PRONUNCIATION OF YHWH

HERESY · Jul 23, 2003

compared to

and

1.HOW CAN "BUDDHA" BE THE NAME OF SRI KRSNA WHEN "BUDDHA" IS A TYPE OF "TITLE"? NOWHERE IN RECORDED HISTORY WILL YOU FIND A PERSON NAMED "BUDDHA".

2.HOW CAN "BUDDHA" BE THE NAME OF SRI KRSNA WHEN "BUDDHA" (ACCORDING TO YOUR STATEMENTS) *DENIED* THE EXISTENCE OF GOD AND DENIED HIMSELF AS GOD? IF HE WAS "THE LORD" WHY WOULD HE *DENY* THE LORD AND DENY BEING A DIETY?

3.HOW CAN "BUDDHA" ***BE*** SRI KRSNA OR AN INCARNATION OF SRI KRSNA IF HE DENIED GOD AND DENIED BEING GOD.

4.HOW CAN "BUDDHA" BE A GOD TO ATHEISTS WHEN HE DENIED BEING A GOD? THATS DEFEATING THE PURPOSE.

IM SORRY MAN BUT YOUR STATEMENTS ARENT COHESIVE.

:h:

Vyasadeva · Jul 23, 2003

Me and you might not have said much if anything to each other, but I've seen you post enought to know you aint with all this little fruity shit alot of these kitty kats are on. I feel like we both grown men and should speak to each other as such, so I feel like we can just get straight to the point and chop it up about that, and leave the suckas to sit and pop shit regardless of what bullshit they believe.

No doubt. I didn't mean to sidetrack the topic, but my interest is more about the attributes and qualities and personality of YHWH.

But this spiritual body is not described, or is it?

All gravity.

Nah, I'm saying that 1 single entity can be called a number of different names, but that 1 entity is the same regardless of what it is called. If I type :H: or HERESY, you know that I am referring to the same individual. If I type YHWH or Jehova, you know that I am referring to the same person. Same with KRSNA and Krishna.

They are the same because whether I type YHWH, Yahweh, Jehova, I'OVAH, I am still referring to the SAME entity.

And, if I type KRSNA, Krishna, VISNU, Vishnu, I am still referring to the same entity.

The markings we use to indicate sounds does not affect the being which is being referred to by the sounds and markings.

The name KRSNA means "All-Attractive". KRSNA is the most beautiful person, the weathiest person, the most powerful person, the most knowledgable person, and the most renounced person simultaneously.

KRSNA did not originate from any language or idiom. KRSNA is eternal, therefore His name is eternal. KRSNA is source of all material and spiritual worlds, and thus He eternally attracts everything within Himself.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have been told that YHWH translates to mean that "I am that I am. Nothing is beyond me." or something along those lines. Is that accurate?

I wasn't saying that YHWH is pronounced "Yahweh", I was just giving an example of how even though a different arrangement of letters is being used, the same entity is being referred to.

But since we come from God we must also have the quality of perfection within us, no?? I agree that it is impossible to behold God face-to-face while viewing through this material body.

If you think about it, we can't even look at the sun for 2 seconds, and the sun is just an infinitesimally small speck of the total effulgence of God. So I agree that if we were to be allowed to look at God while in this body we would not enjoy it.

Let's say YHWH decides to bring you to His kingdom in your pure spiritual body to reside with Him in heaven. I understand that here in the material world we are not worthy or able to view Him face-to-face, but why would God not allow us to view Him while in heaven? Or does He?

I agree.

Caitanya-Caritamrta, Madhya 21.138

[color=sky blue]"Krsna's body is a city of attractive features, and it is sweeter than sweet. His face, which is like the moon, is sweeter still, and the gentle smile on that moonlike face is like rays of moonshine."[/color]

I am not saying He has to prove anything to us. I am saying why would He have a spiritual face if no one is allowed to see it?

[color=sky blue]"Of what use are eyes if one does not see the face of Krsna, which resembles the moon and is the birthplace of all beauty and the reservoir of the nectarean songs of His flute? Oh, let a thunderbolt strike his head! Why does he keep such eyes?"[/color]

But God didn't "begin". He is eternal. Therefore He is TIME Himself. If God wants it to be daytime it is daytime. And if one minute later He wants it to be midnight it is midnight. So, in order for that to be possible, God must be above time, never beginning and never ending. Therefore His eternal associates must also be kickin it with Him forever, without beginning and without ending.

KRSNA says in the Bhagavad-Gita: [color=sky blue]"Time I am, destroyer of the worlds, and I have come to engage all people."[/color]

Since God is the creator and the destroyer, He must be Time because time is the ultimate destroyer of all.

True, but the difference is neither of us is God, neither of us is father to the other, whereas God is everyone's father. Like the verse says, why do we have eyes if we are not meant to see the most beautiful thing in all existence? Just by seeing a picture of KRSNA one's heart is filled with love and bliss.

Our eyes are purified by seeing KRSNA, just as our ears are purified by hearing about Him and our tongues are purified by speaking about Him, etc.

Vyasadeva · Jul 23, 2003

Look in any encyclopedia or go to any university and inquire about the Vedic scripture. The copies studied by researchers are not the originals, but copies of copies of copies, so how much do you trust their word?

They originate from KRSNA Himself. KRSNA is the Vedas personified, and the purpose of the Vedas is to find KRSNA.

They have been very precise, including predicting the appearances of Lord Buddha and Lord Caitanya, as well as other ancient events.

Face value? I don't judge books by their covers, and I don't think face value is a good indicator of the actual worth of any scripture.

The subject matter, the way it is explained, the experience I have had since reading it, and the irrefutable philosophy is why I accept it. I have tried to defeat it many times, and every time I try it defeats me even further. No contest. My arms are too short to box with God.

Krsna is the sole author and Vyasadeva is the incarnation in charge of writing them down when the need arises. The Vedas are literally tens of millions of verses and they are all memorized to perfection by Srila Vyasadeva.

Everything. It explains the soul, consciousness, karma, KRSNA, time, the spiritual world, transcendence, basically everything you could ever think of is covered.

Not at all. That is what a lot of people think, that "Only my scripture is correct, and if I read any other, then I have sinned or I will be following a demon cult", or some such nonsense.

Basically the Vedas expound on the science of God and our eternal relationship with Him. God is infinite in every way, so to have knowledge of Him requires a scientific and thorough breakdown of His various workings.

KRSNA says in the Bhagavad-Gita:

[color=sky blue]"Of all creations I am the beginning and the end and also the middle, O Arjuna. Of all sciences I am the spiritual science of the Self, and among logicians I am the conclusive truth."[/color]

When I am referring to KRSNA personally, I use His name. And when I am referring to a general concept of "God", I use that title. Just like when I am referring to my brother, I will call him my brother, but when I am referring to him specifically, I will call him by his name.

The science of God analyzes the constitutional position of God and His diverse energies. There is material nature, time, activities (karma), the Lord, and the living entities. Understanding the interactions and positions of these elements is the science behind God.

The best way I can explain the apparent discrepancy between the scriptures is like this: Imagine a person on one side of town who is being taught that 2+2=4. He is told that *ONLY* 2+2 is the means of concluding 4. At the same time on the other side of town, a person is being taught the same thing, but instead of 2+2 he is being taught that 1+3 is the *ONLY* way of coming to a conclusion of 4. Although both of these people are being taught a true equation, the idea that *ONLY* their equation is true is actually untrue.

And at the same time, there is a person who is being taught that there are an infinite number of ways to come to the conclusion of 4, just as there is a person who is learning that God has an infinite number of names and is not limited in any way.

True indeed.

Wait up, I think we should be clear on what exactly it means for there to be "only one truth". Take 2+2=4 for example. It is true for me and you and everyone. It is an absolute truth. There can only be one conclusion to 2+2 and that is 4. 2+2 cannot equal 5 or 3 just because someone believes it does or because they want it to.

But at the same time it is incorrect to say that there is *only* one true equation which equals 4. 1+3 also is true, as is 1+1+2. So maybe you look at it like one of us has to be right and the other has to be wrong, but I disagree with that idea.

You can call it whatever you want, but I have experience of God and I do not believe in God, I actually know He exists. I can connect with Him spontaeously. Everyone can. The Vedas explain how to do this. So there is nothing mythical or imaginary involved. A oerson can experience God and come in direct connection with Him as easily as they read the newspaper or takl on the phone. Just the facts, mayn.

Read one chapter of any Vedic literature and you will immediately understand that it is not some "man-made logic" used to control anything. It is knowledge of God, coming down from God Himself. Every scripture advises a certain restraint in activities and desires, and this is viewed by the cynic as being a means of "controlling the masses". The only controller is God, any intelligent person knows that, therefore if humanity is to live in harmony it must be under a common knowledge that God is the only controller and since He is our sustainer, everything should be offered unto Him.

True. :H: once told me that he gets to decide what is true and what is not, and from that point onwards I understand that a logical theosophical debate is out of the question. You said there was only one truth right? Well if someone tells you that they get to decide what that truth is, then what?

But after seeing what some of these other cats on here is all about, I definitely respect :H: more than before. I may disagree with him, but I have no doubt that he knows his shit and studies and researches rather than just go off of rampant speculation (most of the time).

I've heard a lot of discussions about the proper pronounciation of YHWH, but I don't know much at all about the person YHWH. I didn't mean to open up a can of worms, but I figured you could school me on it.

Exactly man fuck those little fruitflies. Always buzzin around like little hoes, and they take the time to pop little bullshit like that because they are envious. I see posts they make all the time where I disagree or don't give a fuck, but I don't waste the time to make a post talking shit. That is what children and child-like bitches do.

Vyasadeva · Jul 23, 2003

Saying that God is a spirit and that spirit is His form is not very helpful. That is like saying the form of the sky is the sky.

Does He have bodily attributes? Ornamentation? Paraphernalia? a Face? a Smile? a Smirk?

But surely you realize that not everyone who was present before Jesus actually had the spiritual vision with which to behold him? Just seeing the physical body of Jesus does not constitute "seeing".

And EDJ said that it is not possible to see YHWH face to face. Interesting.

I agree those are qualities of God, but I was asking about the activities of YHWH. As in, how does He interact with those who see Him, what do they do, where do they go, etc.

For example, if I said "What is the nature of the activities of the average hoe in a rap video?", a person might say "Well, their activities appear to be somewhat scandalous in nature, being that they dress like whores and are always in the mix of some trouble or scuttlebutt. The video hoe is very materialistic and attractive, and is often seen dancing in a club or being driven somewhere in a rental car."

Interesting.

If you had knowledge of God you would have understood what I wrote.

Just so we are clear, this is all I was saying:

YHWH = Jehova
KRSNA = Krishna
:H: = HERESY

In all three instances we see a set of 2 different character markings which symbolize a singular entity. Yet in each instance the entity remains the *same* even though it is being referred to by different symbols (letters).

Of course they do. Why do you think I accept them? Just for the fuck of it? No, because I have scrutinized them for days and weeks trying to find faults and flaws, and since I can't beat KRSNA, I joined Him.

Yehuda · Jul 23, 2003

Vyasadeva reminds me of this crappy indian/punjab/hindu channel I was watching one time, they were wearing shalwar kameez and chanting some crap that probably meant "the cosmos portion out karma freely" or some incoherent garbage like vyasadeva always spits out.

Vyasadeva · Jul 23, 2003

He is referred to as Buddha although his actual name was Gautama. I did not say that "Buddha" is "the" name of KRSNA, I was referring TO Buddha, who IS an incarnation of KRSNA.

When KRSNA incarnates it is for a specific purpose. In the case of Lord Buddha the circumstances were that the Vedas were being abused by demons, and in order to relieve the people who did not wish to follow in that manner, the Lord incarnated as Gautama to preach the Buddhist philosophy of nonviolence and nirvana.

You are thinking that God would never deny His own existence, but due to the circumstances and the specific need of the people at a particular time, God will fool us and trick us for our own benefit. Those people who followed and who continue to follow the teachings of Buddha are unknowingly following the teachings of Lord Krsna. They do not even realize the mercy of Krsna who appeared in that incarnation just for the purpose of giving the nonbelievers a person who they would believe in.

God can be whoever God wants to be, and God can say whatever God wants to say. Do not think that HERESY is in a position to validate and authorize what God does. He will do what He will do regardless of what you think or believe or understand.

So KRSNA can "BE" Gautama if He so desires, and He can tell the people that there is no God if He so desires. Neither of us is in a position to tell God what He can or cannot do, nor are we qualified to validate His actions.

The incarnation of Gautama was predicted in the Vedas, including His name, place of birth, parentage, and activities. I even provided the verse. Yet you still question and argue and request that I somehow validate it to your satisfaction. I cannot, nor am I bothered by my inability to satisfy you. Just like God's existence, you either accept it or you don't.

No, that *IS* the purpose.

Can you not see that God loves us so much that He would use any means necessary to reclaim us, even denying His own existence?

For those of us who know God exists, we are all good. We have no doubt. But for those who don't know, and who are envious of a superior being, God gives them a philosophy and a person to look to which helps them to navigate a life of existentialism.

They are quite cohesive, it is just that you do not see God as truly omnipotent. You seem to think He is limited to a linear-type of existence where A must come before B. But God does not have any rules. If He wants to lie to you, He will, and He will be telling the truth at the same time.

Vyasadeva · Jul 23, 2003

Yehuda reminds me of this little whiny hoecake named Xianex. Both of these braindead little bitches do nothing but yap yap yap like those little faggot ass dogs that girls always are carrying around.

Neither of you fools can debate with logic or philosophy, you just make noise like crickets.

Now shut the fuck up and go put that doily back on your head.

HERESY · Jul 23, 2003

:SHAKING HIS HEAD:

ONLY ON THE SICCNESS.

I ORIGINALLY STATED

THAT IS YOUR ANSWER. LOOK UP THE WORDS KOVOD AND ANTHROPOMORPHIC. AFTER THAT TAKE YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE WORDS AND READ A BIBLE. IF YOU WANT A SIMPLE YES OR NO ANSWER (IF YOUR TOO LAZY TO READ) YES.

THE STATEMENT IS A "SPIRITUAL" STATEMENT. IT HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH THE PHYSICAL.

PLEASE READ THE LINK I PROVIDED.

HE SPEAKS, HE LISTENS, HE WILL BLESS. HE WILL PROTECT, HE WILL JUDGE (IN TRUTH AND RIGHTEOUSNESS). ALL OF HIS WAYS ARE JUST. HE IS HOLY AND REQUIRES THE EARTH (MANKIND) TO BE HOLY. HE IS THE REWARDER OF THOSE WHO SEEK HIM.

IF YOU DONT "HEAR" YHWH YOU WONT BELIEVE YHWH. ITS VERY SIMPLE. IM NOT TALKING ABOUT PHYSICAL HEARING. IM TALKING SPIRITUAL. WE CANNOT INTERACT WITH YHWH TO OUR *FULL* EXTENT BECAUSE OF OUR BODIES. WE WILL BE ABLE TO FULLY INTERACT AND COME INTO FULL KNOWLEDGE WHEN WE HAVE REVIVED SPIRITUAL BODIES.

WHO IS GOD? I DONT KNOW OF A GOD NAMED "GOD". I DONT KNOW OF A GOD NAMED SRI LANKA OR SRI KRSNA. WHAT YOU ARE TYPING MAKES NO SENSE BECAUSE YOU DONT HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT YOU ARE TYPING ABOUT (WHEN IT COMES TO THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES AND NAMES).

IN THE HEBREW,GREEK AND LATIN TEXTS ***ONE*** LETTER CAN CHANGE THE ENTIRE MEANING OF THE WORD. DO A LIL WORDPLAY ON ELOHIM AND YOU WILL SEE WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT. NOW IM NOT GETTING CAUGHT UP IN NAMES BUT COMMANDMENT WAS TO *NOT* TAKE HIS NAME IN VAIN. WHATEVER HE PLACES ON YOUR HEART TO CALL HIM IS WHAT YOU SHOULD CALL HIM.

I DONT KNOW WHY YOU ACCEPT THEM. I DONT THINK I ASKED BUT ITS GOOD THAT YOU STUDIED AND YOU FOUND SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR YOU. MOST PEOPLE HEAR SOMETHING AND RUN WITH IT.

THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID:

YOU DONT HAVE TO BOTHER EXPLAINING.

BY THE WAY ALL THAT "SIDE TALK" IS NOT NEEDED MAN. STOP TRYING TO PUT PEOPLE ON THE SPOT AND DEAL WITH WHAT YOU SAID. I HAVENT INSULTED YOU OR MADE YOU OUT TO BE THE BAD GUY. SO STOP WITH THE

. HERESY IS NOT THE ONE UNDER ATTACK HERE. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS MADE STATEMENTS THAT CONTRADICT EACH OTHER. SO THE QUESTION SHOULD BE WHERE DID *YOU* RECEIVE YOUR AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE.

NOW WE CAN SLING MUD OR WE CAN SHARE IDEAS. LEAVE YOUR EGO AT THE DOOR PIMPIN.

THESE DIETIES ARE ***TOTALLY*** DIFFERENT IN WHAT THEY DO,WHAT THEY REQUIRE,HOW THEY CREATED THE EARTH,HOW THEY VIEW SIN, VIEW TOWARDS OTHER GODS,PARTNERS ETC ETC ETC.

KNOWN BY ALL THESE DIFFERENT NAMES YET THE ATTRIBUTES,ACTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THESE DISTINCT DIETIES ARE DIFFERENT. WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS IN THE PAST.

IM NOT TELLING OR SAYING THAT EITHER. WHAT IM SAYING IS THAT KRSNA,YHWH AND ALLAH ARE THREE DIFFERENT DIETIES.

TAKE THAT UP WITH HIM (EDJ)

THE FACT THAT THE VEDAS DONT LIST THEM SHOULD TELL YOU
SOMETHING.

DONT MAKE ME QUOTE YOU AGAIN.

LISTEN IM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE NAMES. TOSS THE NAMES OUT. WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE. IM TALKING ABOUT THE ATTRIBUTES AND DESCRIPTIONS OF THE GODS. HERES AN EXAMPLE:

ALLAH: HAS NO SON AND DOESNT ENDORSE THE WORSHIP OF OTHER GODS.

YHWH: HAS ONE SON AND DOESNT ENDORSE THE WORSHIP OF OTHER GODS.

NOW LIST WHAT KRSNA HAS. DOES HE HAVE SONS, ONE SON OR IS HE ALONE? IS HE WORSHIPPED WITH DEMIGODS AND DOES HE ENDORSE IT?

IF YOU WERE TO RUN YOUR THEORY/VIEW BY A MUSLIM HE WOULD NOT SAY THAT YOU WORSHIP THE SAME GOD. HE WOULD BE VERY SKEPTIC. HE WOULD DEAL WITH A CHRISTIAN AND JEW BEFORE YOU.

I DONT THINK I SAID THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR "GOD" TO HAVE AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF NAMES. WHAT IM SAYING IS LOGICALLY ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR YHWH OR ALLAH TO BE KRSNA.

PROVING OR DISPROVING THAT GOD HAS 1 OR 1 TRILLION NAMES ISNT THE POINT. SEE THE ABOVE.

WHAT XIANEX SAID WAS 100% CORRECT.

"if he's trying to equate KRSNA with YHWH his flaw is already evident. NO GOOD CAN COME OUT OF THAT DISCUSSION

KRSNA != YHWH
at ALL

there is NOTHING that can reconcile those OBVIOUSLY diverse entities into one by any theistic logic whatsoever."

I "MIGHT" ANSWER YOUR OTHER PART LATER ON.

:h:

XianeX · Jul 23, 2003

@vy - cry baby cry baby succ a fuccin titty

grow up. don't be mad because you can't converse with the intellectual juggernauts on their level. read a book. read what it says as it says it aint hard. take your emotions out of the books and accept logic.

oh, stop crying

HERESY · Jul 23, 2003

HERE IS WHAT YOU SAID

NO ONE IS IMPLYING THAT YOU SAID BUDDHA WAS *THE* (ONE AND ONLY) NAME OF ANY "GOD". HOWEVER YOU LISTED BUDDHA AS A NAME OF SRI KRSNA.

HE IS REFERRED TO AS BUDDHA BECAUSE THAT WAS HIS "TITLE". JUST AS JESUS WAS CALLED "THE CHRIST". ITS A TITLE NOT A NAME (IM CRACKING UP AS IM TYPING THIS)

"BUDDHA" (GUATAMA) IS AN INCARNATION OF KRSNA YET HE DENIES "GOD" AND DENIES BEING A GOD. THAT MAKES NO SENSE.

SO THIS SUPREME GOD KRSNA TRANSFORMED INTO BUDDHA (GUATAMA) DENIED GOD AND DENIED BEING A DIETY...?

OK SO BUDDHA (KRSNA OR GUTAMA OR WHOEVER) LIED SO PEOPLE WOULD STILL WORSHIP HIM. HOW LONG DID IT TAKE FOR HIM TO REALIZE HE WAS KRSNA?

I DONT KNOW WHAT GOD YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. THE GOD OF THE JEWS DOESNT GO AROUND TRANSFORMING INTO PEOPLE AND LYING SO THAT THEY CAN WORSHIP HIM **INDIRECTLY**.

STOP ATTACKING *ME* AND WHAT I CAN AND CANT DO. YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING STATEMENTS THAT MAKE NO SENSE. WE SHOULD STICK TO THAT.

THE GOD OF THE BIBLE IS TO BE WORSHIPPED IN SPIRIT AND TRUTH. HE (YHWH) WANTS US TO WORSHIP HIM *FREELY*. HE DOESNT NEED TO LIE AND TRANSFORM TO MAKE US WORSHIP HIM INDIRECTLY. THE GOD OF THE BIBLE HAS ***ALWAYS*** STATED THAT GOD IS *ONE* AND TO *NOT* WORSHIP IDOLS,OFFER FOOD TO IDOLS,WORSHIP DEMIGODS ETC ETC ETC. YHWH IS NOT A DECIEVER. YHWH HAS NEVER DENIED HIMSELF AND HAS ALWAYS SAID THAT HE IS GOD.

YOU SAY ITS PREDICTED IN THE VEDAS BUT HE DIDNT EVEN ENDORSE THE VEDAS. :dead: ITS NOT LOGICAL TO MAKE SOMEONE A DIETY WHEN THEY DONT WANT TO BE A DIETY AND DONT ENDORSE A DIETY. BUDDAH WAS "GOD" BUT DIDNT KNOW IT AND DIDNT WALK THAT WAY...LMAO! INSTEAD OF REPEATED "HERESY" ASSAULTS YOU SHOULD WATCH WHAT YOU SAY.

WHAT DID BUDDAH (GAUTAMA) SAY ABOUT LYING?

***ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT GAYA IS WHERE GAUTAMAS MOTHER GAVE BIRTH (TO HIM)?***

LMAO!

:H:

PS YOUR STATEMENTS ARENT COHESIVE. WHAT YOU DO IS CONTORT STATEMENTS TO MAKE THEM FIT.

Ender · Jul 23, 2003

God is not a "controller" He is a teacher. For somebody to control another person is for that somebody to oppress that other person. How can you teach anything if all you are doing is making somebody else do exactly what you want them to do? Don't confuse that statement with what we are suppossed to do in order to learn. There's a fine line that you have to be able to understand. Do good and teach to do good, because God is good.

You can't argue forever. There is a point where you just have to have faith in what you know. You can't save someone who does not want to be saved. But you must protect the ones you can. Your faith in God will show you how to do this. God smites thru us. If we ask Him to forgive our enemies then that's what He's gonna do, if we ask Him for vengence then that's what He's gonna do. We have always been at war since the creation of time. Your kindness and mercy should never be a weakness.

"God grant me the strength to accept the things I can't change"-Some prayer I saw someplace

I believe that it is impossible to see the whole face of God in it's entirety, only because we wouldn't be able to comprehend it and in trying to do so we would destroy ourselves. But we can see parts of Him everyday and in everything we know.

The more we understand, the more of Him we can see in ourselves. God is forever changing and forever growing and learning. We will always be only able to see what he was, never what he is, or is going to be. It's called order and understanding.

One last thing. Follow no man who tells you there is no God for he is lost.

HERESY · Jul 23, 2003

^^^ has found THE KINGDOM OF GOD.

:H:

miggidy · Jul 25, 2003

V,

I always thought Budda was heretic towards Vedic scripture.
After all, he left his family to go "find himself"....

Not the actions of a good person..............

EDJ · Jul 25, 2003

VYASADEVA,
LET ME START OFF BY SAYIN' THAT YOU BEIN' CAUgHT UP IN ALL KIND OF CONTRADICTIONS TO TRY TO MAKE YOUR LOgIC STIK. AND BY DOIN' SO, YOU ELIMINATE THE CHANCE OF FINDIN' TRUTH. NEVERTHELESS, I'LL ANSWER YOUR RESPONSES OUT OF COURTESY.

YOU STRESSED, "Me and you might not have said much if anything to each other, but I've seen you post enought to know you aint with all this little fruity shit alot of these kitty kats are on. I feel like we both grown men and should speak to each other as such, so I feel like we can just get straight to the point and chop it up about that, and leave the suckas to sit and pop shit regardless of what bullshit they believe."

I AgREE WITH THE FACT THAT YOU NOTICED THAT I AIN'T NO LITTLE KID OR SOME gROWN ASS FOO' WITH CHILD-LIKE QUALITIES, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO DISCUSSIN' TOPICS AS THESE. BUT I DO DISAgREE WITH YOU TRYIN' TO IMPLY THAT OTHA FOLKS BELIEVE IN BULLSHIT AND SHOULDN'T SHARE WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND TRY TO LOgICALLY EXPLAIN THOSE BELIEFS.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "No doubt. I didn't mean to sidetrack the topic, but my interest is more about the attributes and qualities and personality of YHWH."

WHY IS THAT? WHY WOULD YOU RATHER TALK ABOUT THE ATTRIBUTES, QUALITIES, AND PERSONALITY OF YHWH THEN THE RIgHT PRONUNCIATION OF THE NAME? YOU EVA HEARD THAT YOU CAN'T MAKE A HOMERUN WITHOUT gOIN' TO FIRST BASE?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "But this spiritual body is not described, or is it?"

READ THE BIBLE AND FIND OUT.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Nah, I'm saying that 1 single entity can be called a number of different names, but that 1 entity is the same regardless of what it is called. If I type :H: or HERESY, you know that I am referring to the same individual. If I type YHWH or Jehova, you know that I am referring to the same person. Same with KRSNA and Krishna."

YES BUT THE ENTITY IN QUESTION ONLY WANTS TO BE KNOWN FOR THE ACCURATE PRONUNCIATION AND ANNUNCIATION OF HIS NAME THAT WAY IT WON'T BE CONFUSED OR HIS gLORY gIVEN ON TO OTHAS.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "They are the same because whether I type YHWH, Yahweh, Jehova, I'OVAH, I am still referring to the SAME entity."

WHAT IF I CALLED YOU BI-ASS-A-DIVA? IT SOUND KIND OF WHAT I PERCEIVE BY THE LETTERS TYPED BY YOU AS YOUR NAME BUT IS IT TRULY YOUR NAME? WOULD YOU BE INSULTED? WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO BE REFERENCED CORRECTLY? SO THERE IS ONLY ONE RIgHT PRONUNCIATION AND IT IS FOR US TO FIND OUT WHICH ONE IS ACCURATE.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "And, if I type KRSNA, Krishna, VISNU, Vishnu, I am still referring to the same entity.

The markings we use to indicate sounds does not affect the being which is being referred to by the sounds and markings."

HOW DO YOU FIgURE? IF I'M gONNA WORSHIP SOMETHIN' I'M gONNA MAKE SURE EVERTHANg IS ACCURATE, ESPECIALLY THE KNOWLEDgE gIVEN.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "The name KRSNA means "All-Attractive". KRSNA is the most beautiful person, the weathiest person, the most powerful person, the most knowledgable person, and the most renounced person simultaneously. "

THAT SOUND LIKE SOME HUMAN CHARACTERISTICS. BEAUTY IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER, 51ST OF ALL.
XCONDLY,
WEALTH IS A HUMAN ELEMENT IN CONJUNCTION TO HOW MUCH MATERIAL THANgS ONE OWNS. AND THAT DOES NOT MAKE A PERSON. YOU'RE gIVIN' YOUR gOD ALL THESE VEIN HUMAN ATTRIBUTES. THAT'S VERY UNgODLY.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "KRSNA did not originate from any language or idiom. KRSNA is eternal, therefore His name is eternal. KRSNA is source of all material and spiritual worlds, and thus He eternally attracts everything within Himself. "

THEN HOW DID HE COMMUNICATE THAT?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Correct me if I am wrong, but I have been told that YHWH translates to mean that "I am that I am. Nothing is beyond me." or something along those lines. Is that accurate?"

NO. IT MEANS "HE WHO CAUSES TO BECOME"

THEN YOU STRESSED, "I wasn't saying that YHWH is pronounced "Yahweh", I was just giving an example of how even though a different arrangement of letters is being used, the same entity is being referred to."

BUT ONLY ONE IS CORRECT.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "But since we come from God we must also have the quality of perfection within us, no??"

TO BETTER UNDA-STAND THIS, WHAT IS PERFECTION?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "I agree that it is impossible to behold God face-to-face while viewing through this material body."

YES IT IS.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "If you think about it, we can't even look at the sun for 2 seconds, and the sun is just an infinitesimally small speck of the total effulgence of God. So I agree that if we were to be allowed to look at God while in this body we would not enjoy it."

IT'S BEYOND JUST DISCOMFORT.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Let's say YHWH decides to bring you to His kingdom in your pure spiritual body to reside with Him in heaven. I understand that here in the material world we are not worthy or able to view Him face-to-face, but why would God not allow us to view Him while in heaven? Or does He?"

THAT REMAINS TO BE SEEN.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "I am saying why would He have a spiritual face if no one is allowed to see it?"

ASK HIM. THAT'S HIS WILL.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "But God didn't "begin". He is eternal. Therefore He is TIME Himself. If God wants it to be daytime it is daytime. And if one minute later He wants it to be midnight it is midnight. So, in order for that to be possible, God must be above time, never beginning and never ending. "

I UNDA-STAND THAT. I NEVA SAID (gOD) BEgAN.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Therefore His eternal associates must also be kickin it with Him forever, without beginning and without ending."

WHO SAID THERE WERE ETERNAL ASSOCIATES? IF THAT WAS SO THEN WHY WOULD WE ONLY PRAISE HIM IF THERE'S OTHAS LIKE HIM?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "True, but the difference is neither of us is God, neither of us is father to the other, whereas God is everyone's father. Like the verse says, why do we have eyes if we are not meant to see the most beautiful thing in all existence? Just by seeing a picture of KRSNA one's heart is filled with love and bliss."

HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Look in any encyclopedia or go to any university and inquire about the Vedic scripture. The copies studied by researchers are not the originals, but copies of copies of copies, so how much do you trust their word?"

YOU DON'T HAVE NO LINKS, NO RESEARCH? I WANT TO BE POINTED IN THE RIgHT DIRECTION

THEN YOU STRESSED, "They originate from KRSNA Himself. KRSNA is the Vedas personified, and the purpose of the Vedas is to find KRSNA."

SO HOW IS THAT? HOW DO I KNOW THESE ARE IN FACT HOLY AND FROM A HIgHER SOURCE?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "They have been very precise, including predicting the appearances of Lord Buddha and Lord Caitanya, as well as other ancient events."

HOW EVENTS NOWADAYS OR EVENTS IN HISTORY THAT SOME OTHA SOURCE CONFIRMED TO BE ACCURATE?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Face value? I don't judge books by their covers, and I don't think face value is a good indicator of the actual worth of any scripture."

WHEN I STRESS "FACE VALUE" I'M TALKIN' ABOUT THE KNOWLEDgE CONVEYED, ADVICE gIVEN, AND MESSAgES EXPRESSED IN THE PASSAgES. I WASN'T TALKIN' BOUT THE FINANCIAL VALUE OF THE BOOK.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "The subject matter, the way it is explained, the experience I have had since reading it, and the irrefutable philosophy is why I accept it. I have tried to defeat it many times, and every time I try it defeats me even further. No contest. My arms are too short to box with God."

WHAT SUBJECT MATTER? HOW IS IT EXPLAINED? WHAT PHILOSOPHY? WHAT DOES THIS PHILOSOPHY SAY? WHAT IS THIS PHILOSOPHY BASED ON? WHAT EXPERIENCE HAVE YOU HAD?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Krsna is the sole author and Vyasadeva is the incarnation in charge of writing them down when the need arises. The Vedas are literally tens of millions of verses and they are all memorized to perfection by Srila Vyasadeva."

IS SRILA VYASADEVA KRSNA TOO? SO THERE'S ONLY ONE AUTHOR?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Everything. It explains the soul, consciousness, karma, KRSNA, time, the spiritual world, transcendence, basically everything you could ever think of is covered."

SO IT EXPLAINS WHO SATAN THE DEVIL IS? DOES IT EXPLAIN ABOUT UFO'S? HOW ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF DINOSAURS? HOW ABOUT WHEN BABIES DIE?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Not at all. That is what a lot of people think, that "Only my scripture is correct, and if I read any other, then I have sinned or I will be following a demon cult", or some such nonsense."

BUT THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE THAT IS CORRECT. CAUSE TO HAVE ANOTHA ONE, IS TO ABOLISH THE OTHA OR DEEM IT AS A LIE.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Basically the Vedas expound on the science of God and our eternal relationship with Him. God is infinite in every way, so to have knowledge of Him requires a scientific and thorough breakdown of His various workings."

SO WHY AIN'T THE VEDAS EXPLAINED IN OTHA BOOKS LIKE THE BIBLE?

EDJ · Jul 25, 2003

THEN YOU STRESSED, "When I am referring to KRSNA personally, I use His name. And when I am referring to a general concept of "God", I use that title. Just like when I am referring to my brother, I will call him my brother, but when I am referring to him specifically, I will call him by his name."

I SAY THE TITLE (gOD) CAUSE THAT'S HOW THIS SOCIETY HAS BECOME TO KNOW HIM(WHICH IS WRONg). HIS NAME IS THE UPMOST HIgH IN ALL THE UNIVERSE. SO WHY WOULDN'T YOU CALL HIM BY HIS RIgHTFUL NAME? THAT'S WHY WHEN I SAY THE WORD "gOD" WHEN REFERRIN' TO HIM, I PUT "( )" CAUSE I AIN'T CALLIN' HIM THAT BUT USIN' THAT TITLE SO PEOPLE CAN UNDA-STAND.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "The science of God analyzes the constitutional position of God and His diverse energies. There is material nature, time, activities (karma), the Lord, and the living entities. Understanding the interactions and positions of these elements is the science behind God."

HOW ABOUT HIS LOVE, UNDA-STANDIN', COMPASSION, WILL, AND KNOWLEDgE?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "The best way I can explain the apparent discrepancy between the scriptures is like this: Imagine a person on one side of town who is being taught that 2+2=4. He is told that *ONLY* 2+2 is the means of concluding 4. At the same time on the other side of town, a person is being taught the same thing, but instead of 2+2 he is being taught that 1+3 is the *ONLY* way of coming to a conclusion of 4. Although both of these people are being taught a true equation, the idea that *ONLY* their equation is true is actually untrue.

And at the same time, there is a person who is being taught that there are an infinite number of ways to come to the conclusion of 4, just as there is a person who is learning that God has an infinite number of names and is not limited in any way."

THAT EXAMPLE SEEMS FINE AND DANDY IF THE SITUATION IS TRUE, BUT YOUR MAN-MADE LOgIC SEEMS TO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE PERSON TAUgHT HAS TO BE TAUgHT EVERYTHANg OR NOTHIN'. IF THE TEACHER IS (gOD) HIMSELF, THEN WHY WOULD A SUPREME BEIN' OMMIT THE FACT THAT HE HAS OTHA NAMES?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Wait up, I think we should be clear on what exactly it means for there to be "only one truth". Take 2+2=4 for example. It is true for me and you and everyone. It is an absolute truth. There can only be one conclusion to 2+2 and that is 4. 2+2 cannot equal 5 or 3 just because someone believes it does or because they want it to.

But at the same time it is incorrect to say that there is *only* one true equation which equals 4. 1+3 also is true, as is 1+1+2. So maybe you look at it like one of us has to be right and the other has to be wrong, but I disagree with that idea."

YOU MUST LOVE THIS "2+2 IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO gET 4" EXPLANATION". BUT SEE, YOU CAN'T REFERENCE THAT TO EVERYTHANg AND EXPECT IT TO BE TRUE. THAT'S JUST YOUR LOgIC TRYIN' TO EXPLAIN THAT ALL ROADS LEAD TO (gOD) WHEN IN FACT IT IS ONLY ONE ROAD THAT DOES. I CAN COME WITH ALL KIND OF EXAMPLES, LOgIC, AND SCRIPTURES THAT TELL ME THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTH. BUT THE BEST EXAMPLE I CAN LOgICALLY EXPLAIN ABOUT ONE TRUTH(NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH PERCEPTION) IS THE ONE ABOUT US BEIN' ON ONE EARTH. THERE'S ONLY ONE. SO IF WE ALL LIVE HERE , THEN IT'S ONE TRUTH THAT AFFECTS US ALL AND THE REST ARE LIES. AND SINCE WE LIVE ON ONE EARTH, PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT CULTURES AND RACES ARE BOUND TO MEET AND CLASH. AND IN THAT INSTANCE WE CAN MARRY SOMEBODY FROM A DIFFERENT RELIgIOUS UPBRINgIN' AND IF WE HAVE A CHILD AND IT DIES WHAT HAPPENS TO IT? MY BELIEFS? YOUR BELIEFS?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "You can call it whatever you want, but I have experience of God and I do not believe in God, I actually know He exists."

IT'S NOT WHAT I CALL OR LABEL IT. IT IS WHAT IT IS. SO IF YOU gO BAK TO THE ROOTS OF YOUR BELIEFS, ARE THEY ROOTED IN ACTUAL FACTS(BACCEK BY HISTORY) OR SOME MYTHS SOMEBODY MADE UP AND INTRODUCED?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "I can connect with Him spontaeously. Everyone can. The Vedas explain how to do this."

HOW IS THAT? YOU MEAN LIKE TALKIN' TO A DEMON OR SOMETHIN' LIKE THAT? SO HOW DO THE VEDAS EXPLAIN THIS?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "So there is nothing mythical or imaginary involved. A oerson can experience God and come in direct connection with Him as easily as they read the newspaper or takl on the phone. Just the facts, mayn."

WHAT ARE THE FACTS? SO HOW CAN YOU COME IN DIRECT CONNECTION WITH HIM?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Read one chapter of any Vedic literature and you will immediately understand that it is not some "man-made logic" used to control anything. It is knowledge of God, coming down from God Himself. Every scripture advises a certain restraint in activities and desires, and this is viewed by the cynic as being a means of "controlling the masses". The only controller is God, any intelligent person knows that, therefore if humanity is to live in harmony it must be under a common knowledge that God is the only controller and since He is our sustainer, everything should be offered unto Him."

BUT SEE, (gOD) gAVE US FREEWILL. EXPLAIN HOW HE CONTROLS US IF HE MADE US WITH FREEWILL? IF HE WANTED TO CONTROL US, WHY WOULD HE CREATE US WITH FREEWILL? WHAT IS THE PURPOSE?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "True. :H: once told me that he gets to decide what is true and what is not, and from that point onwards I understand that a logical theosophical debate is out of the question."

HOW'S THAT SO? AS I UNDA-STAND IT, EACH INDIVIDUAL HAS HIS OWN LOgIC AND PERCEPTION. SO IF HERESY LOgICALLY PERCEIVES SOME KIND OF INFORMATION gIVEN TO HIM TO BE TRUE THEN HE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN DETERMINE THAT.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "You said there was only one truth right? Well if someone tells you that they get to decide what that truth is, then what?"

THEN IT IS WHAT IT IS. THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTH. BUT HOW MANY PERCEPTIONS?

THEN YOU STRESSED, "But after seeing what some of these other cats on here is all about, I definitely respect :H: more than before. I may disagree with him, but I have no doubt that he knows his shit and studies and researches rather than just go off of rampant speculation (most of the time)."

YOU HAVE NO OTHA CHOICE.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "I've heard a lot of discussions about the proper pronounciation of YHWH, but I don't know much at all about the person YHWH. I didn't mean to open up a can of worms, but I figured you could school me on it."

I'LL LACE YOU WITH WHAT I KNOW. BUT I AIN'T NO AUTHORITY ON THIS SUBJECT. I'M JUST A REgULAR MUTHA-FUKA IN SEARCH OF TRUTH.

THEN YOU STRESSED, "Exactly man fuck those little fruitflies. Always buzzin around like little hoes, and they take the time to pop little bullshit like that because they are envious. I see posts they make all the time where I disagree or don't give a fuck, but I don't waste the time to make a post talking shit. That is what children and child-like bitches do."

YOU CAN'T ASSUME THEY ENVIOUS. AND YOU KEEPIN' THE CYCLE gOIN' BY DISRESPECTIN' THEM. IF THEY AIN'T IMPORTANT, THEN WHY EVEN MENTION THEM?

EDJ · Feb 26, 2004

UPPIN' FORM THOSE WHO AIN'T KNOWIN'.

MrShawnB · Feb 29, 2004

i didnt read the site or all these threads
as far as i know well nobody knows for sure do they?
what i beleive on a few things here is

its pronounced like yow-way
and back in the days relegion thought it was disrespectful to call "god" by his name. YHWH in the bible sometimes its god sometimes it GOD....
when it's GOD capitalized... thats the places they took out his name and put GOD instead

miggidy · Mar 1, 2004

ShawnB,

Did you ever post in "Makaveli's Crib"?
It's some old ass chatroom where I used to go and I thought I used to see some dude from Sac in there using the same handle you use here.

EDJ · Mar 4, 2004

^MRSHAWNB IS AN OLD SCHOOL SICCNESS HEAD. PLUS HE WAS AT THE 1ST SICCNESS BBQ. YOU NEED TO OPEN YOUR EYES MORE. I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU DON'T KNOW THIS MAN.

MRSHAWNB,
HIT THAT LINK. IT'S NOT PRONUONCED THAT WAY. HEBREW SCHOLARS BEEN WRONg ALL THIS TIME. THE ARTICLE IN THE LINK EXPLAINS WHY YAHWEH IS THE WRONg PRONUNCIATION.

WHITE DEVIL · Mar 4, 2004

Vsyaveda or whatever,

What is the significance of the fact that Krishna's physical attributes are delineated in the Vedic scriptures? How does that hold *any* relevance to this discussion?

PRONUNCIATION OF YHWH

THE HIDDEN HAND...

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Member

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

THE HIDDEN HAND...

Sicc OG

THE HIDDEN HAND...

Sicc OG

THE HIDDEN HAND...

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG