamburger Das Vodkachary said...
Most people who spend their time "preaching" HK religion online are burned out guys who haven't chanted for years and they try to get rid of their guilt and prove how vedick they are by bashing others who are not on their side.

end quote>>>>

You are just jealous because you don't have a widget devoted to you on this blog.
That my friend is reserved for the elite of the elite.

Most people who spend their time "preaching" HK re...

2008-12-25T17:23:00.000+01:00
Most people who spend their time "preaching" HK religion online are burned out guys who haven't chanted for years and they try to get rid of their guilt and prove how vedick they are by bashing others who are not on their side.

Mr Ananda wrote:
"Whatever you believe in! Writ...

2008-12-25T13:22:00.000+01:00
Mr Ananda wrote:
"Whatever you believe in! Written by Gaudiya acharyas or someone before them, it's old books all the same, old books that draw their authority from unverifiable (for all practical purposes) revelations. Some of them of more theological interest, some less".

Well, Mr. Ananda, not everyone requires that their theosophical beliefs be fully rationalized in their tiny pea brain.

Most all faith requires acceptance of the fact that if in fact there is a transcendent absolute entity whom is the well-spring of all existances, that he must surely possess inexhaustible and inconceivable characteristics that can never be fully rationalized in the human mind.

We all live by placing our faith in something and someone.

If you have chosen to withdraw your faith from the Gaudiya theological system and put it in secular historians and anthropologists and THEIR OLD BOOKS of unverifiable theories, then that is certainly your option.

But, don't expect your old comrades from the Gaudiya community to have must respect for the hamburger gobbling vodka drinkers that you are now so conveniently putting your faith in.

Oh yea, and some of Shiva's writing is pretty good...

2008-12-25T13:01:00.000+01:00
Oh yea, and some of Shiva's writing is pretty good, though I need to muster courage over a few more joints before I start wading to its farther shore.

"It is about believing in the self-realized ach...

2008-12-25T12:57:00.000+01:00
"It is about believing in the self-realized acharyas who have themselves ascended to the lofty heights of transcendence and validated the Vaishnava dictums.

We don't just believe in old books.
We believe in all the Gaudiya acharyas and Mahaprabhu."

Whatever you believe in! Written by Gaudiya acharyas or someone before them, it's old books all the same, old books that draw their authority from unverifiable (for all practical purposes) revelations. Some of them of more theological interest, some less.

And if I choose to not deposit my unconditional faith in these folk, it should not be your task or anyone's to enforce a fully black and white order and division of populace, where something is either all absolute truth or all brainfarts by idiots.

"Now, Mr. Ananda asserts that they were all simply misguided fools who wrongly placed their beliefs in some old books and wasted their lives chasing after a God that doesn't exist."

Now you're giving it the Advaitadas twist, aren't you! This all seems so familiar! You have no idea on my stance on the bulk of the issues you "quote" me on, so you might as well just shut the fuck up and not make yourself any more of an embarassment you already are, don't you think?

So, it all boils down to Mr. Ananda is now claimin...

2008-12-25T12:31:00.000+01:00
So, it all boils down to Mr. Ananda is now claiming that all the Goswamis and acharyas of the Gaudiya sampradaya are fools and idiots who were duped by some old books and wasted their lives believing in some old Vedic mythology.
Now, Mr. Ananda asserts that he has risen above the stupidity and naivety that victimized the six goswamis of Vrindavana, Vishvanatha Chakravarti, Baladeva Vidyabhusana etc. etc. etc.

Now, Mr. Ananda asserts that they were all simply misguided fools who wrongly placed their beliefs in some old books and wasted their lives chasing after a God that doesn't exist.

Well, I think we all know who the real idiot is and it is not the six Goswamis of Vrindavan.

I would just like to point out that in Vaishnavism...

2008-12-25T12:14:00.000+01:00
I would just like to point out that in Vaishnavism there is more to it than just ancient texts that espouse certain histories and absolute claims of a divine autocrat.
In Vaishnavism there is a chain of self-realized masters who have validated through personal realization the spiritual reality espoused in the Bhagavat and Vaishnava texts.

It is not just about believing in old books.

It is about believing in the self-realized acharyas who have themselves ascended to the lofty heights of transcendence and validated the Vaishnava dictums.

We don't just believe in old books.
We believe in all the Gaudiya acharyas and Mahaprabhu.

We believe in the Goswamis of Vrindavan, Vishvanatha Chakravarti, Baladeva Vidyabhusana, Bhaktivinode, Siddhanta Saraswata, Bhaktivedanta Swami, Sridhara Dev-goswami etc. and all the great self-realized acharyas of the Gaudiya sampradaya.

It is not just about believing in old books, but in the great sages and saints of the sampradaya who have all gone up to the well-spring of truth and drunk the water of immortality.

Comments on halfsatori: Dichotomy of Light and Darkness

Let me drink my cup of hot milk and say to you tha...

gah.i only have 1 mn left in my hr of internet...

Miss AnonymissAfter reading your funny ran...

Regrettably much of the "parallel pointing" betwee...

Advaitadas does not debate. By his misrepresention...

The only "dark energy" Ananda can understand now i...

AndMadhavanandadas, Sorry to nip your budd...

Madhavanandadas, bring it on!And Vegman an...

Get over it Shiva you will never be one of the hot...

I don't even need kaupins on to tell you in be...

Mano.... said...a short question ananda, how d...

a short question ananda, how do I use tags in blog...

Shiva thx for replying to me.Shiva said "I...

mano you wrote:Thx for the article Shiv...

Wow! Anandaji, you really know how make it all rig...

"What the F? I am so hurt."I'm sorr...

Mr. Ananda said..."Vegman: "You are just jealo...

Vegman: "You are just jealous because you don't...

Hamburger Das Vodkachary said...Most people wh...

Most people who spend their time "preaching" HK re...

Mr Ananda wrote:"Whatever you believe in! Writ...

Oh yea, and some of Shiva's writing is pretty good...

"It is about believing in the self-realized ach...

So, it all boils down to Mr. Ananda is now claimin...

I would just like to point out that in Vaishnavism...

gah.
i only have 1 mn left in my hr of internet...

Miss Anonymiss

After reading your funny ran...

And

Madhavanandadas, Sorry to nip your budd...

Madhavanandadas, bring it on!

And Vegman an...

Mano.... said...
a short question ananda, how d...

Shiva thx for replying to me.

Shiva said "I...

mano you wrote:

Thx for the article Shiv...

"What the F? I am so hurt."

I'm sorr...

Mr. Ananda said...
"Vegman: "You are just jealo...

Hamburger Das Vodkachary said...
Most people wh...

Mr Ananda wrote:
"Whatever you believe in! Writ...