Russian Archbishop calls Krishna "Satan"

I like the sufis, but I really am not sure about Mohammed. He cut off the heads of innocent jews, just because some of them snitched on him in one of the towns he was in... Prophet and mystic visionary perhaps, but one with a lot more sadhana to do, obviously not fully realized it seems to me... I could be wrong though.

I learned about him in my jewish history class, where they talked about islamic and jewish relationships... which were much better after Mohammed went away during what was called "the golden age"

I think Yogananda praised him in order to avoid Islamic people wanting to kill him or whatever... he figured if he put Allah's special guy in there it would ease the tensions... he was a smart man. A uniter, while what I'm saying is probobaly dividing, but someone had to say it.

 

I agree, Yogananda was a uniter. He wanted to make his message acceptable in 1920's America and that's why he interwove so much Christianity in it, but I also think he had a sincere personal appreciation for Jesus and the Bible, which shows up very much in his writing.

That was a period when what went on in the Islamic world wasn't so important to the rest of the world...maybe he didn't know all that much about Islam except that it was a major faith and he wanted to make sure that he covered all the bases.

Yoganada didn't include Mohammed or Buddha in the line of gurus for SRF.

I'm reading some new spiritual books and rereading some of my old ones...this reminds me, Autobigraphy of a Yogi needs to go on the reread list.

 

I think it would have been nice to have Buddha up there, but I bet the reason he was not put up was basically his dis of the Self concept which is a very useful concept... I am a big fan of him. I think he was misunderstood by many yogis.


He was cosmic joking, he was thinking these yogis are so hung up on concepts I have to say this, and some of them, like Yogananda who praised Buddha, got the joke... A lot didn't get the joke, which is why the Buddha is blasted by some Hindu groups. And why there is still fighting between Buddhists and Hindus over this stuff... I just have to sit back and laugh... it's so silly.

As your merge with the great Self, you find that it leads to a basically inexpressable experience, a nonconceptual reality, and it can't really be put into any concept... Thus the Buddha, a misunderstood yogi joker who realized the Self, and called it no self. And he even went as far to say the concept of "Self" caused much suffering... He really blasted it in some buddhist texts... but you have to see the humor in it, Buddha and the word serious have no place together, there is so much cosmic jokes in his teaching that helps yogis ironically realize the Self that which he claimed was not the right concept.

I bet some of you jokers out there agree with me on this point.

 

Sufism goes back to pre-islamic roots, esp. in Persia.

Muhammed's execution of the Jews, or his taking part in it, is, I agree something of a black mark.

Then again, there's the story in the Bhagavata of Krishna be-heading the florist who wouldn't offer flowers....
Perhaps the reason this is more acceptable than Muhammed's execution of the Medina Jews is that it is more in a mythic than historical dimension - although doubtless others will disagree.

 

Nice try - but I don't think it explains the doctrine of no-self. If Buddha believed in the Self he would not have made this doctrine so fundamental to his teachings.
In the end, it's just a form of words - Self, No-Self - truth on this level transcends the ability of the human mind to conceptualize.

 

You're right, he didn't believe in the Self, he realized the Self, He is the Self, the Buddha nature it was later called in Mahayana Buddhism. It's the same as Chirst consciousness or what the Sufis call the garden of allah. Because he knew it rather then believed in it like people who believe in santa clause, he had a little fun with his fellow yogis and called it the "no-self" as a cosmic joke... but still people say, oh that doesn't explain it, no one would go that far for a joke. blah blah blah... that's just not understanding the Buddha nature and the cosmic joke... He would go that far for a joke, in fact, he might only admit this to some of his closest disciples. Buddha is laughing with eternal compassion at such folly.

Yeah, that's why he had some fun with concepts and dissed the Self even though he realized it and KNEW it was truth. He basically saying, "Come on you silly yogis, it's still a concept, realize it for real."

 

No - Buddha realized no-self. Perhaps he went beyond where these yogis you mention were at.

 

I've always regarded the Hindu self and the Buddhist void or non-self as differences in terminology only...but, having no memory of being in either place, what do I know?

 

I am no expert on Buddhism, but my understanding is that whilst Hinduism says the Self - ie the One Self or Brahman is the ultimate reality, Buddha said that this is yet another layer of illusion, and there is no Self behind the appearance of the ego.
It could be that both are describing the same thing seen from a different angle, but I find that difficult to really see because on the face of it, they seem to say things which are definitely contradictory.
That could come as a result of the inadequacy of language to express these realizations.

As I posted to another thread here recently, the Buddhist concept of 'Sunyata' means 'great void' - but it implies that there is no fixed identity or essence in things. Not only is there no individual soul or self, but there is ultimately no higher or cosmic or transcendent Self. Buddha nature is not to be equated with 'self-nature'.

But there are many schools of Buddhism, and over time, the teachings tended to vary a great deal.

 

where in the veda's is jesus predicted?

 

Being situated in Brahman-realization is described in standard Hindu teachings as the state of supreme awareness. From what you just noted, Buddhist teachings say that this is like the final stage of false ego, and the highest stage, which lies beyond, is a state of void. Is this void a state of non-awareness?

Prabhupada stated the same thing in his theistic approach to Hinduism...considering Brahman-realization to be the final state of spiritual perfection is the last trap of the false ego, and the ultimate transcendental reality lies beyond Brahman.

So, Buddha and SP agree up to a point, and then their teachings take opposing positions.

 

I don't think Nirvana means non-awareness.
It seems to indicate a state beyond conceptualization.

Un-conditioned being and awareness, perhaps points to what the Buddhists seek - and I think self is seen as just another condition, or a conditioning factor in the consciousness.

 

"As you merge with the one, you realize that there is no one anymore that was just a concept, this is where theism and buddhism come together." - Ram Dass

I tend to agree... merging with the One, of the Self, you get into a nirvana state where there are no concepts... it is unable to be expressed in words... you can call it no self if you want what does it matter... there is no word you can call it to do it jusitce... call it self, call it no self...

Buddha is not higher then all yogis just because he used nifty funny concepts... There are plenty of yogis, guru types, that got just as realized as him in the Self... fully realized, and called it Self. Yet they were in the Buddha nature, same as BUddha...

Neem Karoli baba was once handed a picture of himself and this lama. He said, "Buddha.... Buddha..."

In this way he woulld teach the essentially untiy in the traditions of yoga which baba was into, he was always on his mantra, and Buddhism...

It is only people with heads up thier asses that take the concepts so seriously and want to fight over them and divide people. well fuck that, get the cosmic joke man...

It's light! Get it? Light as in Divine Light of the Self, and light as in not heavy, humorous... and so on... and light as in light chi described in taoism...

 

Absolutely. The sanskrit word Purnam illustrates this. It means both whole and empty.

 

That too me sounds so Buddhist, God I just can't see what the issue is between buddha and yoga's realization of the Self, I swear that people are just putting on an act... let's just play with Eric and make him think we are fighting, he probably actually thinks we disagree at times, what a silly bum, we love him doesn't he realize we just fight because it is a fun time?

I'm onto your scheme, you guys are all God in drag, pretending to be all these different forms... fess up! You are me and you agree with my nonconceptual point! And will you kill Eric already, in a psychological sense, he really can be a drag sometimes. Annilate this fucking ego it gets so huge sometimes!


Here's is a little section from Goswami's book, The Self Aware Universe... He is the physicist that had sided with mystics saying that consciousness is the ground of all being and he claims quantum physics proves it... It is obvious to me that he is right, not only from personal experience but from reading his logical arguments...

He is a unitied like Yogananda as we have been talking about.. and is trying to bring together all the mystical paths of religions, as well as science and religion. Thank god for another uniter like him....

Here is a passage that pertains to this discussion,

"Starting with absorption in the object (the state of lowest samadhi), one beings a journey of transending the object in higher and higher sadmadhis. Eventually, a state is reached when the object is seen in its idenity with the cosmic nonlocal consciousness.
In Eastern psychology, the subject of the cosmic-consciousness experience is referred to as the atman. Christinaity refers to this primary universal self entity as the holy spirit. In Buddhism, it is sometimes called no-self, since it dependently co-arises with awareness (not heirarchically superior to awareness, its object). Other Buddhist philosophers have referred to the subject of pure awareness as the universal consciousness (for example, in the Lankavatara Sutra). As the current Dalai Lama of Tibet points out, the terminology of no-self confuses people..."


Join the good side of the force and become a uniter not a divider... religion and science are one... all the mystical paths are valid and lead the same place... Tap into the Buddha mind and Chirst Heart while realizing the great Self in the garden of Allah while chanting to the great mother earth, and admit that science proves that you exist...
All trips lead to
Here now, to who you are... you can't escape it,

All religions are one, everything is one... one is one, and not two, and one.. only god. only god... wow wow wow!

call it what you want, but all this "no-self" is better then "self" or "self" is better then "no-self" is basically comparing dick sizes... Wow you have a big dick, big deal man...

Buddha is an exception of course because he has a cosmic sense of humor and was just messing with people to enlighten them, don't take everything that he said so god-damn literal. So what if he dissed the "Self" concept, he did it in a way that showed how Self Realized he was. He was self-realized god damn it and some of the yogis are no-self realized... you get me? you dig this? reverse it, turn it upside down, UNITE UNITE UNITE

Bring it together!

Read it's here now, it is amazing how this spiritual man just jumped from Buddhist mysticism to Hindu mysticism, and jumped all over the place in it... yet always reaching the same place, because it is always the same path, and it always leads to the same end that is just anther beginning...

Here Now

Get Here, Join us...

Volunteer...

and Kill my god damn ego!

 

Diffences exist - in terminology and maybe in experience too.

Hare Krishnas say Buddha came only to end animal killing, you say he was some kind of comedian...
Niether is very satisfactory.

 

Defend Russian Hindus campaign to launch in UK Parliament

12 Jan 2006

Links:

Defend russian hindus - Powerpoint presentation

www.hinduforum.org

In 1971, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada visited Moscow and planted the seeds of Krishna Consciousness there. Under Russian communism though, religion was brutally repressed. Several practicioners of Krishna Consciousness were imprisoned on mental hospitals and tortured to death. Despite this, worship of Krishna became one of Russia's fastest-growing religions, and, after the fall of communism, many centres and temples opened across the whole of Russia.

One of the most dynamic places of growth has been Moscow, where there are now tens of thousands of Krishna devotees.

Two years ago the Mayor of Russia asked Hindus to vacate their temple in exchange for a piece of land on which they could build a bigger temple. After land was allocated to the Hindu temple, the original temple was demolished. The Russian Orthodox Church orchestrated mass protests against the allocation of land and started a misinformation campaign against Hindus in the media. Many Hindus were victimised, threatened, bullied, beaten and subject to violence.

On October 30th 2005, after bowing down to pressure from the Orthodox Church, the Mayor of Moscow cancelled the land order and took away the piece of land given for the construction of the Hindu temple. Now, the 15,000 Hindus in Moscow have no place to worship. The consecrated Deities of Radha and Krishna will have no home.

To add to this, around the time of Indian Prime Minister’s state visit to Moscow to meet Russian President Putin, Archbishop Nikon, a leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, called the Hindu God, Lord Krishna an ‘evil demon, the personified power of hell opposing God”, and “a livid lascivious youth”. The Archbishop further requested the Mayor to ban construction of a proposed Hindu temple in Moscow saying it would otherwise become “an idolatrous disgrace erected for the glory of wicked and malicious ‘god’ Krishna”.

On 18th January, an coalition of Hindu organisations (including the Hindu Forum of Britain, Hindu Council UK, National Council of Hindu Temples UK, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Vishwa Hindu Parishad UK, Hindu Council of Australia, Hindu American Foundation, Pandava Sena and many other worldwide Hindu organizations) will be launching a campaign in the British Parliament to persuade the Russian government to step in to stop this persecution and allow the temple to be built.

The campaign is being coordinated by the the Hindu Forum of Britain. Please lend the campaign your full support.

Web: www.hinduforum.org

E-mail: info@hinduforum.org

 

While certainly this archbishop did intend disrespect, Krishna does have his similarities to the lucifer myth. In Krishna activities, he was adharmic in so many ways from being a breast pinching womanizer whose proclivities towards sexual harassment was the norm in his the stealing the garments of married women while they are bathing in his ploy to marry them and having sexual laden rendevous with these same woman in the midnight hours to the melodious harmonies of his seductive flute and an over all having a broad disregard for conventional moral codes. i think the problem here is one of how christianity and the world in general understands lucifer and the evolutionary capacity of one such as lucifer who cast doubts and confusion on our journey. Krishna as well casts doubts upon the path of life of choosing superficial markers and it is only when we go deep within do we find the harmony and love of Krishna lila.

 

Didn't Krishna act this way to shock those out of their unenlightened mindset (that one woman belongs to a single man)? Jesus said something about this:

Luke 20:27-36
27Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question. 28"Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother. 29Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died childless. 30The second 31and then the third married her, and in the same way the seven died, leaving no children. 32Finally, the woman died too. 33Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?"
34Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection.

 

Check this out - it's a link to William Blake's poem 'the Everlasting Gospel'.

http://www.bartleby.com/236/58.html