Posts by Kate Peterson5

There is a certain subset of people who believe they have attained profound wisdom simply by skimming through the works of Michael Newton. It would be highly beneficial for those individuals to take a moment to read this:

http://www.oslobadjanje.com/autorski...oterapiju.html

One really only needs to examine the vast array of other historical perspectives regarding what transpires after death—take the Tibetan Book of the Dead or the Vedas, for instance—to see the discrepancy. Is it not curious how much Newton's findings seem to diverge from these ancient, sacred traditions?

amberharbor70 said:From where I'm sitting, Krishna is just one of those many names used for God, so I'm guessing they'd be on board with that idea🙂..

I haven't spent a ton of time diving deep into Hare Krishna's teachings, but I dug up a link that might give you the clarity you're looking for:

http://www.harekrishnatemple.com/chapter27.html

2) Every single person isn't just some physical body, but an eternal soul—a piece of God (Krishna). Because of that, we're all interconnected through Krishna, our common Father.

That’s an interesting way to look at it, but I can't quite get on board with it. I don't really buy into "Destiny." To me, everyone has a choice at every single moment, and making the right choices is what eventually leads us toward Perfection.

"Be therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect!" (Matthew 5:48).

Regardless, there's no point in trying to live someone else's life, since everyone's got their own unique path to walk..

You cited the Gospel of Matthew, yet you seem to be advocating for impersonalism? In the Bible, God is decidedly personal. Jesus' teaching centered on love for God as a person.

Yogananda belongs to the mayavadis, whose teachings are rooted in Shankaracharya's commentary on Vedanta Sutra—the so-called Advaita Vedanta, or monism. According to that doctrine, God is formless and this world is merely an illusion. They suggest that once we are liberated from our material bodies, we become Brahman; essentially, they claim we are all God, but we have simply forgotten due to an illusion.

Mayavadis reject the existence of a personal form of God, which stands in contrast to the Brahmavadis (such as the four Kumars before they became devotees) who do accept a personal form of God, even though they still share the ultimate goal of merging into the impersonal Brahman.

The mayavadi teaching is erroneous and born of ignorance. God is a person. He can be realized in three aspects: as the impersonal Brahman, as the localized Paramatma, and as the personal Bhagavan.

Impersonal Brahman possesses the attribute of sat (eternity); the localized Paramatma possesses sat and cit (knowledge or consciousness); and the personal Bhagavan possesses sat, cit, and ananda (bliss).

Bodjan said:Krishna is a historical figure who lived around 3,500 BC. An immensely enlightened being—much like the Jesus of Hinduism, an avatar and a messenger of God.

Krishna is identified as a historical individual who participated in the events of the Mahabharata.

Legends have been woven around him over time, blurring the lines between history and myth until he became a legendary figure.

BG 7.7: O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.

Krishna is the absolute truth, the supreme divine person, a fact affirmed throughout the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, the Mahabharata, the Puranas, the Brahma Samhita, and more.

Anyone claiming otherwise is simply a charlatan driven by envy toward Krishna. Krishna says:

BG 7.15: Those miscreants who are grossly foolish, who are lowest among mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who partake of the atheistic nature of demons do not surrender unto Me.

BG 7.21: I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul.

BG 7.26: O Arjuna, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, I know everything that has happened in the past, all that is happening in the present, and all things that are yet to come. I also know all living entities; but Me no one knows.

BG 7.30: Those in full consciousness of Me, who know Me, the Supreme Lord, to be the governing principle of the material manifestation, of the demigods, and of all methods of sacrifice, can understand and know Me, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, even at the time of death.

Even Shankaracharya, in his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, identifies Krishna Narayana as the supreme divine person...

Arjuna says:

BG 11.18: You are the supreme primal objective. You are the ultimate resting place of all this universe. You are inexhaustible, and You are the oldest. You are the maintainer of the eternal religion, the personality of Godhead. This is my opinion.

Betty Patel172 said:Maya is what happens when we post on forums, Facebook, or whatever else; sometimes it brings us satisfaction, and other times it doesn't.

Maya encompasses all those activities aimed at satisfying the senses—and yes, even the mind falls under that category. In contrast, any activity performed not for sensory gratification, but for God, is considered transcendental.

BG 4.18: One who sees inaction in action, and action in inaction, is intelligent among men, and he is in the transcendental position, although engaged in all sorts of activities.

Krishna:

BG 7.14: My divine energy, composed of these three modes of material nature, is quite formidable to conquer. However, those who surrender themselves to Me find it easy to transcend it.

In Sanskrit, Maya literally translates to "that which is not." It represents a lower energy of God that stands in direct opposition to spiritual consciousness—essentially, the energy of ignorance. It is often called "illusory" because it leads living beings to fall under a spell, causing them to forget God and their eternal relationship with Him, leading them instead to identify solely with their physical bodies. In this sense, Maya itself isn't an illusion or non-existent; rather, its function is illusory. Similarly, this world, manifested through material energy, is not an illusion—it is very real, just inherently temporary.

Furthermore, Maya is also used to describe the personification of this material energy (which is impersonal in its essence) that governs it. Her other names include Durga (meaning a fortress or prison), Kala (time), and Parvati. She holds the position of Shiva's consort, acting as the force that manages the modes of ignorance.

Ultimately, Maya remains under the complete control of God and serves Him. One might compare her role to that of a prison warden serving a king.

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:I wonder what a Hare Krishna follower would make of this?

I’ve been sitting here thinking about this one; it really sticks with me...It's better to live an imperfect life that is truly your own,
rather than living a perfect imitation of someone else's existence. Bhagavad Gita

I believe the verse is this:

BG 3.35: It is far better to discharge one's prescribed duties, even though faultily, than another's duties perfectly. Destruction in The course of performing one's own duty is Better Than engaging in another's duties, for to follow another's path is dangerous.

''It is better to perform one's own duty imperfectly than to perform another's duty perfectly.''

Now, the nuance feels entirely different...