Say that you took a piece of plain white typing paper, and drew two dots on it. One dot represents God and the other dot represents you. This is the basic Judeo-Christian and Islamic way of thinking of humanity in relation to God: God is here, and we are here. Time and history is linear and two-dimensional. From the point of view of Krishna conscious philosophy, God is the entire piece of paper, as well as the ink with which the dots are drawn, as well as the hand that drew the dots to begin with, and on and on into infinity. Time and history, from this point of view, are cyclical in nature, and cycles are working within cycles. Reality becomes multi-dimensional. Krishna is not just one of the metaphorical dots in my example; Krishna is the entire piece of paper AND both of the dots, and the ink, and so on. This is my understanding of things.

The Whirlwind Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IanKoviak Wrote:
> >
> > Your above quotes about Bhaktivedanta saying
> that
> > you can chant this or that name of god from
> > assorted traditions to equal effect is called
> > pandering. He didn't believe that nor do his
> > scriptures.
>
> That's not true. Srimad Bhagavatam 1.2.6, and
> Bhagavad-gita 18:66 (to name just two examples),
> for example, bear this out. There are numerous
> quotes from the previous acaryas which bear it
> out, too. For example:
>
> "He preaches that human thought should never
> be allowed to be shackled with sectarian
> views....The religion preached by Mahaprabhu is
> universal and not exclusive. The most learned and
> the most ignorant are both entitled to embrace
> it...The principle of kirtana invites, as the
> future church of the world, all classes of men
> without distinction of caste or clan to the
> highest cultivation of the spirit.""
>
> --Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur
>
> "There is nothing very extraordinary,
> rationally speaking, in chanting the Name of
> Krishna in the company of bona fide devotees. It
> is the simplest conceivable form of worship in
> which a number of persons can actually and fully
> join. It is possible to induce other people to
> join in the function by substituting the names
> Allah and Jesus in place of Krishna. But even so
> there are not a few persons who, although they put
> up with much in their own religion that is
> regarded as conventional, will refuse to repeat a
> new name in company as being nothing short of a
> silly performance instead of being the highest
> religion."
>
> --Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura
> Prabhupada
>
> "Thus when we chant the holy name of God,
> like the name Krsna, Krsna is personally present.
> One need not chant the name Krsna; one may chant
> any name that he knows is God's. God has many
> names, which may be chanted with the same effect
> in different languages and in different
> countries."
>
> --A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami PRabhupada
>
>
> Guru, shastra, sadhu, IanKoviac. :-)

The Kali Santarana Upanishad (in terms of secular archeology) is at least a couple of thousand years old. The practice of the chanting of the maha-mantra is not some modern invention by any means. Just for everybody' information:

[www.wisdomlib.org]

That Upanishad is not proof. It's a highly disputed, questionable work. Chanting a sanskrit word has no magic power. None. It does not solve any life issues, give one any entrance to a cow planet or provide spiritual growth or an intimate relationship with any god in any realistic and meaningful sense of what it means to have a relationship with someone. If it makes you feel good, go for it.

IanKoviak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That Upanishad is not proof. It's a highly
> disputed, questionable work. Chanting a sanskrit
> word has no magic power. None. It does not solve
> any life issues, give one any entrance to a cow
> planet or provide spiritual growth or an intimate
> relationship with any god in any realistic and
> meaningful sense of what it means to have a
> relationship with someone. If it makes you feel
> good, go for it.

What does that have to do with the mystical forces which drove you to Krsna Consciousness, Ian?

Here is a little bit about the mystical forces which drove me to Krsna Consciousness, Ian: the first time I ever ate any prasadam, I was an atheist. I was only there, at the local Hare Krsna temple, to eat in their restaurant.

When I ate the Hare Krsna food for lunch, I noticed that I began to feel high and was in a great mood for the rest of the day. I subsequently noticed how every time I ate in their restaurant, the same thing happened: I felt high, mildly intoxicated, and was in a good mood all day long.

So one day I mentioned this to the manager of the restaurant: "Whenever I eat here, the food gets me high. I love this stuff." He smiled and began to chuckle and he said "That means it's working."

Then I asked him what he meant by that, and the rest is history.

This was almost thirty years ago. That is a true story.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2021 05:16AM by The Whirlwind.

To whom it may concern,

Preaching and debating religious beliefs is not the purpose of this message board, which is directly spelled out in the rules agreed to before posting here.

I am closing this thread.

Spirituality and personal religious experiences is not an appropriate topic.