Thread: the real religion....

No, I didn't quite know that, no That it's the only real religion I mean.

But if you say so.. hope you're happy being a part of it I'd prefer being a little more open to other religions as well

I've known about Krishna for almost 40 years now. Do you have any proof that it is the only real religion, or must we take your word for it?

That's a pretty ignorant thing to say if you ask me. It's not as if that religion is any better than any other. It's all faith and it's all philosophy. To say that only one is right is erroneous. Perhaps when you prove it, I'll believe you.

Sacrifice small animals to the Great Pumpkin!

So now we have to tell all those Mormons, Adventists, Jehova folks, and the hundreds of other groups that Hare Krishna is where it's at?? Well it's good to know that for sure, for certain, no doubts that the Hares have it!!

Originally posted by jags
Hare Krishna is the only real religion but i dont suppose any of you punks know much about that do you?!

Actually....

I had once married a Hare Krishna girl. And not many years ago I had something of a crush on this Hare Krishna lady.

For a while I was a semi-famous Tabula Drummer and Chanter, and more than a few times I was invited to perform at Hare Krishna celebrations and events.

so I have a great sympathy for the Hare Krishna Movement -- their slant on Spiritual Practice is toward Bhakti or Devotion to the Krishna Aspect of Divinity.

But one hardly need to be a Hare Krishna person to enjoy all the benefits and Spiritual advantages of bhakti and devotion.

The Effectiveness of the Hare Krishna Spiritual Movement can all be attributed to the Bhakti approach toward Religion, that is toward Devotional Religion.

One particular form of devotion aims at paralleling the strongest kind of human love, that is the love of a parent for a child. Much of the Krishna legend involves the Child Krishna and the devotion of the Gopis toward that Child – not exactly maternal love, but more like the love that adolescent girls might have toward infants, which makes adolescent girls such willing babysitters, and explicates their fascination with keeping dolls.

Anyway, this might help us understand why the Hare Krishna Movement has such effectiveness and appeal for women.

As depicted in the Bhagavad Gita, eventually Krishna matured to manhood, and was full of support and advice for his friends. So, it is possible that men could have some devotion toward Krishna as a friend and advisor.

But one can wonder that the Krishna Legend hardly provides a focus of Devotion for every kind of affectionate bond. Krishna is never pictured as particularly fatherly or grandfatherly. We can account for the popularity of some Gurus because they appear so fatherly, and thus encourage the form of Bhakti or devotion that a son could have for a beloved father.

Then there is the affection a Father might have for a son. I don’t remember much in the Krishna Legend that indicates that much paternal interest was shown toward Krishna.

I must admit that some of my interest in the “Buddha Boy of Nepal” , Bomjon Ram Palden Dorje , is that he is a young man, sixteen years old, and that I have a fatherly concern for his welfare, and honestly hope he achieves everything that he must be meditating for.

The whole idea of Bhakti Devotion is to open the heart. Much in life leaves us cold and isolated. Anything that a Religion can do to open our hearts and turn on love would be of spiritual benefit, particularly is the Love comes from the Higher Emotional Centers. Sexual Love is probably better than nothing, but to turn on filial love and paternal love, on a continuous basis, would do much to bring light and joy into Life.

well im not actually a hare krishna but i studied comparative religion and any impartial thinker will conclude that it is head and shoulders above the other stuff which was quite clearly all fabricated in the middle ages sometime by characters like william shakespeare.

Originally posted by jags
well im not actually a hare krishna but i studied comparative religion and any impartial thinker will conclude that it is head and shoulders above the other stuff which was quite clearly all fabricated in the middle ages sometime by characters like william shakespeare.

So you read a few books....

Maybe you should spend everyday of the next several years bugging people in airports for money before you absolutely assert the Hare Krishna Movement of being the highest and most spiritual of all Religions. Oh... and shave your head while you are at it.

yeah....whatever....

Originally posted by jags
well im not actually a hare krishna but i studied comparative religion and any impartial thinker will conclude that it is head and shoulders above the other stuff which was quite clearly all fabricated in the middle ages sometime by characters like william shakespeare.

Alright, let's talk about Christianity being "fabricated in the Middle Ages."
Let me tell you something, the Bible produced in the Middle Ages the "King James Bible" is the Bible that has been the American standard for quite a few centuries now. Oh, and guess what books that Bible included? The same books included in the Canonization of the Scripture over 1000 years beforehand. So let's say Christianity was fabricated, I can assure you that it wasn't during the Middle Ages. If anything it was sometime around 300 AD. (But that argument belongs in another topic) So even if you are going to make claims such as that, please have some supporting evidence.

Originally posted by Hero of Dreams


Alright, let's talk about Christianity being "fabricated in the Middle Ages." *
Let me tell you something, the Bible produced in the Middle Ages the "King James Bible" is the Bible that has been the American standard for quite a few centuries now. *Oh, and guess what books that Bible included? *The same books included in the Canonization of the Scripture over 1000 years beforehand. *So let's say Christianity was fabricated, I can assure you that it wasn't during the Middle Ages. *If anything it was sometime around 300 AD. * (But that argument belongs in another topic) So even if you are going to make claims such as that, please have some supporting evidence.

Well, no matter when it came into play, it was fabricated, at one point or another. I mean, people wrote the thing, so you can't really argue with that part.

Originally posted by jags
Hare Krishna is the only real religion but i dont suppose any of you punks know much about that do you?!

I would have never guessed that the only real religion encompassed such a pompous attitude....Punk!

Originally posted by Hero of Dreams
Alright, let's talk about Christianity being "fabricated in the Middle Ages." *Let me tell you something, the Bible produced in the Middle Ages the "King James Bible" is the Bible that has been the American standard for quite a few centuries now. *

*Cough* Ehrm... Sorry, I know this is kind of obsessive-compulsive correction of minor details, BUT...

The King James Bible was NOT produced in the Middle Ages. The term "Middle Ages" roughly refers, ROUGHLY, to the years 500AD - 1500AD. Although it is somewhat of a vague term, the term "Middle Ages" is pretty much never applied to any time later than 1500. Anything after this is the Early Modern period.

King James VI of Scotland / James I of England, who authorised the translation of the Bible into English, which later became known as the "King James Bible", came to the English throne in 1603, a good century after the end of what historians refer to as the "Middle Ages". Rather, the King James bible is a product of the "Early Modern" period.

Originally posted by Hero of Dreams
Oh, and guess what books that Bible included? *The same books included in the Canonization of the Scripture over 1000 years beforehand. *So let's say Christianity was fabricated, I can assure you that it wasn't during the Middle Ages. *If anything it was sometime around 300 AD. * (But that argument belongs in another topic) So even if you are going to make claims such as that, please have some supporting evidence.

Well... actually, I disagree here. Quite strongly.

While it certainly cannot be said that Christianity was FABRICATED in the middle ages, it can be said with definite certainty that a good many aspects of Christianity that modern believers would call central to the faith arose during the middle ages. For instance, the predominance of saints (especially in the Catholic Church), the cult of the Virgin Mary, the spread of Christianity, and the development and formalisation of the priesthood.

So... yeah. Just a few points, is all. Not exactly related directly to the main subject of this thread, sure, but... I'm sorta obsessive when it comes to historical inaccuracies.

That is on of the most ignorant thigns i have ever heard, one you seem to have only book knowledge of it and secondly it is your opinion and nothing else to say it like that is the same as saying look at me I'm a noob

Originally posted by darklordofall
That is on of the most ignorant thigns i have ever heard, one you seem to have only book knowledge of it and secondly it is your opinion and nothing else to say it like that is the same as saying look at me I'm a noob

Ehrm... I'm sorry, do you mind explaining exactly what you mean here? What are you referring to? Whose post?

Like, if you could be a bit more specific, quote maybe, that would clear up confusion...

I apologies I was replying mainly to the first post and due to reading a few other posts he has had no real experiance of the religion and he also conveys quite an ignorant view, which is his opinion yet he conveys it as if he is correct

Originally posted by darklordofall
I apologies I was replying mainly to the first post and due to reading a few other posts he has had no real experiance of the religion and he also conveys quite an ignorant view, which is his opinion yet he conveys it as if he is correct

Oh, yeah, right, I totally agree. Yeah, jags is totally wrong, no question about it.

Hare Krishna isn't the real religion, the one true faith. That's hinduism, everybody knows that.

Yes i do belive that hinduism has many views that are correct and is superior in way other others my own view is akin to it in some major views

Originally posted by darklordofall
Yes i do belive that hinduism has many views that are correct and is superior in way other others my own view is akin to it in some major views

*sigh* I was TRYING to be sardonic. Buuuuuttt.... never mind, I suppose.

Originally posted by The Blue Meanie

Oh, yeah, right, I totally agree. Yeah, jags is totally wrong, no question about it.

Hare Krishna isn't the real religion, the one true faith. That's hinduism, everybody knows that.

I find your humor very fitting!

One needs to be careful when endorsing Hinduism. There is the Yoga and Meditational Philosophies which are great and good. But then you have the Institutional Racism embedded in the Caste System. Simply consider that the Brahmins were Aryan Caucasion Invaders from the North. In one of their primary Scriptures, the Ramayana, they present the Natives of India literarally as being "Monkeys" -- a Kingdom of talking Monkeys who decide to serve the Aryan God Rama. Indeed, although the Caste System has contributed to social stability, the whole notion really is predicated on the notion that the Aryan White Invaders from the North had some inherent superiority over those whom they conquered and were ruling over.

So, while I have the greatest and most unreserved respect for Sanskrit Philosophy, Yoga, and the Traditions of Guruism and Devotion (coming mostly out of Southern India, in reaction to the Strict Aryan Brahminism from the North), I try never to speak favorably of "Hinduism" as a monolithic Religion, because it is simply tainted with its origins of War and Conquest and its traditions of Racism which continue even to this day. Indeed, rather recently there were Brahmins who went out and were shooting ordinary Indians with hunting rifles for daring to defy Caste Restrictions which held all of the Best Things in Life for the Brahmins, while allowing the dirty end of everthing else for everybody else.

The Brahmins have been careful not to call it Black and White. But that is what it is. A tradition of Racism 3 thousand years old is still Racism.

Originally posted by darklordofall+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darklordofall)</div>

Yes i do belive that hinduism has many views that are correct and is superior in way other others my own view is akin to it in some major views[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-darklordofall
That is on of the most ignorant thigns i have ever heard, it is your opinion and nothing else to say it like that is the same as saying look at me I'm a noob

oh and leo he sounded pretty careful when he said that "his view is akin to it(Hinduism) in some major views." Though he could have just edited his post afterwards... i don't know.

Oh, I should have pointed out that the Hare Krishna Movement is not really part and parcel of Brahminic Hinduism. You see, the Brahmins were Aryan Invaders from the North who, in 3 thousand years, have only slowly been able to penetrate into the South of India. The Davidic People of Southern India, resentful of being caste as 'Monkeys' in the Brahmanic Legends of the King-God Rama, only reluctantly submitted to the exploitations and the abuses of the Brahmin Priests.

In this context we can better understand the Hare Krishna movement which arose out of Southern India. it was quite a Religious Innovation -- Devotional Religion. Until then the religious and spiritual movements in and coming out of India had been meditative and cerebral. emotion and devotion were a new dimension for Spirituality. It was a development from the 16th Century, of a Guru by the name of Caitanya. (it was perhaps remarkable that while Religion in the West was dying, as atheistic and evil Paulist Protestantism and Masonic Secularism attacked and destroyed the Civilization of Catholicism, in India, Religion had gotten a new lease on Life with the development of Religious Devotionalism).