[Moti]

Religion means the law of God.

Prabhupada: We should try to understand what is religion. Religion means the law of God. Just like law means the rulings given by the state, that is law, similarly, religion means the rulings given by God. But if one does not know what is God, then how he can accept what is His ruling? Therefore anyone who has got very scanty knowledge of God, that kind of religion is also scanty. That is the definition in the Vedic litera... Dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam: "Dharma, or religion, means the codes or the law given by God." And the Bhagavad-gita, the same ruling is given, law, sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja: "You give up all types of man-made religion; you simply surrender unto Me." Therefore the conclusion is religion means to surrender to God. So one who is fully surrendered to God, he is religionist


So people are manufacturing, in the name of so-called religion, "This is our religion. This is..." "This is Hindu religion." "This is Muslim religion." "This is Christian religion." Or "This is Buddha religion." And "This is Sikh religion." "This is that religion, that religion..." They have manufactured so many religions, so many religions. But real religion is dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam. Religion means the codes and the laws given by the Lord, given by God. That is religion. Simple definition of religion is: dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam. Just like law is given by the state, by the government. You cannot manufacture law. I have repeatedly said. Law is made by the government. Similarly, religion is made by God. If you accept God's religion, then that is religion. And what is God's religion? (aside If you stand, you come stand here. Other people are seeing. God's religion is... You'll find in the Bhagavad-gita, sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja. This is God's religion. "You give up all these nonsense religions. You become a devotee, a surrendered soul unto Me." That is religion.
One who does not know what is God, one who does not know how to surrender to Him, he's not religious. Any religion without the conception of God, without knowledge of God, without knowing the surrendering process, that is called, described in the Srimad-Bhagavatam as "cheating religion." Dharmah projjhita-kaitavah atra. The so-called religious system, which is cheating only, that kind of religion is completely thrown away, kicked out. Because religion means to develop your dormant love for God, or to execute the laws of God. That is... The laws of God is, (as) Krsna says, sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja. And how to achieve that? That also Krsna says: man-mana bhava mad-bhakto mad-yaji mam namaskuru. Four principles only. "Always think of Me." Hare Krsna. If you chant Hare Krsna, then you're remembering Krsna. Man-manah. Hare Krsna Hare Krsna... This is the religion; at least, of this age.

harer nama harer nama
harer namaiva kevalam
kalau nasty eva nasty eva
nasty eva gatir anyatha

There is no other way. You chant. Then any, any scripture you will find. Sabdad anavrtti. In the Vedanta-sutra. Sabdat, simply by chanting, vibrating, you become liberated. In the Srimad-Bhagavatam: kirtanad eva krsnasya mukta-sangah param vrajet. Kaler dosa-nidhe rajann asti hy eko mahan gunah. Sukadeva Gosvami said, "Maharaja Pariksit, this age of Kali is full of faulty things. It is an ocean of faulty things. But there is one profit, benefit. What is that?" Kirtanad eva krsnasya mukta-sangah param vrajet. "If you chant the holy name of Krsna, then you become liberated, and you are promoted to the spiritual world."



* THE HARE KRISHNA SAINT TORTURED AND POISONED TO DEATH BY HIS JUDAS DISCIPLES

http://members.lycos.co.uk/prabhupad...p_poisoned.htm



* MATERIALISTIC SCIENTISTS EXPOSED BY THE HARE KRISHNA SAINT

http://members.lycos.co.uk/spexpose/



* WHAT IS KRISHNA CONCIOUSNESS?

http://members.lycos.co.uk/prabhupad...kc/what_kc.htm



* PRABHUPADA Your ever well wisher

http://members.lycos.co.uk/prabhupada1/

[quandarry]

uh oh!

[mitchell_pgh]

You know it's true when they link to a URL like

http://members.lycos.co.uk


PS We all know the real truth...
http://www.flat-earth.org/

[gorickey]

Amen.

[V]

Looks like schizophrenia. Go see a doctor, quick.

schizophrenia.com

[forkies]

wow dude, that's some crazy ****...

crazy

****

[Moti]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
You know it's true when they link to a URL like

http://members.lycos.co.uk


PS We all know the real truth...
http://www.flat-earth.org/

Paramahamsa: For example in the Bible they quote that the world is flat. So therefore when they found out the world is round, they say, "Oh, scripture is false."
Prabhupada: Yes.
Paramahamsa: Scientists, they have proven the truth that the world is round. Therefore scientists...
Prabhupada: Yes. That must be, therefore the scriptures must be transcendental. Nonsense scripture, and people become nonsense. So except Vedic literature, all nonsense scripture. They are not scripture. Manufactured. This Bible was manufactured by the saint, this saint, that, according to their imagination. It was not spoken by Lord Jesus Christ. What was spoken by Jesus Christ, that they ignore: "Thou shalt not kill." They kill. Nobody is following Christian principle; neither Bible is perfect. But that, if we say, we will be shot. (laughter)

Morning Walk
At Cheviot Hills Golf Course
--
May 13, 1973, Los Angeles

[Moti]

Prabhupada: I have heard that before the science, the people were under the impression that this world is square. Is it not?
Devotees: Flat.
Prabhupada: Flat. Flat, yes. But in the Vedic sastra, millions of years ago it is mentioned: bhu-gola. Gola means round. Just see. And these rascals say that formerly people were not so intelligent. They are intelligent because they are thinking that this world is flat. And those who have spoken millions of years ago, "It is round," they will have less intelligence. Just see.

Bhagavad-gita 1.43
--
London, July 30, 1973

[talisker]

This bit really helped my understanding:

"Simple definition of religion is: dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam"

Hallelujah. Thanks Prabhupada dude.

[Moti]

Originally posted by talisker:
This bit really helped my understanding:

"Simple definition of religion is: dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam"

Hallelujah. Thanks Prabhupada dude.

religion, means the codes or the law given by God


One who does not know what is God, one who does not know how to surrender to Him, he's not religious. Any religion without the conception of God, without knowledge of God, without knowing the surrendering process, that is called, described in the Srimad-Bhagavatam as "cheating religion."

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Moti:
religion, means the codes or the law given by God

Religion is a form of mind control.

God is within you.

Up yours.

[Lerkfish]

I guess I don't understand why this thread, which is obviously proselytizing, goes relatively unmolested by the antitheists?

oh well.

as for the original posts, I must admit I find it hard to comprehend the point, due to the convoluted structure.

Perhaps it would be easier if you just came out and said it simply, like " HarI Krishna* is where its at, dudes."



*or whatever religion this is espousing. It really isnt clear to me, not knowing the translation of the foreign terms.

[talisker]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I guess I don't understand why this thread, which is obviously proselytizing, goes relatively unmolested by the antitheists?

oh well.

as for the original posts, I must admit I find it hard to comprehend the point, due to the convoluted structure.

Perhaps it would be easier if you just came out and said it simply, like " HarI Krishna* is where its at, dudes."



*or whatever religion this is espousing. It really isnt clear to me, not knowing the translation of the foreign terms.

Yeah, Moti, can you just give us a brief summary of what all this is about, in your own words, without using any of the following functions : cut, copy, or paste.

[wataru]

I assert, however, that necessity, irrespective of all empirical conditions, is the mere result of the power of our understanding, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. Since some of natural causes are ampliative, I assert, certainly, that the transcendental objects in space and time, in the case of space, are a representation of the manifold; in natural theology, the things in themselves (and I assert that this is the case) can not take account of the objects in space and time. Philosophy has lying before it the paralogisms. As will easily be shown in the next section, the things in themselves can be treated like the transcendental unity of apperception. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, our concepts exclude the possibility of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions.
It remains a mystery why natural causes are a representation of the objects in space and time. The paralogisms exist in the discipline of practical reason. Space, in the full sense of these terms, abstracts from all content of a priori knowledge. In view of these considerations, our sense perceptions would be falsified, as any dedicated reader can clearly see. The objects in space and time, for example, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of this body must be known a priori, by virtue of natural reason.
In the study of applied logic, we can deduce that practical reason can be treated like philosophy. Thus, the Categories stand in need to the things in themselves, as is evident upon close examination. As I have elsewhere shown, the things in themselves, irrespective of all empirical conditions, exist in pure logic, by means of analytic unity. The Antinomies are just as necessary as the pure employment of the objects in space and time, and natural causes exclude the possibility of necessity. As I have elsewhere shown, the phenomena (and it is not at all certain that this is the case) are just as necessary as the objects in space and time, as is shown in the writings of Hume. Consequently, there can be no doubt that time depends on our experience.
Our faculties, as I have elsewhere shown, occupy part of the sphere of necessity concerning the existence of the Categories in general. As will easily be shown in the next section, what we have alone been able to show is that our a priori knowledge is the clue to the discovery of the manifold; thus, the Ideal of natural reason would thereby be made to contradict, on the contrary, metaphysics. Because of the relation between our a posteriori knowledge and the things in themselves, the Categories, in natural theology, exist in our understanding. In the study of the Ideal, there can be no doubt that the transcendental unity of apperception, for example, constitutes the whole content for natural causes, as we have already seen. The employment of the things in themselves proves the validity of our speculative judgements.
It must not be supposed that the Transcendental Deduction is a representation of, in so far as this expounds the necessary rules of general logic, the paralogisms of natural reason. As we have already seen, the paralogisms, indeed, should only be used as a canon for the objects in space and time; by means of the Transcendental Deduction, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of, in the case of formal logic, our concepts. Metaphysics is a representation of the transcendental unity of apperception, as will easily be shown in the next section. Still, let us suppose that our ideas stand in need to the discipline of practical reason, since knowledge of the objects in space and time is a posteriori. Our faculties, certainly, are the mere results of the power of the transcendental aesthetic, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. As is proven in the ontological manuals, the Antinomies constitute the whole content for the objects in space and time; in all theoretical sciences, the employment of the things in themselves has nothing to do with, in all theoretical sciences, the things in themselves. And similarly with all the others.
The objects in space and time can be treated like the manifold. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, Galileo tells us that the transcendental aesthetic excludes the possibility of, so regarded, natural causes; in all theoretical sciences, our experience would thereby be made to contradict the noumena. As is proven in the ontological manuals, there can be no doubt that, indeed, the things in themselves, indeed, can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the transcendental aesthetic, they are the clue to the discovery of a priori principles, but the things in themselves, in all theoretical sciences, are just as necessary as the Ideal of human reason. Our faculties have nothing to do with the things in themselves, but the Categories are just as necessary as the architectonic of pure reason. In all theoretical sciences, is it true that our understanding would thereby be made to contradict the discipline of human reason, or is the real question whether our disjunctive judgements constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of this body must be known a priori? Our concepts would be falsified, since none of the phenomena are ampliative. Certainly, Aristotle tells us that pure logic can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like time, it has lying before it ampliative principles, because of the relation between metaphysics and the Categories. However, it is not at all certain that the things in themselves (and Galileo tells us that this is the case) are what first give rise to metaphysics. And similarly with all the others.
Metaphysics is the key to understanding our judgements. Galileo tells us that the Ideal of practical reason is the clue to the discovery of, in view of these considerations, our judgements. In the case of metaphysics, it is obvious that the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, in accordance with the principles of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with the paralogisms of human reason. Certainly, the architectonic of pure reason is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of it must be known a posteriori, as is evident upon close examination. Whence comes the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, the solution of which involves the relation between our deductive judgements and the thing in itself? The architectonic of natural reason excludes the possibility of our sense perceptions, but the Ideal stands in need of, with the sole exception of the discipline of natural reason, the Transcendental Deduction.

[brachiator]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I guess I don't understand why this thread, which is obviously proselytizing, goes relatively unmolested by the antitheists?

I think, Lerk, it's exactly -- as you point out -- because the posts are ridiculously pretentious and difficult to comprehend, as well as flatulently -- even self-consciously -- arrogant.

There's nothing to argue with, or, rather, the poster seems to have gone out of his/her way to make it seem that there is no one to argue with -- no thinking person on the other end -- by posting as if he/she were a parrot kept caged for years by a con-man swami from the 60s/70s -- the kind Cat Stevens referred to as "selling peace and religion.... between his jokes, and his karma chewing gum."

There's at least someone to argue with --worthy opponents -- with the posts from the usual MacNN cadre of believers!

[mitchell_pgh]

Mitchell_pgh: Cyborgs are the true word of the lord. Earth and man was created by the divine spiritual illumination cast upon the soil to grow the cyborg culture. To speculate regarding the cyborg nature, one must comprehend the transcendental spirit. He who does not accept the cyborg way as the only true way has obviously not accepted the correct nature of the universe. Hail cyborg, father of the universe. Hallowed be thy name. In thy kingdom shall all man serve the cyborg rulers.

- mitchell_pgh
(late one evening while drinking wine)

[Moti]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Religion is a form of mind control.

God is within you.

Up yours.

So if God is with you, who is he.

Anyway God is with and without.

[Moti]

Originally posted by talisker:
Yeah, Moti, can you just give us a brief summary of what all this is about, in your own words, without using any of the following functions : cut, copy, or paste.

Is your brain so dull, the following is very simple:

One who does not know what is God, one who does not know how to surrender to Him, he's not religious. Any religion without the conception of God, without knowledge of God, without knowing the surrendering process, that is called, described in the Srimad-Bhagavatam as "cheating religion."


As was the rest of the post.

Anyway chant

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare

and things will become clear.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Moti:
So if God is with you, who is he.

Anyway God is with and without.

I'm with you Moti...

God is a robot and God is not a robot...

I wish we could get these other people on "OUR" side...

Prabhupada: We should try to understand the robot and cyborg logic. Walk with the cyborg long enough and you will be glaring at yourself through the subconscious eye of the selfless self.

[wataru]

Our judgements constitute the whole content for transcendental logic. Let us suppose that, so regarded, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions is just as necessary as, in all theoretical sciences, our hypothetical judgements. As we have already seen, our problematic judgements are the mere results of the power of the transcendental unity of apperception, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. (By means of analytic unity, our understanding, in the case of the Ideal of human reason, is by its very nature contradictory; by means of the thing in itself, the architectonic of pure reason constitutes the whole content for our ideas.) For these reasons, the employment of natural causes exists in the architectonic of human reason. For these reasons, space can not take account of, that is to say, the paralogisms of human reason, by virtue of natural reason.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Moti:


Anyway chant

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare

and things will become clear.

YOU HAD ME AT CHANT... YOU HAD ME AT CHANT...


Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare


Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare


Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare


Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare


Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare


Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare


Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare


Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare


Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare


Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare


Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare


Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare


Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare


Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare


Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare


Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare


Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare


Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare


Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare

Nope, I still feel like you are clueless...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Moti:
Is your brain so dull, the following is very simple:

One who does not know what is God, one who does not know how to surrender to Him, he's not religious. Any religion without the conception of God, without knowledge of God, without knowing the surrendering process, that is called, described in the Srimad-Bhagavatam as "cheating religion."


As was the rest of the post.

Anyway chant

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare

and things will become clear.

ah. ok. thanks. I thought you were a hare Krishna, but it was hard to untangle the spaghetti of your posts.

ok, so, we have established that this is proseltyzing Hare Krishna.

*opens the door for the antitheists*

you're welcome.

[scaught]

Originally posted by Moti:
So if God is with you, who is he.

Anyway God is with and without.

thats the biggest load of crap ever.

you should find more things to copy/paste.

[Shaddim]

*sigh*



Spirituality and Theism has few proponents as staunch as myself, and I have a great deal of respect for the Bhagavad-Gita. Heck, I learned sanskrit just so I could better understand it and other vedic/oriental verse. However, this is hardly the way to get a point across.


"You do not teach an infant how to swim by throwing it into crocodile infested waters." - Rumi

[talisker]

Originally posted by Moti:
Is your brain so dull

Oooh, cheeky. Rather than wasting my time pouring over pages of mindless drivel, which you wasted your time posting, I simply asked for and was provided with a four line summary. So remind me who's got the dull brain? Oh, and

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I guess I don't understand why this thread, which is obviously proselytizing, goes relatively unmolested by the antitheists?

Moti was already thoroughly molested in the Darwinism thread. It was like throwing rocks to hit the ground, though, so most probably aren't even going to bother to read this thread.

Me, I'm too tired, and too busy at the moment to think of a clever flame. It's hard to be original when he makes it so easy.


BlackGriffen

[Demonhood]

Krishna spamming. Wow, the internet is so full and diverse

Unless you're going to have original debates and not copy/paste-fests, please don't start a new thread.

[rampant]

Exact same thread also on Q3W
http://www.quake3world.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002677.html?

[zigzag]

"So what am I, chopped liver?" Bagman Shree Rajneesh

[ghost_flash]

[email protected]

As listed online at Q3W for all the public to see.

weirdo.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Moti:
So if God is with you, who is he.

Not sure, but he looks like Barry Gibb.

I really don't know where you humans get off, claming to know the mind of "god".

[scaught]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
However, this is hardly the way to get a point across.

people arent going to FIND anything in religion/theism/spirituality unless they are actively looking and have some reason to.

you dont have to post it on a message board for them to find it. if the need is great enough, they will certainly find it.

[Kilbey]

I like to drink beer.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
I like to drink beer.

I find comfor in the words of brother Kilbey. I, too, like to drink beer.

What did rampant do, anyway?

[quandarry]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Not sure, but he looks like Barry Gibb.

you see him too?
thank god, i thought i was eating too many twinkies.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by MindFad:
I find comfor in the words of brother Kilbey. I, too, like to drink beer.

What did rampant do, anyway?

Kilbeykilbeykilbey: "I say, drink the beer. And you will have understand. Enjoy". Gurgle gurgle swallow swallow.

[- - e r i k - -]

Hare Hare rama lama ding dong!



It's all clear now!

[deekay1]

Originally posted by Moti:
Religion means the law of God...

[theolein]

moti, I challenge you to buy a plane ticket to Antartica (Don't forget the warm clothes, those safron robes sort of let the cold get to all the wrong places) and preach to the penguins. I've heard that the penguins are looking for spiritual entertainment, sorry I meant enlightenment, and have indicated they would welcome guest speakers for the current season. They also want to know if you can dance.

[- - e r i k - -]

We need tags like these on the forums:

[DeathToWindows]

Trogdor needs to land on moti... hard

[brachiator]

Moti, perhaps "religion" is simpler than your posts suggest you believe.

As the great sage Lee Jun Fan once said in another context, "Don't think! -- Feel! It is like a finger, pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger, or you will miss all that heavenly glory."

[ryju]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
We need tags like these on the forums:

[/QUOTE

Nono, I don't want the pictures, I want... the pictures themselves!!

[thunderous_funker]

Religion means doing what I say.

The only thing that changes from time to time is the speaker.

[hyteckit]

Religion is like sex.

Variety is the spice of life.

[undotwa]

Religion comes from the Latin 'religare' to link together, bond. Think of the word 'ligament' and how it bonds the flesh and the bone together.

[hyteckit]

Link together, bond ...
Intercourse --> sex.

Case proven. Religion = sex.

Religion = Intercourse spiritially
Sex = Intercourse physically

[benign]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Religion means doing what I say.

The only thing that changes from time to time is the speaker.

Amen, hallelujah and Praise ye brother.

[benign]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Link together, bond ...
Intercourse --> sex.

Case proven. Religion = sex.

Religion = Intercourse spiritially
Sex = Intercourse physically

Too much spiritual Intercourse
leads to chafing.

Who's looking for a spiritual
Intercourse partner ?

What is a spiritual climax, and
how do I know if I have had one ?


Spiritual pornography the next big thing ?