LoveroftheBhagavata

He was highly educated, so much so that he translated and purported enough books as would take years out of one's lifetime to read.

Once more, you evince complete unacquaintance with the extensive literatures penned by a number of other highly respected sadhus from diverse lineages, and in so doing, you confirm my initial conclusion that you're not to be taken seriously, since you have such an enormous amount of homework to do. By so stating, I am not diminishing Prabhupada's significant contribution, merely putting it in perspective.

cbrahma, give it up, man. As someone who relies solely on BBT publications, you're just not up to the task. Then again, such small-mindedness would be expected from a convert like yourself, one hailing from a narrow Biblical background.

Excuse me, but I am a software engineer with a university degree in science and mathematics and several post graduate courses so spare me your pompous, self-indulgent and ignorant ad hominems.

I don't belong to the Hare Krsna cult. Apparently you have exhausted your repetoire of dismissive labels.

Interestingly you accuse Hinduism of being a 'panoply of religions'.

Srila Prabhupada was not promoting religion - but sanatana dharma.

He was a highly educated, so much so that he translated and purported enough books as would take years out of one's lifetime to read.

What is simple-minded and wrong is to minimize sanatana dharma as simply religious pluralism.

 

Again you demonstrate more hubris than knowledge.

cbrahma, unlike you, I'm not going to lay down my academic credentials on Audarya, however, you're the one who is severely lacking in any clue about the unfathomable and endless wisdom of Vedic dharma. You evidently are only acquainted with the few-decades-old ISKCONite take on shastra, when even traditional Gaudiyas dismiss Prabhupada's writings on a host of counts. A typical example is his atrocious Nectar of Devotion, in which he literally murdered Rupa Goswami's Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, and for a much better and more erudite English rendition of that text, consult Bhanu Swami's translation and commentary. To call you ignorant is actually far too mild a characterisation, since from reading your truly infantile words on this thread, I don't think I would care to engage in a debate with you, for the plain reason that you have just too little knowledge about the Vedic books. Sorry, I cannot stoop so low. Saying this, I bow out of this debasing discussion with persons of a tamasik disposition such as you and the other fanatics here.

Srila Prabhupada is an acarya in the Brahma sampradaya. Where do you get abrhamic from?

I suppose that tackleberry could educate you on the fact that Maadhvas categorically refute the Gaudiya claim that Chaitanya Vaishnavism descends from their line. If not, take a look at their sites and I would especially advise you to go through the Maadhva review of Prabhupada's BG As It Is.

Tackleberry, for a more historically verifiable and rational recounting of the Impersonalist-Personalist discourses that have taken place over the centuries, you could mind taking a trip to Shringeri Matha for a version that lies at 180 degrees from what your fellow beleaguered Maadhvas care to tell. Mark my words, you could be in for a jumpy ride, buddy, and possibly a change of faith, if yours is rather pliable.

Srila Prabhupada translates deva as demigod in a sloka where Krsna minimizes the practice of worshiping them.

So anybody who rejects this sloka and translation obviously has serious issues with an exalted Vaisnava and/or Krsna Himself.

Quite typical nursery stuff of the Hare Krishna cult, the Johnny-come-lately of India's panoply of religions.

In other words, you cannot quote pramaana-s. Quite typical of advaitins, who lost again and again to the 'narrow-minded' maadhva saints.

 

I would advise you to go back to high school in order to brush up on your English reading skills, since what I wrote is a million miles away from what you made of it. And oh, Advaitins lost time and again to the funny Madhvas, eh? I suppose that is what explains why Dvaita never gained a foothold outside of a few marginalised swathes of Kannada-desha, and why Tattvavadis are still dwarfed by Shankarites and Sri Vaishnavas, even though Madhva appeared and preached after Shankara and Ramanuja, which is partly why I counselled you to get a reality check in my message. Give me your email addy and I'll send you dozens of PDF files laying out logically the unquestionable and unimpeachable doctrinal foundations of Advaita. By the way, what kind of an id is that, tackleberry? Any particular reason for such a preposterous nick?

Ganeshprasadji,

Thanks for your post. I would tend to chime with you on most of it. You know, I spent years in Gaudiya Vaishnavism before returning to the mainstream Hindu fold, the perennially compelling teachings of which are exemplified by the lives and spiritual careers of many venerable saints (Swami Sivananda, Ramana Maharshi, Chidananda Swami, Samarth Swami, Swami Chidanand Saraswati and a number of other transcendentalists par excellence, including the Vaishnavite Alwars and Shaivite Nayanmars), and whether people like Theistji believe it or not, I still revere Vaishnava dharma, as I do all genuine lineages in the vast lanscape of Indic traditions, including non-Vedic ones like Buddhism (forget Malati's risible downplaying of it) and Jainism. On this forum, I am often forced to adopt a contrarian standpoint because of the insufferable pride and bigotry of some modern Vaishnavas, at least people pretending to speak on behalf of Vaishnavism. Some of my statements can be construed as being anti-Vaishnava, but this is principally for the sake of argument, and deep down, I respect and honour devotion to God Vishnu for the simple reason that I am totally confident of its authenticity and validity, as I am for the truth of Shaivism, Shaktism, Advaita siddhanta and the rest. If only certain sectarians could rid themselves of their tinted lenses and view the reality in front of us with just a tad more nuance!

And for the record, we do not insist that ALL PATHS ARE THE SAME. The several means that there are to realise God may be in some respects at variance with one another, but that for sure does not preclude them from being individually just as useful and valuable, and with definite, proven results, in almost every single instance.

Hari Om Tat Sat

Malati, just grab a version of the Gita by any non-Gaudiya acharya and you will see how those glosses that you think substantiate your specific position evaporate in thin air. Even Ramanuja, the staunch Vaishnava that he was, would disagree with the Chaitanyaite interpretation on many, many varying points. And if you read an Advaitic exposition of Lord Krishna's teachings, frankly, I doubt whether you will want to remain associated with such a babyish conception of Veda much more. Then again, you're only defending your religion, and I cannot hold that against you.

Pranam

Quote pramana-s to prove your position. Merely saying 'there are different paths, all paths are valid' isn't pramana. It's just a politically correct statement, nothing more. If you believe advaita is correct, prove it. Attacking others (especially those who demand pramana) as fundamentalist is just a clever tactic to evade the issue, it isn't going to work.

Now, you don't expect me to cut and paste the thousands of verses from the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas (including the Bhagavatam), Brahmanas, Aranyakas and numerous bhashyas just to get your jollies, do you? The knowledge is out there, and if you're sufficiently committed to obtaining it, I'll be more than happy to help. However, coming from someone who opined on another thread the scripturally unattested joke that Ashvatthama is an incarnation of Mahadeva (on the "authority" of Madhva, the founder of a most narrow-minded and insignificant cult of Karnataka), I am gobsmacked, to say the least, that you're clueless about the virtually unending number of shlokas that can be adduced in support of Advaita Vedanta. As I said, just say it and I'll furnish to you more material than you're able to digest in this lifetime, and probably the next.

what would the Sun be if it was not emanating sunshine? would it still be sun? Can you really separate the two - sun and sunshine? you can take this analogy only to a point when applied to the relationship between God and living entities.

 

the voices in a chorus all sing: "we are the chorus". and they are, but not in every sense.

 

if tou want to understand advaita, do not start with mayavada concepts. if you try to understand Vaishnavas, do you start with the sahajiya concepts?

 

the advaitin chorus sings: we are Brahman. what is the harm in that? what counts is how we understand Brahman. advaitins start with what is tangible and right in front of us: our own spirituality. bhaktas often start with God, without understanding their own spirituality. that is why Prabhupada stressed: "first you must understand you are not this body". have you achieved this platform? that is what advaitins are after as well.

Thank you, Ji. This is a most laudable piece, and it can go a long way in minimising the differences between followers of various paths.

Hari Om Tat Sat

Only Mahaprabhu could deliver them by His mercy. Only Mahaprabhu can deliver them today.

And I've got some news for you! Mahaprabhu was himself an Advaitin. Read Ramakrishna Paramhamsa's meditations on Shri Chaitanya and you will be surprised. It's a very good read, trust me.

You make puffed up claims for yourself with very little demonstration.

What do you expect me to demonstrate?

This thread is a perfect example of what a hodge podge bowl of confusion this hinduism is.

 

These people will accept anything and everything except the reality they we are the eternal servants of the Supreme God.

It can be a massive source of confusion for those who misunderstand it. If you want to know about the greatness of Hindu Dharma, that could be arranged in many ways. Just say the word.

You mock Vaisnavas in your posts so who are you to lecture anyone about appreciating anothers path.

 

It is most regrettable that you think like this. Still, I would reiterate that your criticisms should be founded and valid, which they certainly are not from what I've read so far.

Except that I'm not one of those devotees. And yes, just do some basic research and it should be plain to you that "demigod" is a poor rendering of the Sanskrit term Deva indeed. Only personalist sects are capable of such errors. I to a decidedly more universalist tradition than yours.

Vaisnava's speak from the eternal position of the jiva atma in relationship to the Paramatma.

 

Mayavadis don't speak from the position of Brahman because according to them Brahman has no attributes like speech as a means of communication. From the position of Brahman there would be no one else to speak to anyway. Mayavada is so fooloish.

May I ask how much Brahmavada (not Mayavada) you have studied, Theistji? Before denigrating such a lofty spiritual philosophy, at least get your facts right. This simplistic but inaccurate characterisation that you have just indulged in is a common, parochial, mistaken position which Vaishnavas take. If you're interested in the true Vedic religion, get in touch and I shall direct you to places where you can have access to the sublime shiksha of highly evolved Advaitin rishis and swamis. I bet, when you come in contact with such advanced souls, you shall find the behaviour of sectarians most reprehensible and will get down to some real soul-searching of your own.

You are giggling at a great sadhu which is a very dangerous practice.

In fact you are giggling at a whole sampradaya, line of sadhus and acaryas that go back all the way to a demigod - lord Brahma.

I don't see how you can maintain such a position - you don't even have being a Christian as an excuse.

My shelter is THE largest school of Vedic thought in existence, that founded by Adi Shankaracharya, and in big part relayed by Shaivites, Shaktas and right-hand Tantrik yogis. You're a great sadhu, right? I'd take a dig at you any day.

Hari Om Tat Sat

You must be riding high on waves of bliss then. Coming from a self confessed advaitin you should know vaisnavas don't care a fig about the opinion of someone who condiders himself the supreme God.

Aha Theist, ask any Advaitin worth his salt whether he considers himself God in a literal sense and you will get your answer. This is in fact a propagandist misrepresentation of Smarta thought in which Vaishnavas love to engage. What you say in your last sentence is correct, however, it also holds true the other way round. Non-Vaishnava Vedantins likewise do not give two hoots about relativisations of the Supreme Truth, Parabrahman.

As for cbrahma's post, I couldn't help giggling when I saw it - just another erroneous rendition and interpretation of scripture. But then, if he had any clue as to what constitutes true religion, he wouldn't be a Hare Krishna. As they say, ignorance is bliss.

Also, the so-called division of the Puranas according to the gunas is almost certainly a Vaishnavite interpolation in scripture, hence the disregarding of it by everyone else. After all, it is purportedly from the Padma Purana, that ever fluid text, which even contains a few shlokas by Rupa Goswami. Nobody in his right mind would accept any absolutist statement from the Padma, for this precise reason.

[Vishnu is considered supreme in the vedas, puranas, itihaasas etc. The puranas are satvik, rajasic, and tamasic in nature. Satvik puranas consistently declare that Vishnu is supreme, whereas tamasic and rajasic puranas also do, albeit rarely. Vishnu Himself so declares in the Gita. All acharyas, including Sankara who was advaitin, have maintained that Vishnu is supreme. Therefore it isn't a vaishnava conclusion that Vishnu is supreme. It's the conclusion of Sanatana Dharma.

 

But that doesn't mean one shouldn't worship other deities. Shiva, for instance, who's the tatva-abhimani-devata for manas (mind) must be worshipped for a good memory, Vayu and Saraswati for intelligence, and so forth. It's to show this that Vishnu sometimes used to 'worship' Shiva, Surya, or other deities, to set an example for people to follow.

 

Hope this answers your doubts.

/QUOTE]

 

tackleberry, go do your homework properly before you come vomit your narrow, fanatical, benighted nonsense. I, like countless others, take an Advaitic reading of the Bhagavata, and anyone who knows Sanskrit would concur with me that this is incomparably more sensible than the cultish personalism that you think we should all bow down to. It is your sectarian propaganda that is a blight on Sanatana Dharma, not the correct conclusions of Meenakshiamman and Ganeshprasad. Then again, you and your handful of co-religionists cannot be reasoned with. And for your information, there are countless Gitas in the shastras, not just the one of the Mahabharata.

Agni is Fire ~ the perfect conception of Fire ~ and wherever the nature of Fire is present, there is Agnideva ~ the Fire God ~ the Lord of Fire ~ Fire in its essence ~ the very Self of Fire.

 

Terms such as “controller”, “administrator”, or “demigod”, are all rather pathetic titles for such a Deity.

 

And Lord Indra can not adequately be described as the “controller of rain”.

 

There is one Sun, but there are many Days ~ and all are Adityas.

 

One God with many aspects ~ all equally divine ~

 

Still, I would differ with you on this one since, even as an Advaitin, I do recognise the difference between the brahma-swarupa Deities such as Lord Hari, Lord Hara, Mother Shakti and "lesser" celestial beings such as Indra and Varuna, who are definitely jivas and are holding these posts for the duration of a manvantara or kalpa at most. For example, in the present Patriarchate, Purandara is assuming the position of the heavenly ruler, whereas in the next, King Bali will fulfill that role. So, my point is that these elemental controllers cannot be equated with Lord Ganesha, Lord Skanda or Surya-Narayana. I know of no verse which praises Agni as all-pervading but Durga Maa, for example is described as brahma-svarupini in many places, and She can award advaitic moksha to Her bhaktas, which Yamaraja, Shani or Vayu cannot bestow upon persons who pray to them.

Srva dharma pari tajya--- we hear this very often yet after the war Lord Krishna advise Pandava to worship Lord Shiva, to atone for the sin of killing in the war, now we hardly hear of this do we.

 

Indeed, before the War, Sri Krishna exhorted Arjuna to appeal to Maa Durga for Her blessings, and after the conflict, penance was performed by the five Pandavas to Devadideva Mahadeva in atonement for killing so many of their kinsmen. Not to mention that Lord Pitambara Himself worshipped Lord Digambara in His most popular avataras as Sri Rama and Sri Krishna, and that Rukminidevi used to worship Ambe Mata.

Hari Om Tat Sat

Thank you for your beautifully put post. I think that this is very much in line with my sentiments.

Ditto on that, Meenakshiamman. Ganeshprasadji's post largely reflects my own sentiments and experiences, and I have said the same thing in not so many words in my own posts.

Well, Theist, given your dedicated and commendable attachment to Krishna consciousness as taught by Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, I would unhesitatingly describe you as a votary of it. Small, and occasionally not so minor, differences of opinion are inevitable in religious discourse. Personally, I tend to emphasise the unity of the multitude of philosophies, and ideally, would like to see the discrepancies between them not downplayed, but relegated to a subordinate, relativistic position when encountering people attempting mystical progress and advancement via other routes. Maybe this is my own quixotic naivete, still I estimate that it is a laudable ideal. However, perhaps I should grow more used to what persists in the real world, and desist from throwing in my twopence worth every time I run into a remark that may strike me as unjust or narrow-minded. Trust me, I am working on it.

Regards