Posts by mistygull16

Richard Walker79 said:Does suffering actually exist?

If such a thing even exists—who exactly is held accountable?🙂

Bad karma, I guess. Or maybe it's just what Jesus meant when he talked about reaping what you sow (from whatever happened in those past lives).😢

Look, I get it—you shouldn't go around talking about someone behind their back. But honestly? I just wanted to give him some credit. For me personally, it was such a blast listening to him because he wasn't all preachy or stuck in his ways; everything he said actually made sense. I could honestly sit there and listen to him talk for hours. Just saying.

Just scrolled through the forums and stumbled onto this interesting thread about Christ and Krishna. Does anyone know what happened with Vishnupad? I used to really enjoy listening to him—he always seemed to use his head, you know? Just wondering where he’s at these days and if he's still preaching the same message.

shadownomad4 said:You are absolutely correct!
There is one crucial point you overlooked: if those of us who possess certain insights into the Truth fail to convey them—whether through media or by witnessing through our own lives—then others will never gain insight into the Truth, and the Holy Spirit will have no medium through which to work in their lives.
God looks upon and sees a people thirsty for the Truth, and the Holy Spirit comes with His presence into the life of such a person.
I have personally experienced this many times when witnessing the Truth face-to-face; people have undergone various forms of mercy and true liberation.
Therefore, let us write and speak the Word, for it is the only thing that penetrates where nothing else can or will. After all, it was that very same Word that created the world; surely it can do anything else.🙂

Look, shadownomad4, I think you're a good guy and I believe Jesus loves you, but honestly? What you're saying feels pretty naive, almost like something out of a kid's book. It's not like Jesus or Satan are comic book villains where we're just waiting to see which hero wins the fight. That's not how you read the Bible; it doesn't line up with science or even just basic common sense. We know dinosaurs existed, we know about evolution... the idea that everything popped into existence overnight from Adam and Eve is more of a metaphor. Reading things that way just breeds fear and makes people hate other religions. It ends up making God look like some kind of tyrant, which is exactly what you're preaching. But God is love. He isn't out to torture anyone for eternity. Take it easy!

So, does that mean if there were no Satan, everyone would just be saved automatically?
I mean, which version of Satan was sent our way?

shadownomad4 said:Your issue is that you believe you "know everything," and because of that, you aren't open to anything else. You're closed off due to some bitterness you picked up a long time ago. Everything I wrote previously should have been enough to give you insight into God's plan, but feel free to argue if you must; debating isn't my intention and it's ultimately pointless. By the way, all the answers are right there in the Bible. No offense intended.🙂

Deep down, what I told you at the start... you actually agree with me.

If Jesus has to give His life for us, then His Father isn't exactly great, right? It's like He's looking for a sacrifice or something. Nobody's really given me a straight answer on that yet.

Sure, questions exist, but if you actually find an answer, please, just share it for the sake of the other people on these forums.

I guess I mostly reacted to that link you posted—the part where it says if people experienced just two minutes of hell, everyone would turn to faith. Personally, I don't think an argument like that comes from God.

Elizabeth Lewis11 said:Hey there, everyone. I see things are starting to heat up in here—quite a lively debate you've got going. I won't stick around to clutter up the thread or get in your way, but I thought I'd leave a quick recommendation for a fantastic Christian forum: www.izaija95.lolbb.com
Best regards,

Why can't you guys just answer the actual questions? Instead, it's always someone else trying to tell us what we supposedly believe or what we're even allowed to think.
We believe what we believe, and that's all that matters when we stand before God!
If I were forcing myself to believe something that just didn't make sense, I'd feel like a total hypocrite—kind of like those Pharisees. Just my two cents.

shadownomad4, you totally dodged my question!

1) If God basically sets a deadline for when we need to accept Jesus, can you even call that "great love"?
2) And what’s our deal with Adam’s sin anyway? (Which, let’s be real, isn't even real—just some parable from the Bible)
3) What about little kids who pass away? Are they kind of getting the VIP treatment since they don't have to deal with all this earthly suffering?
4) Then there are people born with disabilities or mental struggles... why do they have to go through that hell? Is that just God's whim?
5) Isn't it a little twisted that God sent His son because of our sins, but at the same time sent Satan to do the dirty work? I mean, someone's gotta handle the hell part, otherwise everyone would just be chasing Paradise and nobody would want anything to do with hell, right?

Be a pal and answer these if you can, but don't skip any. If you actually sit down and chew on them for a second, you'll see that the stuff you're preaching is pretty contradictory. Thanks

Brian Thomas612 said:Honestly, guys... you’ve wandered so far away from true spirituality when you start bickering about it like this. 👎

To the person who kicked off this thread and everyone else jumping in... I have to wonder, what’s actually the point of these kinds of conversations—or rather, these debates? What's the practical benefit? You all seem so busy defending your version of spirituality (some people are even bringing up their own "personal experiences"), yet it feels like there isn't an ounce of actual faith in the things you're defending...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming to be more enlightened than any of you. If I were, I probably wouldn't be sitting here typing this out. It's nice, really, seeing people try to bridge the gap between spirituality and philosophy (and hey, debating and making arguments is a huge part of philosophy, after all). There’s nothing wrong with chasing truth and wisdom... but I just don't think it works this way. Look how far we've gone with it. We're searching for answers in all the wrong places, when the truth is always found in just one spot—deep in the heart, in the soul!

I have my own spiritual path, and I feel like it’s the right fit for me. When I can just quiet my mind, let go of the raw thoughts and the endless mental loops, I feel myself moving toward the truth, toward God. But the moment I start arguing about it with other people, doubt and insecurity start creeping back in. It’s like I end up further away from where I started than before I even spoke...

Anyway, that's just my two cents,
Take care!

The fact that you have your own Path is perfect, and if it fulfills you, then that's all that matters!

But I jumped in because shadownomad4 posted a link about Buddhism where he found this story about how a Buddhist monk was confronted by Jamarađa (the god of death) who showed him that Buddha was suffering in hell and all that.
I think stuff like that can trigger a lot of fear—maybe even paranoia—toward God for people who aren't really deep into spiritual stuff.
And I truly believe that God is love, not fear!

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Well, from what I understand, there are actually several different ways this can happen. For instance, a mentor might gather their disciples before passing away—specifically choosing the 'most advanced' among them—to pass down the mantle of leadership.
Another way is if the mentor has already departed; in those cases, certain individuals might 'meditate' on you, leading you to accept the responsibility. However, you would still need to be formally initiated by either a godbrother of your mentor or perhaps a godbrother who has himself become a mentor.
That is how it works, more or less.
Though, I suppose that may not cover everything... 🤷
(Oh, speaking of which, it reminds me of Akrure Prabhu 😍)

And what about a Vishnupad? What happened there? Did anyone actually recognize him after?

Can I ask a quick, maybe slightly ungrateful question?
Since you used to hang out with those old Krishna followers way more than I did—and trust me, I was a regular at their place too—I’ve been wondering how anyone actually becomes a mentor. From what I gather, there were a few of them in the organization, but some fell from grace, right? Did things get messy? And did they become mentors because of some deep spiritual breakthrough, like reaching samadhi, or was it just based on something else entirely?
It always felt kind of silly to me when people said someone just picked up a bunch of students and then suddenly crashed and burned!
Or was being a mentor basically just synonymous with knowing the philosophy inside and out?
I remember hearing a lot of praise for a Vishnupad, and apparently, after he had this specific experience, he started identifying himself as Krishna—or so I heard.
Now, according to Advaita, that would be a pretty great sign, but for those Krishna folks, that's about as bad as it gets.
Also, back when I used to visit them about 15 years ago in Cleveland, there was this one bhakta—I think his name was dervendra-sigurno, though I might have butchered the spelling—who I see now has his own Christian-Vaishnava community and his own following. He was always going on about the ecstasy he felt whenever he chanted a mantra or sang a bhajan. Man, those guys were really something... makes me feel a bit nostalgic just thinking about it.
Anyway, in Advaita, you don't just become a mentor overnight. You practically have to be born an enlightened soul to inherit the lineage. At least, that's my take on it.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Well, if we are going to truly dissect what the core issue is with Jesuit leadership, it seems to me that the fundamental problem boils down to a total lack of respect for anyone outside of their own inner circle. Of course, things have softened up a bit lately, but back in the day... 🙄🙄🙄
In fact, from what I can gather, while the intensity has certainly died down, it feels as though the whole thing has become somewhat diluted in the process.
I suppose it’s just one of those things where there are pros and cons to every situation...

This is actually something Vivekananda said when he was asked about the difference between dualism and Advaita. Since dualists basically claim God is separate, V responded by saying dualists just end up glorifying themselves.
It's like they only ever respected their own perspective, just like you were saying.
But honestly, a person should be more like a bee—just moving from flower to flower, gathering nectar from everywhere!
The folks in ISKON who lost their way probably just needed the lesson, and hopefully, it sticks for them in the next life or whatever.
Spirituality is supposed to be about wisdom, not ego!!

bluemason3 said:Look, these debates have been going on forever, and we’re never going to reach some absolute finality. It's worth noting that the other two schools are younger and emerged specifically to challenge Shankara. You can't just dismiss them as inferior; they wouldn't have even gained traction if they hadn't successfully contested the older Shankara traditions, much like how he famously held his own against the Buddhists of his era. It's just that most of us in America aren't deeply versed in Hindu traditions, Sanskrit, or the nuances required to dive into the heavy lifting. That makes Advaita feel much more accessible to us—it's intellectual, easy to grasp, and simple to present outside of its original context.

To me, that’s a solid reason to stick with Advaita if I'm not Hindu and don't feel the need to be. If I actually wanted something more traditional, I'd go practice that instead. Like I mentioned before, we're all kind of being guided through life, and I think as we mature, we tend to shed more and more tradition—or at least we hold onto those specific bits that give us a little support or inspiration.

When you actually put in the work to be truthful with others and with YOURSELF, that truth starts to strengthen inside you. Then, what your heart tells you becomes a lot more accurate than when you were still busy nurturing all that dishonesty.

briskharbor35 said:Look, God is a Father specifically to those who carry the Holy Spirit—those are His children, the ones who’ve invited Christ into their lives. For everyone else, He's still longing for them and has a plan for salvation; He carries that truth wherever His children go to spread it through all sorts of ways, including stuff like this.
God made us perfect, and Adam was exactly that, but He also gave him free will—just like we all have today—so we can choose to come to Him out of genuine love rather than being programmed like robots. Why? Because He is pure Love.
Once you realize that everything else is just a distraction except for Christ, you start thinking, "Well, what do I have to lose by being free?" But trust me, once you truly experience Him, you'll look back and regret all the time you spent living without Him.
For me, it was my love for the Truth that ultimately pulled me back to Him.

Look, sorry, but you totally dodged my question! 😢
Who's deciding I haven't accepted Jesus? And for the record, Jesus recommended I read the Bhagavad Gita, unlike that Buddhist guy who listened to the ruler of hell and led a bunch of people astray. Who says I'm not in the Spirit? I was baptized and confirmed!
Can you honestly claim I don't love the Truth?
I wish you'd give me a real answer instead of just pooping out some vague response. This is heavy stuff for me. Talking about hell right off the bat just scares people away from God—so maybe be a little more responsible when discussing these things.

Don't let my edge trip you up, though. I really do respect people. 🙂

bluemason3 said:They might hold authority within Advaita Vedanta, but that doesn't apply to the other two branches. 😁 😁

I'd just be a bit careful with the whole "avatar" label. It gets thrown around way too easily out there—every little town seems to have its own.

I'm trying to stick to our usual deep-dive topics, and honestly, I think being in the West gives us a better vantage point for looking at Vedanta—at least, that's my two cents.
The reason I keep insisting that Advaita sits above duality is because, well, every religion is inherently dualistic. Even people calling themselves Advaitins often treat God as some external entity in their daily lives. Real Advaita should kick in after saguna samadhi (where there's still a "me" and a "God") and lead into the experience of nirguna samadhi—where names and forms just evaporate and you're left with pure sat-chid-ananda existence.
Now, someone could always argue there are even higher transcendental forms or whatever, etc., etc.
Prabhupada mentioned that souls merged with Brahman eventually return, but you don't really see testimonies for that kind of thing. Every religion basically claims that after their version of nirguna, their specific version of Heaven kicks in, which just puts us right back at square one.
But hey, I guess we can all agree we don't need to lose sleep over these heavy questions. We should only dive in as much as actually inspires us.
At the end of the day, we can all pretty much agree that God is Love.

I mean, I reckon a guru is totally free from any biases or whatever, but if they actually want to get stuff done—or even just have some "desires" to stay grounded at this level—they’ve gotta play by the rules of society. It's kind of like how they'll take on all the messy, chaotic baggage from their followers just to help speed up everyone's progress.
Swami Vivekananda once mentioned that out of eight enlightened souls, only one usually takes on students, and even then, only if they're "crazy enough" to do it.

I feel like everyone’s got their own personal truth to find, kind of like what the Bhagavad Gita talks about—better to follow your own dharma, even if you mess it up, than to perfectly follow someone else's path. If you're leaning toward the spiritual side of things, you definitely need an open heart, but honestly? You need a sharp sense of common sense too.
Because let's face it, having a big heart without any logic just sends you spiraling into irrational emotions.
A spiritual person tends to see purpose in everything since they believe in being guided by the transcendental. I wouldn't dream of overstepping by commenting too much on Prabhupada, but back then, those souls really needed him. I used to spend my time reading his books and it was my way of just... chilling out. I never took it super seriously, really; I just let myself get lost in it to escape reality for a bit. But the moment I started thinking they might actually be closest to the truth, it started weighing on me, and I knew I had to keep digging.
That’s why I say we should let our own hearts act as one of the authorities of the Vedanta.
In my view, today's true authorities of the Vedanta—the gurus and avatars—are the ones following the lineage of Adi Shankara. Not that I'm dismissing other paths or anything!

briskharbor35 said:Yeah, He did it because God loves this world so much that He gave His own Son so we could all be saved from eternal ruin and live in perfect unity with His Love forever—because let's face it, nobody could ever save themselves through their own goodness or good deeds. Only God could step in like that, taking on all those sins that separated humanity from Him by coming down in the flesh to take on earthly life.
We’re all heirs to Adam's sinful nature, which leaves us spiritually dead, but once a person is born again, they aren't inheriting Adam anymore; they're inheriting everything the Holy Spirit possesses, which is perfection. That perfection takes root in a person, and the whole process of realizing who you truly are in Christ happens at different speeds for everyone, depending on how much they hunger and thirst for that truth. In fact, everything a Christian experiences is basically inversely proportional to how much they understand their identity in Christ.

Eternal ruin? If God is our Father, what are we even talking about here?
I mean, what kind of father (or mother, for that matter) would just sign their kids up for eternal destruction?
And if this is all stemming from Adam's sin, then that's his baggage, not mine or yours.
What kind of logic is it to hold descendants responsible for some ancient ancestor's mistake? Not if we're talking about a righteous God, right?
If God designed us to be inherently sinful—like a factory defect—then His business model toward us isn't exactly looking noble.
He creates us with a glitch, hands us over to the devil to lead us astray, and then acts like He wants as many people as possible to end up in hell??? Give me a break, man, talk to me here.
If you gave anyone the choice between suffering and joy, everyone's picking joy every single time. Suffering is only an option for those who don't actually have a choice.
Can you actually weigh in on this and address these points?
I've got a feeling that somewhere deep down, in a quiet corner of your heart, you actually agree with me.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:From what I have gathered, the mayavadi seeks nothing more than to merge into Brahman, whereas the devotee simply longs to serve their deity for all eternity.

Calling them "mayavadi" feels like a bit of a dig—basically implying everything is just maya, which is why people use that label to poke fun at them.
Anyway, you can pretty much split things into Dvaita and Advaita (monism) schools.
The Dvaita school has more branches and, honestly, feels a lot more religious to me. They separate God from all other beings, claiming God has a specific residence, a form, a name, and so on... it’s all supposed to be transcendental. Personally, I don't quite buy the logic there; if something has a name and a shape, it’s clearly not "beyond" those things.
They claim brahman is just this pure radiance or total stillness, and somehow even lower in rank than the actual home of a personal God.
If you ask me, most major religions follow this Dvaita principle, just with different flavors of theology.

Then you've got the Advaita school, or monism. They argue that true transcendence happens when names and forms totally drop away, leaving nothing but one omnipresent, pure consciousness. As an individual evolves spiritually and expands their awareness to that point of being everywhere, they realize they are just that one consciousness: Brahman.
The various monist "sub-schools" aren't really fighting any theological wars; they just use different techniques. It isn't super dogmatic. At the end of the day, it's all about the actual experience or realization you get.

To me, the Advaita gurus who have actually had a Nirvikalpa experience are the ultimate authorities. But yeah, certain pandits and brahmans can also be experts in specific areas they've managed to realize.

Hey, if that’s what works for you, go for it!!
But I’ve been sitting here wondering... did God really have to send Jesus?
I mean, Adam messed up, and then Jesus comes along to fix it while we just sit here not even smelling the onions in the kitchen.
To me, that feels like some pretty thin theology!