Hare Krishna

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Today I had an unfortunate experience with a Hare Krishna. We have quite a lot of them in my city, who go around trying to convince people to make donations and read their literature.

Anyhow, one of them stopped me on the street and we had a chat. When he started to attempt to persuade me to read his books, I told him that I have my beliefs which are contrary to the Krishna faith, so he told me to keep an open mind as he explains his faith. So I said ok I'll listen. Anyway, I had heard it before. Basically he explained that all religions have a common thread which is to love God. He spoke for about 5 minutes or so. After then, I asked Him if he believes Jesus is God.

"Well He's the Son of God," He replied.
I asked again,"Do you believe that He's God?"
"He's one with God, I believe that."
This was getting frustrating,"But do you believe He is God?" I asked a third time.

His reply was no. I said, "Ok, well then let me tell you what I believe."
This guy was not interested at all,"Oh, actually, I've got some other people to see, but if you like you can take this book and you can make a donation." He said.

"But, can't I at least tell you what I believe? I've listened to you" I replied. He was starting to walk away from me and put his hand out as I slowly moved towards him,"No, don't follow me."

That really brassed me off. Anyhow, next break time, I went out and sure enough he was out there still, talking to some couple trying to promote his books with them. I went right up to them and said"Hey guys, I wouldn't bother with this guy, he just wants you to make a donation and read his book, and busily preaches his gospel without letting you give your own response." Then it was really weird. This guy started going all friendly on me, "Hey Jason, how are you doing?", trying to shake my hand. I guess he was trying to make me look like I was one of his mates trying to play a joke or something.

So I lifted up my drivers license," My names Oliver, not Jason." I continued to tell the couple about what this guy was doing. And he said," Well maybe we can continue our conversation then, to which I replied,"yeah sure, how about right now?" The guy was obviously flustered and said,"Ok well I'll see you again sometime." Anyhow, I think I got my message across. As I walked away, I saw the couple leaving, and without a book.

I'm not particularly proud of interrupting a conversation or being quite as vocal as I was, but I feel that if I give my time to listen to someone, they should be polite enough to listen to what I have to say. I'm wondering if anyone else has had encounters with Hare Krishna also? Does anyone know much about them?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), January 12, 2005

Answers

bump

-- (bump@b.ump), January 12, 2005.

I agree. he was simp;ey trygn to peddle his beleifs and posisely turn a profit, and htus had neither interest in your beleifs, nor will to listen, he merley sought your own convrsion to his beelifs for is own merit and benefit.

I have run into people liek that, bu mainly Atheists. ( who often likewise TELL ME what i BEELIVE, WHIH SI BY FAR WORSE...)

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 12, 2005.


Oliver, a man after my own heart!!! Great story. I was once a Hare Krishna but in the lower echelon so I don't happen to know very much. I do know that me and some fellow Harry's chose this road because IT WAS AN ALTERNATIVE TO CHRISTIANITY. It was a time when I would do anything to reject God in order to keep up the lifestyle I wanted to keep up. I'm not saying that Harrys believe that you can be wanton, but anything that defies God gives people reasons to do whatever they want, even if it goes against their new doctrine. I guess these false religions are just another outlet for those in rebellion.

Being vocal and asking for common curtesy are not a sin (praise God!) so i applaud your attempt to speak the truth.

Another note, I was approached by the Harry's under the guise that they had the answer to peace of mind, something that I needed at the time. Too bad no Christian at the time approached me with the "peace of God which surpasses all understanding [that] will guard your hearts and your minds in Jesus Christ." But Oliver, you are that person that delivers Christ's message. I retrospectively vicariously thank you!

-- rina (hellorina@aol.com), January 12, 2005.


Whenever I meet with enthusiasts of eastern religions such as follow gurus and the wisdom of their age- old religions,

I like to tell them of the Maggi; three kings, wise men who came from the orient; who studed the night sky for signs and wonders.

They saw the Star of Wonder; leading them to Bethlehem and a lowly stable where they adored the new-born Son of God. We have recently celebrated their feast day.

Shamefully, we now have Hare Krishnas padding up and down in the college campus with little drums and cymbals; wearing saffron robes. No problem with students or faculty, who love ''diversity''.

But we aren't allowed to set up any creches or Christmas greetings or decorations. They don't think the Christ Child should be seen around there.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 12, 2005.


O.K., now I don't mean to be stereotyping here, so please no long rants in reply. But to get on with the non-stereotyping, some of the people who are in organizations such as the Krishnas have a past history of serious drug abuse, etc., and have now found meaning in their lives by being there. It doesn't suprise me that they get flustered once their routine gets broken, because they (in some isolated cases only, not in general) don't tend to deal with things well in general, and may have some underlying mental difficulties, whether through nature, or behavior.

OTOH, I can't fault you for getting irate, I seem to get quite bothered by some people right here on this forum, and they aren't physically in my face. Best of luck with 'em, and try and be a model of Christian virtues.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 12, 2005.



i read some of the book, talked to some of the people, practiced some of the concepts, so i'm not a total authority, but for what my opinion is worth...

in order to reach total enlightenment, you have to let go of this world. and i don't mean let go of the world jesus style but rather let go of the world more literally. all of your thoughts and cares of this world, amd possessions if you want to pick up the pace on reaching enlightenment. so with the harry's i reached peace of mind. but it was a false peace, a peace reached by brainwashing myself to frankly not give a damn about anything. cuz when you don't care about anything, then nothing can bother you.

so i wouldn't doubt that some harrys can't deal with things outside their status quo cuz their status quo is a made up world where real problems are not dealt with but rather pushed aside. it's good that people find ways to get off drugs and straighten their lives out, but without God, what is the point of doing all these things? it's when I found Christ that I found a reason to straighten my life out and I found a peace of mind that made me truly at peace.

i haven't run into any harrys lately to share this with. probably because i don't go to college anymore!

-- rina (hellorina@aol.com), January 12, 2005.


Some memories of what gathered around 20 years ago:

Hare Rama Hare Krishna is a Hindu cult that deviates from mainstream Hinduism by stressing too much on Krishna and believes that he is the originator of everything in the Universe (like the cult of Only Jesus Group) and that god is physical even with genitals, etc. (somewhat parallel to the Mormons). It was started by a one Swami Prabhupada who was orginally not much fancied in India, until he became popular in the US. Russian studies indicated that the cult is anti- intellectual, i.e., they are to suppress all thoughts and impressions by continous chanting of mantras, etc., which is supposed to be most powerful. They aim to merge with the Krishna consciousness and experience bliss with continuous devotional acts of prayer and nonstop chanting (somewhat like the Moonies), which will severe them from all unneeded and painful attachments like family bonds, cares, sorrows, etc. and in the end merge with the godhead.

A converted German lady (a grandmother) scientist, Sr. Erika, now working in Bombay, in the Charismatic Renewal, states that many a time she had tried conversing with such people, but nothing happens. God then showed them to in some kind of bondage, like being within a glass cage or something in which nothing can penetrate, and then she had to use prayers of deliverance. After which she could get through and communicate and even convert them to Christ.

-- Leslie John (lesliemon@hotmail.com), January 12, 2005.


Apparently everyone here has many misconceptions about the Hare Krishna religion. Allow me (a Hare Krsna) to clear them up...

Dear Oliver,

To a "Hare Krsna" follower the difference between the pure representative of God (i.e.: Jesus as the son of God) and God Himself is merely trivial because it is taught in Gaudiya Vaisnavism (the actual name for the Hare Krishna religion) that the pure representative of God is treated with the same respect as God. It is a matter of humble succession; to serve the one who serves the one (etc, etc.) who serves God. Whether Jesus is God Himself or the pure son of God makes no difference to a Vaisnava (devotee of Vishnu). I agree that the dealings of this particular Vaisnava were not the best. Nevertheless, not everyone in a religion is automatically the ideal follower (assuming that there are any at all).

Dear Rina,

As you stated, you don't happen to know very much about the Hare Krsna religion. Being involved due to your rebelious nature is the very reason you don't know very much. What is this "anything" that defies God? It isn't the Hare Krsna religion because they teach principles of regulating sense gratification, i.e.: sex only in marriage (wow, that sounds like a Christian concept). For you to approach the Hare Krsna following only to be rebelious to Christianity is both funny and interesting because you just jumped from a religion that promotes simple, non-worldly life to another religion that promotes the same. There is no rationalization in saying that the Hare Krsna religion is an outlet for those in rebellion.

Dear Frank,

What you said may also be applied to Christianity. There are people with a history of drug abuse in Christianity. Actually, there are more given the fact that Christianity has a larger following.

Back to Rina,

You wrote: "in order to reach total enlightenment, you have to let go of this world. and i don't mean let go of the world jesus style but rather let go of the world more literally. all of your thoughts and cares of this world, amd possessions if you want to pick up the pace on reaching enlightenment. so with the harry's i reached peace of mind. but it was a false peace, a peace reached by brainwashing myself to frankly not give a damn about anything. cuz when you don't care about anything, then nothing can bother you."

I agree with you. This peace of mind you received was artificial. The Hare Krsna following does not teach that we should "not care about anything". It teaches that we should care about God. Letting go of worldly life comes automatically the more we are devoted to God. Those ascetics who renounce sense gratification but who are devoid of devotion to God are powerless. They will fall down eventually and have to start back from square one. That is their hell.

Dear Leslie,

You wrote: "Hare Rama Hare Krishna is a Hindu cult that deviates from mainstream Hinduism by stressing too much on Krishna"

This "hinduism" itself is a deviation. You will not find the word "hindu" or "hinduism" in any of the Shastra (Vedic Scripture). The Gaudiya Vaisnava system is authorized by the Shastra Itself, whereas modern day "hinduism" is (at best) a watered down version of that original system. Also understand that the Vedic texts (as well as the affiliated literatures) focus on different levels of spiritual realization. Some promote an impersonal understanding of God while others (like the Bhagavad-Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam) promote the Personality of Godhead. Modern day hinduism hovers on the impersonal platform, which is the conclusion of mental speculators. According to the Bhagavad-Gita, the Personality of God is the most confidential of transcendental knowledge. Many modern day hindus believe that any personal conception of God (especially pertaining to a physical form) is Maya (material illusion). This is nothing more than their speculation. It is not backed up by the Shastra. In order to fit their preconceived notion of an impersonal and monist conception of the absolute truth, these hindus have to reason a personal God as falling under the material energy. They do not benefit from such an offense and neither do you for actually believing that this "hinduism" is the original, unadulterated religion.

Later you said: "It was started by a one Swami Prabhupada who was orginally not much fancied in India"

Jesus was not very much fancied either: John 15:18 "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you." (KJV)

The you said: "Russian studies indicated that the cult is anti- intellectual"

Since when did Christians hang on the studies of atheists? The Hare Krsna following is rather intellectual. It is on the Christian principle of faith that the Hare Krsna Mantra is chanted. These atheists simply observe this chanting and speculate that it is a method of brainwashing. Similarly, atheists observe and conclude that faith in Jesus is a convenient method of brainwashing because it contradicts their so-called intellect.

"Religion without philosophy is sentiment. Philosophy without religion is mental speculation." -Srila Prabhupada



-- Austen Green (greena@john-paul-jones.navy.mil), February 12, 2005.


Austen, we worship God alone. If you put anyone on the same level of worship as God and yet do not consider them to be God but only a mere representative, then that sounds alarm bells loud and clear. Are not all believers representatives of their "gods" ? Does that mean one ought to worship you?

Christians represent God, because we are regenerated by His life, but that in know way makes us, nor ever will make us worthy to receive worship.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 13, 2005.


"Austen, we worship God alone. If you put anyone on the same level of worship as God and yet do not consider them to be God but only a mere representative, then that sounds alarm bells loud and clear. Are not all believers representatives of their "gods" ? Does that mean one ought to worship you?"

Pure representative. Keyword: "pure". Jesus was a pure representative of God, the Father. Whether Jesus was himself a manifestation/incarnation of God the Father really makes no difference to a Vaisnava because we worship both in the same manner. We do not arbitrarily accept anyone as a pure representative and we do not mistake the pure representative as God (in the case that he is not God). Our idea of worship is a bit different than yours. We worship great servants of God because of their great service. We don't worship great servants as God themselves. That is considered an offense. We treat them with utmost respect and reverence because of their utmost respect and reverence for God. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "worship".

-- Austen Green (greena@john-paul-jones.navy.mil), February 13, 2005.



Austen,

Duality is the problem with your false religion...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 14, 2005.


statement 1
Whether Jesus was himself a manifestation/incarnation of God the Father really makes no difference to a Vaisnava because we worship both in the same manner

Statement 2
We don't worship great servants as God themselves. You have contradicted yourself. Please explain yourself more clearly, I find your speaking to be very wishy washy.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 14, 2005.


Jesus is not just a pure representative of the God the Father. Jesus if from the God the Father. He is the very fullest expression of everything that God is. Therefore, He Himself is God coequal with the Father Himself. Can you tell me of any other person in this world who is so perfect, faultless, and that expresses God so perfectly as Jesus? God the Father is exactly like Him, nothing more and nothing less. It would be interesting to know, who do you consider the God the Father to be.

-- Leslie John (lesliemon@hotmail.com), February 14, 2005.

Another thing I'd like to know is this: If Hare Krishna's believe in the "common thread of all religions", that God goes by different names - Krishna, Jehovah, Buddha, Allah, etc, what do you say about the gods of polythiests? Do you believe that there are "false gods" ? If so, where do you draw the line?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 14, 2005.

what is hare krisnha?

-- jerry and sdqa (doofykorn@hotmail.com), February 14, 2005.


It's an offshoot of Hinduism. It was greatly rejected in India but became very popular in the US.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 14, 2005.

Daniel Hawkenberry,

you wrote: "Duality is the problem with your false religion..."

Acintya bhedabheda tattva: Inconceivably one and many/different, simultaneously. The idea that one means homogenous is the problem with your conception.

Oliver,

We worship the pure servant of God because he is the pure servant of God. By loving those who are pure in their love for God, we become more in love with God by transcendental association. That is the principle. We do not worship the servants of God to be God themselves. Perhaps it would be more palatable if I were to say that we worship the loving reciprocation between God and His devotees. Would that work for you?

You wrote: "Another thing I'd like to know is this: If Hare Krishna's believe in the "common thread of all religions", that God goes by different names - Krishna, Jehovah, Buddha, Allah, etc, what do you say about the gods of polythiests? Do you believe that there are "false gods" ? If so, where do you draw the line?"

It depends on which gods you are referring to. I don't believe that all gods of all polytheistic religions are the One Supreme Lord. Actually, no polytheistic religions believe that all gods are the One Supreme Lord. Nevertheless, I am not really concerned with determining which god types are real or otherwise. I draw the line of my concern based on what I accept as authoritive scripture.

Later you wrote: "It's an offshoot of Hinduism. It was greatly rejected in India but became very popular in the US."

You are not paying attention, as I have already explained this. Hinduism is a mental concoction loosely based on the Shastra. Gaudiya Vaisnavism (Hare Krishna) is the actual, unadulterated conclusions of the Shastra. The "Hare Krishna" movement is not new. The same exact literatures that are considered authoritive by modern "hindus" come to the same exact conclusions that the Gaudiya Vaisnava religion promote. Therefore Gaudiya Vaisnavism is as old as the Shastra Itself.

Leslie John,

You wrote: "Jesus is not just a pure representative of the God the Father. Jesus if from the God the Father. He is the very fullest expression of everything that God is. Therefore, He Himself is God coequal with the Father Himself. Can you tell me of any other person in this world who is so perfect, faultless, and that expresses God so perfectly as Jesus? God the Father is exactly like Him, nothing more and nothing less. It would be interesting to know, who do you consider the God the Father to be."

Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, aka: God the Father.

-- Austen Green (greena@john-paul-jones.navy.mil), February 17, 2005.


Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, aka: God the Father.

So there are lesser, or inferior personalities within the God-Head?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 19, 2005.


we just have to love them...and by doing that they will see jesus through us...

-- kt (jc_died_4_me@hotmail.com), February 19, 2005.

"So there are lesser, or inferior personalities within the God-Head?"

Not lesser or inferior; all God incarnations are non-different from each other. It is just that Krishna is the most confidential of all Divine Personalities. He is the fountainhead of all incarnations. He is the original flame by which all the other candles are lit.

-- Austen Green (greena@john-paul-jones.navy.mil), February 19, 2005.


Ok so he's the supreme personality, but that has nothing to do with being superior.

He is the original flame by which all the other candles are lit.

Ok so now we're going to talk about candles. What do you mean by this? Do you mean that only Krishna was there in eternity past, and then at some point the others within the Godhead emerged from Him? Because in my theology, you have three , no more and no less, cosubstantial, coeternal, and coinherent persons within the Godhead; the Father, Son, and Spirit.

By the way, I'd like to know how you draw the line between a false god, and an incarnation/manifestation of Krishna. Cos, it all sounds lovely being able to say we worship the same God, but I strongly feel we don't.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 19, 2005.


"Ok so he's the supreme personality, but that has nothing to do with being superior."

Superior in that He is the most confidential Personality. There is no need to nit-pick.

"Ok so now we're going to talk about candles. What do you mean by this? Do you mean that only Krishna was there in eternity past, and then at some point the others within the Godhead emerged from Him? Because in my theology, you have three , no more and no less, cosubstantial, coeternal, and coinherent persons within the Godhead; the Father, Son, and Spirit."

The candle analogy is not perfect. The point suggesting a time when the other candles are not lit is not relevant to Krishna's incarnations. All incarnations of God are coeternal with Krishna. Actually, they are all Krishna. This goes back to the acintya bhedabheda tattva philosophy; that Krishna is inconceivably one and many. Although each incarnation is a distinct Personality, they are all Krishna. Krishna's superiority has to do with the fact that He is the most confidential Personality because He displays His eternal pastime of loving reciprocation between Himself and the Gopis of Vrndavana (especially Srimati Radharani). This loving reciprocation between God and His devotees is the highest stage of existence. That is why Krishna is the most confidential and thus the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Another incarnation like Nrshimhadeva, for example, came in order to protect Sri Prahlada Maharaja, a great devotee of the Lord. By doing this, the Lord displayed some great opulence. The devotees of God, those who are in love with God are attracted to God's love. They are less concerned with seeing God display His stength. That is why the form and personality of Krishna is Supreme.

"By the way, I'd like to know how you draw the line between a false god, and an incarnation/manifestation of Krishna. Cos, it all sounds lovely being able to say we worship the same God, but I strongly feel we don't."

I do not accept incarnations of God whimsically. They must be authorized by the Shastra. I worship He who is full in six opulences, namely: strength, knowledge, fame, beauty, wealth and renunciation. There is no one greater or equal to Him.

-- Austen Green (greena@john-paul-jones.navy.mil), February 19, 2005.


PLEASE. You worship nothing but MYTH.

Do so without spouting this long-winded karaoke libretto you palm off to the gullible as wisdom. I mean, spout it somewhere else.

This is a serious forum.

There's practically NOTHING so kooky as a bevy of white anglo-saxon boys, tripping the light fantastic through the mall; with their shaved heads and finger-cymbals. Why don't you grow up?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2005.


"PLEASE. You worship nothing but MYTH."

Hmmmm... is that a Greek or a Hebrew word for God?

"Do so without spouting this long-winded karaoke libretto you palm off to the gullible as wisdom. I mean, spout it somewhere else."

Are you so frustrated that you cannot address what I am actually saying? All I see here is insults.

"This is a serious forum."

Serious for what? Insults?

"There's practically NOTHING so kooky as a bevy of white anglo-saxon boys, tripping the light fantastic through the mall; with their shaved heads and finger-cymbals. Why don't you grow up?"

This is where Jesus comes in and tells you not to judge by appearances.

-- Austen Green (greena@john-paul-jones.navy.mil), February 19, 2005.


Austen,

You are either an idiot or ignorant or both. Your false religion has no gods -oneness by its very nature implies no differential entities. Additionally, reincarnation implies infinite time to get it right -hence, no real need sabve selfish desire to even try reaching enlightened nirvana... Why do you preach what has no meaning save selfeshness as if it does?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 19, 2005.


Dear Austen,
Appearances can be deceiving, we know. But even in a three-piece suit you could never make the case for your eastern religion. Because your appearance is appropriately bizarre, you expect to gain a following. Clowns please kids? You hope to attract a few by looking ridiculous. The ''religion'' is nothing attractive to speak of; certainly not revelation.

You bought a pig in a poke. Let it go and come to Jesus Christ. Save your immortal soul.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2005.


"You are either an idiot or ignorant or both. Your false religion has no gods -oneness by its very nature implies no differential entities."

Whoops... there goes the trinity concept. Simultaneously one and three is acintya bhedabheda tattva philosophy.

"Additionally, reincarnation implies infinite time to get it right - hence, no real need sabve selfish desire to even try reaching enlightened nirvana... Why do you preach what has no meaning save selfeshness as if it does?"

How would it be less selfish if the soul was granted one human body as a chance at salvation/liberation? If one is seeking reward in the afterlife then it matters not how many chances he/she gets, it is still selfish. Although liberation is a factor in what I follow, it is not the main focus. It is said that those who seek liberation are in the neophyte stage of spiritual life. The advanced devotee of God isn't concerned with using God as a means for liberation. He/she is concerned with serving God in loving devotion. Those who are firmly situated in that stage are already liberated.

-- Austen Green (greena@john-paul-jones.navy.mil), February 20, 2005.


"Dear Austen, Appearances can be deceiving, we know. But even in a three-piece suit you could never make the case for your eastern religion. Because your appearance is appropriately bizarre, you expect to gain a following. Clowns please kids? You hope to attract a few by looking ridiculous. The ''religion'' is nothing attractive to speak of; certainly not revelation."

When you're ready to actually talk about the religion let me know.

"You bought a pig in a poke. Let it go and come to Jesus Christ. Save your immortal soul."

I can count on you to promote what you feel is best...

I am there. That is my conviction.

-- Austen Green (greena@john-paul-jones.navy.mil), February 20, 2005.


Dear Friend,

When a child is looks like the father, we do not say, "the dada is like the child." We will rather say, "a dada-like child."

If Krishna is the father of Jesus, then why do the Hare Rama Hare Krishna followers call refer to him as Christ-like Krishna, not the other way round.

-- Leslie John (lesliemon@hotmail.com), February 20, 2005.


"If Krishna is the father of Jesus, then why do the Hare Rama Hare Krishna followers call refer to him as Christ-like Krishna, not the other way round."

I am not sure where they refer to Krishna in this way, but (if this is actually said) it is obviously done so to relate to Christians.

-- Austen Green (greena@john-paul-jones.navy.mil), February 20, 2005.


Yeah. Christ-like Krishna or even Chrisna, etc. Now the question my friend who gives dignity to whom. Does Krishna lends any dignity to Christ by calling Christ, Krishna-like Christ? But, does not Christ lends Krishna a dignity when you call him, Christ-like Krishna? Reflect and consider. They are not both similar. Krishna is completely opposite of everything that Christ represents. Christ represents values of the heavenly kingdom, while Krishna represents values that are simply earthly and carnal. They both cannot go together. Just simply allegorizing his scandalous lifestyle into something spiritual or philosphizing does not do enough justice.

-- Leslie John (lesliemon@hotmail.com), February 20, 2005.

"Yeah. Christ-like Krishna or even Chrisna, etc. Now the question my friend who gives dignity to whom. Does Krishna lends any dignity to Christ by calling Christ, Krishna-like Christ? But, does not Christ lends Krishna a dignity when you call him, Christ-like Krishna? Reflect and consider. They are not both similar. Krishna is completely opposite of everything that Christ represents. Christ represents values of the heavenly kingdom, while Krishna represents values that are simply earthly and carnal. They both cannot go together. Just simply allegorizing his scandalous lifestyle into something spiritual or philosphizing does not do enough justice."

What is "earthly" and "carnal" is defined relative to the ignorant and fallible living entity. Krishna is infallible therefore such terms do not apply. It is in this same manner that we say that God is incapapable of sinning. Although, let us not mistake what this means. For example, God has ordained that to kill is sinful, but does this mean that God is sinning when He kills? Of course not. The act of killing in itself is not sinful. Sinful simply means ignoring God. Since God is never ignorant of Himself, He can kill and it is impossible for Him to be sinning. Apply this same line of reasoning to "earthly" and "carnal".

-- Austen Green (greena@john-paul-jones.navy.mil), February 20, 2005.


What is "earthly" and "carnal" is defined relative to the ignorant and fallible living entity. Krishna is infallible therefore such terms do not apply. It is in this same manner that we say that God is incapapable of sinning. Although, let us not mistake what this means. For example, God has ordained that to kill is sinful, but does this mean that God is sinning when He kills? Of course not. The act of killing in itself is not sinful. Sinful simply means ignoring God. Since God is never ignorant of Himself, He can kill and it is impossible for Him to be sinning. Apply this same line of reasoning to "earthly" and "carnal".

That God can do all things is correct, but will he do everything? He will never do any immoral. He maintains His perfect standard.

Orthodox Hindu Puranas cites Krishna as a 9th (10th yet to come) reincarnation of Vishnu (one of the three gods of the Hindu trinity) who came to earth to destroy sinners. Therefore, even in the mythology, we see Krishna living in a definite, time, location, as a fallible being among the ignorant and fallible people. God created the world with all rules, regulations, and order in society. If he is God, how does he suddenly breaks all the rules, regulations, and order in the society creating scandal and confusion. Does he not contridict himself if he is God? With your logic, even the the devil can justify himself and proclaim himself God, leave alone mere human beings. These are dangerous statements, and believing them without any iota of truth or substance is sure way to spiritual death.

Your life is too precious to waste in such deceptive statements no matter how decorative the philosophy and how pleasurable the experiences. Your own conscience will judge you on the last day for believing things without any substance of truth.

According to the Vedas, a Hindu is supposed to a seeker of truth even walking a sharp razor-like path, and not just gobbling anything that sweet to his palate as the truth.

-- Leslie John (lesliemon@hotmail.com), February 21, 2005.


"That God can do all things is correct, but will he do everything? He will never do any immoral. He maintains His perfect standard."

Do you presume to know His perfect standard? Or do you limit Him with yours? Same example, God has killed. Is killing immoral?

"Orthodox Hindu Puranas cites Krishna as a 9th (10th yet to come) reincarnation of Vishnu (one of the three gods of the Hindu trinity) who came to earth to destroy sinners. Therefore, even in the mythology, we see Krishna living in a definite, time, location, as a fallible being among the ignorant and fallible people."

Your "therefore" doesn't follow. Because Krishna was living in a definite time and location means that He is fallible? How is that? Are you assuming that Krishna ceases to exist everywhere else when He appears on earth?

"God created the world with all rules, regulations, and order in society. If he is God, how does he suddenly breaks all the rules, regulations, and order in the society creating scandal and confusion. Does he not contridict himself if he is God?"

I am not sure what you are talking about Krishna breaking all the rules, regulations and order. Nevertheless, God created the world. Would He be contradicting Himself if He destroyed it?

"With your logic, even the the devil can justify himself and proclaim himself God, leave alone mere human beings. These are dangerous statements, and believing them without any iota of truth or substance is sure way to spiritual death."

When Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed and people were killed, was that the work of God or the devil? Where is your substance?

"Your life is too precious to waste in such deceptive statements no matter how decorative the philosophy and how pleasurable the experiences. Your own conscience will judge you on the last day for believing things without any substance of truth."

I have even cited Biblical substance. I am not pulling philosophy out of my shoe here.

"According to the Vedas, a Hindu is supposed to a seeker of truth even walking a sharp razor-like path, and not just gobbling anything that sweet to his palate as the truth."

Okay. God is transcendental and infallible, eternally full of bliss and knowledge. Should I disregard this since it is sweet to my palate?

-- Austen Green (greena@john-paul-jones.navy.mil), February 22, 2005.


You know, this thread does bring up a good point, but one can't make it without seeming to trivialize the deaths of several thousand Americans. I will make it anyhow, and hope I don't offend anyone. If there is one *good* thing to come out of 9/11 it's that you don't get harassed in the airport by krshnas! Look, people thought cymbals, saffron, and rice were cool in the 60's, but grow out of it already.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 22, 2005.


LOL, I started reading the older posts and found this:

There's practically NOTHING so kooky as a bevy of white anglo- saxon boys, tripping the light fantastic through the mall; with their shaved heads and finger-cymbals. Why don't you grow up?

-- eugene c. chavez

Eugene, old shoe, I really wasn't plagerizing you, I guess great minds just think alike. ;-)

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 22, 2005.


We can probably be more effective in having people pay attention to what we say if we don't mock them.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 23, 2005.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ