Dark Warrior

cBrahma, the Puranas are revealed by Brahma. So, Brahma, owing to his long life, often gets mixed up with chronology and sometimes, the details of Puranas vary, due to Yuga Bheda. That is why some portions of Krishna Leela in Vishnu Purana do not match the Bhagavatam. Because, it may pertain to a Krishna avatara in different Yugas, and the Lord may have performed His pastimes differently in these Yugas. Of Course, to nastikas, this means 'interpolation'....to any logical believer, this explanation is acceptable. Now, Bhagavatam says, 'Shiva is a Vaishnava'. But we cannot worship Shiva because we do not know whether this verse pertains to this Yuga's Shiva, or to a Shiva of another Yuga. Yes, there have been many Rudras in previous Yugas who were great Bhagavatas, and had attained moksha. But the reason why I suspect that this verse does not pertain to the current Rudra is simply because he has not done much to become the greatest Vaishnava. Apart from composing a few stotras in praise of the Lord, Shiva has sometimes rebelled against Vishnu (as in Banasura episode) and has also considered himself as Supreme at times. Therfore, it isn't necessary to worship this Rudra. He may be Vaishnava, but he is not a Bhagavata.

As usual, ISKCON is once again distorting things. And of course, Theist is hypocritical enough to question the validity of the Bhagavatam, although he professes to be a 'pure devotee'. One would think, a 'pure devotee' would have enough faith in holy scripture to know it cannot be wrong. Yet, he takes the word of Srila Prabhupada 'AS IT IS' when it comes to Jesus being a 'pure devotee'. There is no life on the moon. Even our scriptures do not say that. When it says that the departed soul reaches Chandra, it means that this soul will reach either Indra Loka or Pithru Loka., where Chandra resides. The Moon-God does not live on the moon itself, but in some other Loka. He only controls the moon. I have read articles on this. I think I am only approximately correct about this. The real understanding of th archradi marga (journey of the departed soul) is quite complex. I will post the article here if I find it. Similarly, when it says that the Moon God controls vegetation, it means that he is responsible for vegetation on the Earth (a scientific fact). It does not mean there is vegetation on the moon.

Well, I believe it has something to do with Adam and Eve 'falling' from grace on account of that whole apple thing. Obviously, it has exerted its influence on ISKCON's brand of Vaishnavism.

This isn't endorsed by sastra. Now, consider this - In Samsara, the Jiva has its svarupa jnana intact, but its jnana contracts or expands due to Karma. Therfore, by its minute independence, it can make the right or wrong decision. In Vaikuntha, the Jnana of the Jiva is expanded in full. It has no ajnana. Then, how could the Jiva make a 'wrong' decision in Vaikuntha and leave the Lord? The Jiva, being in complete knowledge in Vaikuntha, is incapable of making wrong decisions. Souls have always been in samsara. It is beginningless, according to scriptures. I give the following analogy. Consider radiation being restricted by a reactor. As long as it is in the reactor, its powers are under check. Once the reactor bursts, the immense power of radiation is unleashed. Similarly, while in Samsara, the Jiva's Karma makes its Jnana contract or expand, allowing it to make right or wrong decisions. In Vaikuntha, where there is NO AJNANA, there is also no 'wrong' decision. It is not right to say that this knowledge is unimportant. We need to understand our origin and who we are, in order to get moksha. And there certainly is no 'fall'. EDIT: Look at this sloka from Srimad Bhagavatam, Sage NArada tells King YudhiSThira (7.1.36) : " yekadA brahmaNaha putrA vishNu lOkam yadrucchayA | sanandanAdayO jagmushcarantO bhuvanatrayam || " " Once upon a time, when the sons of (chatur mukha) Brahma, namely, Sanaka, Sanandana, SanAtana and Sanat-kumAra were traveling throughout the three worlds, they by chance came to Vishnu Loka". This is proof that my theory on the Jaya Vijaya episode is right. The sons of Brahma are not liberated, so they cannot have gone to Vaikuntha. Furthermore, it says, they came to Vishnu Loka while travelling throughout the three worlds. Vaikuntha is beyond the three worlds, so they could not have come to it by chance. Only Vishnu Loka is within the three worlds, because it is within the material realms.

I will just add my two cents on this. The Vedas say that Brahman is eternal, and that time is cyclic. Shruti also posits that the Jiva is also eternal. He has not been created, and has existed just as long as the Lord has, ie, eternally.This is verified by the Gita. You must understand therfore, that Samsara is also eternal. There was no 'fall'. The Jivas who haven't yet attained moksha, have been transmigrating eternally. Their Karma has no beginning, it is also eternal. The idea that we were once with the Lord and then fell is ridiculous because: - It conveys the message that somehow, the Jiva, despite being in the radiant company of the Lord, was more attracted by the inferior world of Samsara. This means, the Lord apparently is not attractive enough to hold our attention for long!! - Secondly, it is illogical because there is no guarantee that we won't 'fall' again, if we get moksha. Thus, the idea of a 'fall' is rejected. You are eternal, your Karma is eternal and your transmigration has no beginning. Now, the most popular 'proof' offered for a 'fall' is the Jaya and Vijaya episode. But people are confusing this. Let me clear it up: - Jaya and Vijaya are indeed two jivas who have attained moksha, who are in Vaikuntha. BUT, it is to be understood that these two were not the ones who became cursed and took births as Ravana, Hiranyakasipu, etc. Because they have attained moksha and are eternally in service of the Lord. - However, there is another pair named Jaya and Vijaya. These two are not in Vaikuntha. They are in Vishnu Loka. And it is necessary to stress that the Lord takes a functional avatar as Vishnu and resides among the Devas. Thus, Vishnu Loka is located in the material world. - Now, you may ask, how could there be two Jaya and Vaijaya's? The answer is simple - Vishnu Loka is simply a replica of the real Vaikuntha (which is inaccessible to unliberated Jivas), MINUS THE BLISS AND FREEDOM FROM SAMSARA. Therfore, there is a liberated Jaya and Vijaya in Vaikuntha, but there are also two unliberated Jivas called Jaya and Vijaya in Vishnu Loka. - You might ask, how could the abode of the Lord be in the material world as well? For one thing, it is a given that Vishnu loves to mingle with His devotees, the Devas. For another thing, Lord Vishnu's presence in Vishnu Loka will not give as much bliss to His subjects as His presence in Vaikuntha. Because, even during avatars, people were unable to understand that Brahman Himself was among them. Hence, the residents of Vishnu Loka are not blissful, and they may not even know that Vishnu is Brahman Himself. - The evidence is also there to prove that this theory is right. For instance, when the sages arrive at Vishnu Loka, they are barred from entering by Jaya and Vijaya because Lord Vishnu was 'resting'. Now, if this was Vaikuntha, why would the Lord need to 'rest'? There is no such thing as a resting Lord in a liberated place. However, Vishnu Loka is part of the Lord's lila, and thus, He acts just like the Devas. Plus, Bhrigu was able to come to Vishnu Loka, when he kicked Vishnu on the chest, upon which the Lord gently revealed His supremacy to Bhrigu. It is a fact that Bhrigu is not liberated. Thus, Vishnu Loka is within the material world. ---- Thus, there is no fall. The reason why Vishnu Loka exists is simply because, by coming into the material world, the Lord becomes part of His own glories. Furthermore, the unliberated Jaya and Vijaya gives Him a chance to start his lilas every Yuga.

However, the Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya considers all devas, including goddesses like Saraswati, Durga, Parvati and Kali as unworshippable. Even if you claim that Durga is an avatar of Lakshmi, fact remains that this is just a post. After the death of Brahma, the jiva who is Durga will no longer be so, and another Jiva who may have done some penance will earn the post of Durga. A Jiva is eligible for worship, ONLY if he has done great devotional service to the Lord. Like Sri Hanuman, for instance. But neither Brahma, or Siva, or Durga have actually done anything like that, so we just respect them and avoid worshipping them, even as devotees of Vishnu. In Gita, Lord says: "O son of Kunti! At the end of the Cosmic Cycle, all enter into My nature, and at the beginning of another cycle, by My free will, and potency, I create them again." This includes all Devas, like Brahma, Siva, Indra, Saraswati, Durga, etc. They are also Jivas, like us and by virtue of their karmas, have reached that position. They are posts, and jivas keep changing at that post. Lakshmi is also a Jivatma, but She is in Sri Vaikuntha, with Narayana. Hence, Her powers are eternal (She is unaffected by pralaya), and She is also endowed with the compassion of the Lord. There is no point in going to Durga and asking her for prosperity, when Lakshmi is fully capable of granting it Herself. No issues. I know other Vaishnava sampdarayas (particularly Gaudiya Vaishnavism) hold Shiva to be a bhakta of the Lord, and worthy of worship, but like I said before...its a theological difference.

We have a different meaning for that verse: 'Krishnas tu Bhagavan Swayam', does not mean other avatars are 'plenary portions'. We learn from Upanishads and Vedas that Narayana is Brahman. We do not accept a difference between 'Bhagavan' and 'Brahman', because Brahman is simply Bhagavan...He has all auspicious attributes. So, 'Krishnas tu Bhagavan Svayam' means - 'Krishna is verily that Bhagavan Himself'. Who is that Bhagavan? It is Vishnu. So it means, 'Krishna is verily that Vishnu/Narayana Himself'. Understand that the 'amsa' word does not pertain to Narayana, because Krishna is being hailed as Narayana Himself (svayam bhagavan) in this verse. In the previous two verses, sutar says that the number of incarnations of Sriman Narayana (Hari) are innumerable like thousands of rivulets flowing from a river & goes on to say that Rishis & devas (demigods),Manus & Prajapatis are all amsas of Lord Hari. So, here, to clear things up, Sutar says, 'All others (Rishis, Manus, etc.) are merely amsas, but Krishna is svayam Bhagavan, ie, Svayam Narayana'. Note that the amsas do NOT include avatars like Rama or Narasimha. Compared to other avatars, Sri Krishna exhibited all attributes openly. Lord Rama chose to hide them, for instance. But if you say Rama did not play the flute, I could say that Krishna did not fight with bow and arrow, or that Krishna did not have just one wife (like Rama), etc. Its elementary - all avatars of the Lord, except the Shaktyavesa, are purna and have all attributes. Don't bring up the bit about sectarianism again. There's no doubt that a Bhakta gets Moksha, no matter what Sampradaya he belongs to. Therfore, I have always respected all acharyas, as they were great bhagavatas (Sri Madhva, Sri Nimbarka, Sri Chaitanya, etc.). The philosophy, however, is another matter. I do not agree with Acintya Bheda Abheda, Dvaita, Shuddhadvaita, etc. But these differences are insignificant. One can read devotional literature of other sampradayas without needlessly involving oneself in debates. Sri Hari is the leader for all Vaishnavas, and hence, we can be united in that aspect.

My understanding is that Radha and the other gopis are simply the Vanaras and Squirrels who served Lord Rama (with the exception of some leader Vanaras like Sugriva, Nala, Hanuman, etc. who were devas). To reward them, Sri Krishna included them in their sports. Of course, any variant views of the identity of the Gopis is also acceptable, because at present, all we know is that they are just exalted devotees of Krishna (Some people say the Gopis were sages who were devotees of Rama). Radha as the foremost Gopi is also accepted by Sri Vaishnavas. Sri Andal makes a reference to a particular gopi who was the most favorite of Lord Krishna in Her prabandham. This could be Radha. Equating Gopis with Lakshmi is not right. Lakshmi eternally enjoys whatever lilas the Lord undertakes.

Mainly philosophical differences exist. I don't think these are significant, as long as one understands that Narayana is non-different from Krishna. Eka Bhakti to Krishna is quite admirable, as long as this fact is understood. The Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya has a long and illustrious list of Krishna bhaktas, no doubt about that. I have no intentions of arguing over this. Just stop considering Narayana as 'inferior' to Krishna. Trust me, the Sri Vaishnava alvars had moods of conjugal love towards Lord Rama. Periyalvar had motherly feelings for Trivikrama, Rama, Narasimha and Krishna. Sri Nammalvar, in His divine bhakti, becomes two persons. One is Parankusa Nayaki, the lover of Lord Rama. The other is the mother of Parankusa Nayaki. Read this particular exercept from the Divya Prabandham: She (Nammalvar in nayika bhavam) disagrees with me when I found fault with You. She calls You, "You who bear the shower of arrows on Your broad beautiful chest, just for your sweetheart! ". She appears to be in an emotional transformation to the personality of Sita, since she appeals to You : "You did so much then ; Crossed the sea, fought the hundreds of rAkshasAs, obliterated Lanka ....all this for me. Now, you can quickly come on Your favourite Garuda, raising the Garuda-banner aloft, as You are always used to when Your devotees seek Your help". Saying so, she heaves a very warm sigh; her inflammed passion is an easy incendiary to nearby greens. And she sheds tears to exhaust the rest of her pangs. Ans she folds her hands in supplication - she who deserves it from You - which justly merits Your coming here immedietly with an anjali for making amend for the delay. Please do so. Here, Nammalvar as the mother, laments about how her daughter (who is Nammalvar as well in conjugal mood) is hopelessly infatuated with Sri Rama!! Truly, this is a mood that highlights the greatness of this acharya. There are also several philosophical meanings in this, but I will skip those. An example of Periyalvar's motherly love to Narasimha - He is afraid that Narasimha may be feeling a bit weak during His battle with Hiryanakasipu. Because according to Periyalvar, Lord Narasimha was only just born, and hence, He was a baby who had to fight Hiranyakasipu on His first day!! So Periyalvar starts crying over baby Narasimha. I think the Prabandham is sufficient proof that all avatars of the Lord possess the desirable trait of accessibility.

Where is the sastric pramana for this? Lakshmi is NEVER separated from Narayana. Even during Pralaya, when all the worlds are dissolved, Lakshmi alone is present with Narayana, on His chest, when there is nothing else. In Vamana avatara, there is an amusing story. Vamana was a Brahmachari, so He asked Lakshmi, who resided on His chest, to leave Him for the time being. She flatly refused to do so, upon which Vamana hid His chest with a piece of cloth. Swami Nammalvar, foremost among the Alvars, also pointed out this fact. Nammalvar, in his divine experience, recounted how Yashoda had tied Krishna with the rope, to a pillar. Nammalvar goes on to ask Yashoda, 'Yashoda, how could you do this? By tying up sweet Kannan (Krishna), you have also tied up your daughter-in-law'. The reasoning is this - Lakshmi is always on the chest of Narayana, and hence, she was also tied up with Krishna, by Yashoda!! And Nammalvar, upon recounting this, fainted. He stayed unconscious for 6 months. Look, this discussion is treading into murky waters. The difference between the Gaudiya Vaishnavas and the Hare Krishnas is this - The former only emphasize the difference in rasas as far as the forms of the Lord are concerned, but the latter make assumptions without pramanas and attempt to label Narayana as a demigod or something. Theist equates Lakshmi with Durga, which is blasphemous. Pramanas can be provided by me to refute every claim of Hare Krishnas who distort everything. But let it rest. Just remember that all consorts of the Lord are equal. Saranagati can be done to Rama through Sita, to Krishna through Rukmini, Radha or Satyabhama and to Varaha through Bhu Devi.

Lakshmi is always present on the chest of Sriman Narayana. Therfore, when Madhava indulged in the Rasa Lila with the Gopis, She was also present, enjoying every bit of the Lila. Stop differentiating Narayana and Krishna. Every avatar of the Lord is worshippable, and its only Hare Christnas who to this misguided 'Krsna' monotheism. Real Gaudiya Vaishnavas know better.

No matter what varna a devotee is, you should always consider him to be an elevated soul. In fact, you should not hesitate to bow at the feet of a chandala if he is a devotee of Vasudeva. Even the Lord was not a Brahmin (except for Vamana). So its foolish to look down on devotees based on caste, or be proud of your own caste. The Sri Vaishnava sect, in this respect, has its ups and downs. On the up side, many of our acharyas are not Brahmins. Thus, we have been properly instructed to treat all bhagavatas irrespective of caste, with great respect. Among the alvars, one alvar called himself 'Thondaradippodi', meaning, 'Dust at the feet of bhagavatas'. This is the sort of servitude we must show towards the Lord's devotees. The downside is that, during the golden period of Sri Vaishnavism, there were many Sri Vaishnava brahmins who harbored deep feelings of prejudice against non-brahmin devotees who were exalted by the sampradaya. This eventually led to a rift, and hence you have two subsects of Sri Vaishnavism today - the Thenkalai and the Vadakalai divisions. I shall not go into it much, because it is distressing.

Again, not even a Gaudiya Vaishnava differentiates Vishnu and Krishna. They are one and the same. The Gaudiyas believe that Vishnu is an avatar of Krishna, whereas the other sects believe that Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu. Many Hare Krishna members unfortunately confuse this philosophy. The idea that Krishna and Vishnu are not equal is even against Gaudiya Vaishnava theology. Nobody can accept that the Lord only has 64 qualities. He has infinite qualities (Neti Neti, ie, Not just this, Not just that, says the Upanishads). I think this 64 attributes list was put forward by Jiva Goswami (not sure). If so, he must have meant that these 64 qualities were the most significant ones and not that Sri Krishna had ONLY 64 qualities.

This, coming from a person who thinks temple worship is an 'external symbol', and who hasn't even read the Ithihasas completely. Christianity isn't 'bonafide'. We learn that Jainism, Buddhism, Advaita, etc. all existed even during the period of Lord Rama. Yet, they are not 'bonafide'. What makes you think that a silly cult who can't even decide on the identity of their deity, Jesus (God, Son of God, Prophet, Aeon, Angel, Buddhist Teacher, etc...according to various Christian sects) is bonafide? Again, don't post the stupid 'I love you, you love me, we love everybody' quotes from the bible. For one thing, its pretty rudimentary stuff that is found even in nonvedic religions. For another thing, these sayings in Bible resemble the Dhammapada closely, thus leading to the hypothesis that Jesus picked up Buddhist ideals from missionaries and mixed it with Judaic beliefs. I suppose the 'answer' is provided by neovedantins like Vivekananda? I tell you, if these Hare Christnas want to worship Jesus so badly, they should convert to Advaita or other such philosophy. Its more suited to their beliefs. 'Every religion is bonafide' is a typical Vivekananda remark, not a Vaishnava belief. Prasthna Trayam is very clear on this - morals, renunciation and devotion is absolutely useless without proper Jnana.

No, you misunderstand. If anyone wants to believe that Jesus is linked to Vaishnavism, let him. Its his freedom. But, do not try to say that this is the most logical path, or that others are Pseudovaishnavas. Since you like Metal, I'd like to tell you that the only thing bible is good for, is that it inspired the Power Metal band Running Wild to come up with the awesome song 'Genesis'. Terrific solos, great choruses...a 15 minute masterpiece. Hellbound, poisoned souls, in pain they'll burn, no return Mankind will never learn, their blinded pride, the evil side The firestorm will rage on the day of the falling Armaggeddon's near it's the end of the genesis Dying by the flood, no way back, no recalling The malice and the pride is the death and the fall of man.

Yet, its linked to Jesus. That you can hardly deny. The Gospel of Thomas is another one. Who really knows what this man Jesus was all about. Face it, many mordern scholars believe that Jesus was an essene. And it is well known that essenes were influenced by Buddhists. Basically, the Gnostic Jesus is a buddhist. The Jesus of the canonical gospel could be a devotee of Yahweh, Allah, Shiva, Vayu, or Varuna. Standard morals and renunciation does not need to come from Vishnu. They are already known by everyone. Even an atheist has morals. And if this Jesus character also talked about a 'Self', then again, Advaitins, Shaivas, Shaktas, and whatnot all have the concept of the 'Self' as distinct from the body. So, unless the name of Lord Vishnu is mentioned, we have no reason to assume that Christianity is Vaishnavism. And I have already proven how Jesus' story is ripped off from Buddha. Plus, I have refuted all your asinine questions in the other Jesus thread. Don't make me bring it up again.

Huh, I have studied Eastern Orthodox, Catholicism, Gnostic Christianity and other sects. And basically, they all fail miserably. You lost all credibility when you spouted that nonsense about Shaivism being Vaishnavism because 'Shiva is a Vaishnava'. So next time, do not be quick to judge who is a 'pure devotee' and who isn't, because you definitely aren't one. And you had the nerve to call Vaishnava temples as 'external symbols'. Again, these Hare Christnas need to learn what 'sectarian' means. Shiva Purana accurately describes creation, samsara, nature of Self, etc. Yet, it is a tamo guna Purana. So, why should any Vaishnava bother with the Bible which is totally erratic on all counts? Use your brains.

Because other religions like Christianity, 1) Do not accept that any faiths other than their own can have mystics, or divine experiences, 2) Condemn unbelievers to hell. Vaishnavism asserts that, 1) Lord Narayana can give moksha to even a Christian or a Muslim if He wishes. This doesn't mean that Christianity or Islam is valid, but rather, the Lord simply chooses to grace a Jiva by His independence, 2) We do not deny the experiences of other faiths. Possibly, what they presume to be Jesus's or Mohammed's blessings is in reality Narayana only. Vaishnavism does not restrict the Lord by saying that He will give moksha only to Vaishnavas. He is completely independent and isn't bound by such restrictions. However, the path to really know who He is cannot be anything other than Vaishnavism. If this is sectarian, so be it.

Then why do you try to link Christianity with Vaishnavism? What makes you an authority to judge who is and who isn't a Vaishnava, when you yourself aren't? The Gnostic Gospels portray Jesus as a crypto-Buddhist. I suppose these Jesus fanboys totally ignore it? Read the Gospel of Philip. Sounds like a mixture of advaita and buddhism. And even in the canonical Gospels, there are several instances where Lord Buddha's teachings from the Dhammapada appear to have been inserted. I will tell you why surrender to Jesus is an impediment. Because surrender to Shiva, Brahma, Indra, etc. is not recommended by Krishna. What makes you think surrendering to a guy named Jesus is then acceptable, when this person either talked about a random 'God', or was simply a Buddhist at best? What if by surrendering to Jesus, you are simply bowing down to a devotee of Indra or Shiva, or perhaps, to a Buddhist? No sense in arguing with these nuts.

In India, back when our sampradayas were being propagated, the reason why our acharyas had to refute Buddhism, Jainism, Pasupata, Shaktism, Mimamsa, Samkhya, and a zillion other faiths was simply because none of them can lead to moksha. Only Vaishnavism can. In the West, such traditions of polemics and debates is not present. You cannot go to christians and say, 'your Bible is wrong, my Bhagavatam is correct' if you want to convert them. Tact was needed and Srila Prabhupada certainly had tact. For instance, it is painfully clear that neither cBrahma or Theist, for instance, would have converted if Srila Prabhupada hadn't made accomodations for their Christian faith!! cBrahma couldn't prove that Bible was talking about Vishnu, so he started saying its ok if Jesus was Shaiva!! But Shaiva is certainly a defeated and rejected faith, as far as Vedantins are concerned. Atleast philosophies like Samkhya and Mimamsa have a vedic connection, as do religions like Shaiva and Shakta. Yet, they have been categorically refuted. It is laughable to think Abrahamic Faiths, which contradict vedic principles at the most basic level by their whole 'fall of man' concept, is compatible, or even linked to Vedanta. Here is an interesting quote from Theist's thread: Non-sanatana religious faith may have some beginning in the annals of human history, but there is no beginning to the history of sanatana-dharma, because it remains eternally with the living entities. ~ Srila Prabhupada. From this, it is clear that the 'Non Sanatana Faith' that Srila Prabhupada is referring to includes Christianity, Islam and the degenerate brainless Hindu sects like the Ayyappa and Ganapati cults that exist today, which are all unvedic and have a beginning in time. Vaishnavism is obviously the 'Sanatana Dharma' he was talking about.

Um, the God of Shaivites is Transcendental and One, which makes Shaivism a monotheistic religion. In any case, by calling the Judeo-Christian God 'Transcendental', you are clearly showing your blind faith. No Vaishnava considers this God or his scripture (Bible) as 'Transcendental'. Shiva has reciprocated with his devotees, the Nayanmars. Jesus professes to be the messiah of which god? The Judaic God is definitely not Krishna. I repeat, there is no proof that Jesus's God is Krishna. It could have been any deity. Christianity approximates bhakti? Shaivism is replete with Bhakti Yoga and Saranagati to Shiva. It makes Christianity look weak and immature. Dude, just give up. Its your belief, that's all. No Vaishnava or any unbiased person endorses this nonsense.

More incoherent rambling. Shaivites believe that Shiva is the source of everything, the creator, etc. They believe Shiva to be above Brahma and Vishnu. According to Shaivites, Krishna is also an emissary of Shiva. Some Shaivite sects consider Krishna to be an avatar of Shiva. Devi worshippers believe that Devi created Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. So why is it illogical to assume that Jesus could have read the Vedas and interpreted it as Shaivism? Oh wait, because of your sloppy sentiments, it is unacceptable. Tell me, where is the proof that Jesus was talking about Krishna? I will tell you what seems to be the most logical conclusion - Jesus was not even a Vedantin. He was most likely a Jew who came across Buddhist ideals of morals and renunciation. Thank You. Its highly erratic to simply assume that Jesus was talking about Krishna, when his religion is not even dependent on Vedas as the source. It can be assumed that he was talking about ANY god, and that isn't enough criterion for Christianity to be considered Vaishnavism. DOUBLE EDIT: What does cBrahma mean, 'try selling it to the Jews'. I see, so are Jews gonna accept Krishna, and not Shiva? They don't even accept the Vedas. He gets weirder with every post.

I say he might have been. What makes you think he wasn't. There is no proof that he was a Vaishnava, certainly. Do't you get it? There is no way one can say that Jesus is a Vaishnava simply because he said 'worship the most high'. Shaivites consider the 'most high' to be Shiva. Shaktas consider the most high to be Devi. So tell me, What makes you think 'most high' was understood by Jesus to be Krishna? Shiva advocated worship of Vishnu. Shaivites advocate worship of a demigod. Jesus could have been a shaivite or a ganapatya. He certainly could have advocated worship of Shiva or Ganesha as supreme. In which case, he lacked jnana. Are you thick? Vaishnavism is surrender to Krishna. Shaivites say that the 'most high' is Shiva. Are they Vaishnavas? EDIT: Just to clear things up, let me say that every devotional sect other than Vaishnavism such as Saiva, Sakta, Ganapatya, Surya, etc. have this whole Bhakti Yoga and Surrender thing. Yet, all of these were emphatically dismissed as unvedic. My point is, a mere philosophy of devotion is not Vaishnavism. Devotion directed to Vishnu is Vaishnavism. Jesus did not specify which God he was talking about. Hence, he could fall into any of the cults I mentioned. Heck, he could have even been talking about Yahweh.

I have had enough. Anyone viewing this thread can see how cBrahma is stretching it. Now its a new tack. Shaivas worship a Vaishnava (Shiva), so if Jesus was a Shaiva, he is also a Vaishnava. This makes sense? Incredible. Absolutely incredible. I must say, his devotion to Jesus is indeed extraordinary. And I don't mean it as a compliment. No. Thus, I will say, both Christians and Shaivites have one thing in common - they both lack jnana.

Shaivism is not demigod worship? Good Lord. And isn't Shiva a deva, a demigod? Loser, Shaivites are demigod worshippers. Krishna clearly says in the Gita that men of small intelligence worship demigods. THIS INCLUDES SHIVA. Jesus could have been a demigod worshipper. This makes Christians demigod worshippers. And who cares what Jesus says? Alvars and Vaishnava acharyas have stressed on archa form at temples. Your lousy christian bias is clearly revealed.