Dark Warrior

Only advaitins hold that Vishnu and Shiva are the same. I think cBrahma is most suited for advaita. Because you can worship Jesus, Shiva, or even a cat or dog and get moksha, according to that philosophy.

Vaishnava - Shiva is a devotee of Vishnu. Shaiva - Shiva is supreme. Vishnu is a demigod. Tell me, are you completely off your rocker? Talk about a Jesus fanboy, you will do anything to play up your idol.

Moron, Shiva may be a Vaishnava but his followers who worship him as supreme are not Vaishnavas. Shiva acquired a boon from Vishnu wherby all those who were in the mode of ignorance would worship him. Shaivites won't get moksha. Similarly, Christians won't. Unless the Lord by His independence gives them moksha. What sort of stupid logic is this? A Vaishnava is one who worships Vishnu. PERIOD.

I think everyone can see the lack of logic in cBrahma's posts. My point is clearly established. Jesus was a philosopher/mystic who could have had some Vedic Connections. He could have worshipped a Vedic God, or he could have simply formulated his own ideas on God. If he was a Shaivite or a Shakta, he cannot be a Vaishnava. There is no proof to show he was a Vaishnava. Such a simple fact. Yet, it is so difficult for cBrahma to understand this.

my body is contaminated by a relationship with a person who is an offender at the lotus feet of the greatest personality. PURPORT by Srila Prabhupada Lord Siva is the greatest of all devotees of Lord Visnu. It is stated, vaisnavanam yatha sambhuh. Sambhu, Lord Siva, is the greatest of all devotees of Lord Visnu. In the previous verses, Sati has described that Lord Siva is always in a transcendental position because he is situated in pure vasudeva. Vasudeva is that state from which Krsna, Vasudeva, is born, so Lord Siva is the greatest devotee of Lord Krsna, and Sati’s behavior is exemplary because no one should tolerate blasphemy against Lord Visnu or His devotee. Sati is aggrieved not for her personal association with Lord Siva but because her body is related with that of Daksa, who is an offender at Lord Siva’s lotus feet. She feels herself to be condemned because of the body given by her father, Daksa. Shall I call you a moron again? What has this got to do with Shaivism? Shaivism, or worship of Shiva as supreme, is unvedic, irrespective of Shiva's status. All Vaishnava acharyas have condemned it. Shiva Purana is tamasic, ie, in the mode of ignorance. Jesus could be a Shaiva, a Ganapatya or a Shaktya. He could even have been a Buddhist (judging by the gnostic gospels). Here I see your hypocrisy again. So, now you want me to believe that Shaivas are Vaishnavas, so Jesus is a Vaishnava as well? Shiva is a Deva. Equating a Deva with Vishnu is an offense. Shaivites are offenders.

I am not going to 'take it up' with Jiva Goswami. He certainly was a Vaishnava acharya who had great love for Puri Jagannath (the Lord most dear to Gaudiyas). You were the one who said Antaryami is greater than Archa. I showed you why its not. If gaudiyas disagree with it, its a philosophical difference between two Vaishnava schools. And that's a common thing, so no big deal.

Shiva is a Vaishnava. But Shaivites worship Shiva as the Supreme Lord. There is no one above Shiva and Vishnu is called a demigod by Shaivites. This means, they lack jnana. Shiva is a Vaishnava, but he is not a Bhagavata by the way. Similarly, Jesus may have studied the Vedas, and he may have come to the conclusion that Shiva is Supreme. Therby, God the Father is Shiva. Adi Sankara was a Vaishnava advaitin. Even he condemned Shaivism. Let's see: 1) Jesus did not say Krishna. Which means, he could have been a Shaivite or a Shakta. 2) Jesus is not in scriptures. 3) No acharya prior to the 20th century has ever eulogised Jesus. 4) The basic mantras like 'OM', or concepts of reincarnation (details, not hints) are missing. So, the logical conclusion is that Jesus is not Vaishnava, and he may not even be Vedic. To assume that the God is Krishna is indeed far-fetched. Raghu is a Gaudiya Vaishnava and he has clearly pointed out that no Gaudiya Vaishnava acharya endorses your views. Take him off your ignore list and argue with him if you have the courage to do so.

Let me enlighten cBrahma of the greatness of Archa Avatara. A Sri Vaishnava acharya, Sri Parasara Bhattar refused to go to Vaikuntha because he wanted to stay with Lord Ranganatha in Srirangam. There is a great deal of theory behind the worship of Archa Moorthy(sanctified icon). Firstly let me clear up one basic question. Some people are of the opinion that the Vedas do not say anything about icon/idol worship. They say that these are later developments. This view is not correct. The great Vedanta Desika , in his work Satcharita Raksha has quoted in detail passages from the Atharva Veda, which give instructions about how to make idols and how to install and sanctify them. Some people also believe that there are passages in the Upanishads, which approve temple worship. Finally, the Pancha Ratra samhita, which is in fact, a part of the Vedas, tells us the rationale of the Archa Moorthy. When an idol is properly made according to the instructions in the Agamas and then installed strictly as per the procedure given in the scriptures and then sanctified with chanting of the mantras from the Vedas, God, in his mercy enters the idol with his Suddha Sattva sarira.(Suddha Sattva is the material which constitutes the objects in Sri Vaikunta.) The presence of God in the idol becomes many times more than the metal or stone content of the idol. Therefore, what we see and worship is not a figure, which is made of stone or metal. It is God himself who has taken that particular form so that we can worship him easily. This called the Archa form of God. In fact it can be called an incarnation of God. It is important to note that when worshipping God in his Archa form, one should NOT think that one is worshipping something made of metal or stone. To do so is a bad sin. One must remember that God has taken the Archa avatara out of mercy for us and think and behave accordingly. Let us go a little bit deeper in to the Pancha Ratra sastra. It talks of five different manifestations of Sriman Narayana, The supreme Lord. The first one is his Para form. This refers to his infinite aspect. It also refers to the Para Vasudeva form in which he is present in Sri Vaikunta, his eternal abode. The second is his three Vyuha aspects. These are for creation, maintenance and dissolution. The next one is Vibhava. This refers to his incarnations such as Rama, Krishna, etc. The fourth one is Antaryami. This refers to the God present in the Heart. The final one, which is the most important as far as we are concerned, is the Archa avatara described above. This statement can be illustrated by an example. Let us imagine that there is a man stranded in a remote place. He is thirsty and wants water. Where should he look for water? He knows astronomy. He knows that there is a lot of water in outer space and in the Milky Way in space. But these sources of water are of no use to him. Similarly, the Para and Vyuha aspects of Sriman Narayana are of no use to a man who wants to experience him right here. Taking the Vibhava or Avatar aspect, this is like a seasonal stream, in which water is present only during the rainy season. During the rest of the year, it will be dry. Similarly, Avatars last only for limited periods. Unless one is present while an Avatar is going on, they are of no use to us. The probability of our being present during an Avatar is low. Let us go back to our thirsty friend. Shall we ask him to dig a Well and drink water from it? It is very unlikely that he will have the stamina and patience for the job. After all he is already very thirsty! Viewing the Antaryami is equally difficult. The thirsty man is left with only one choice. He has to find a pool or tank of water and his problems are solved! He can quench his thirst without any difficulty. The Archa Avatar is like a readily available pool of water. This shows its greatness as well as its easy accessibility. This is why most Alwars have sung numerous hymns in praise of Archa moorthys in holy centres. (Punya Kshetras). A lot more can be written on this topic. However, I am stopping here. Please contact me if you want to know more. There is a great deal of scientific metaphysics in the design, construction and operation of temples. This subject is dealt with in great detail in Agama scriptures. (e.g, Pancha Ratra Agama). If a person goes to temple with Bhakthi and strictly adheres the rules to be followed when visiting temples, then, by the time he reaches the Sanctum Sanctorum, all negative thoughts will be driven out of his mind and he will be able to have divine experience.

If you notice, I place my flawless points quite harshly. Perhaps, the harshness can be done away with, but it hardly diminishes my case. I am a Sri Vaishnava, a Ramanuja Dasa. Trust me.

Haven't you ignored Raghu? He is also a Vaishnava, in case you haven't noticed.

Again? Shaivites believe that Shiva is in their hearts. Shaktas believe it is Devi. Ganapatyas believe it is Ganesha. So what was Jesus talking about? Furthermore, the 'Kingdom of God' is within you is also similar to Lord Buddha's quote: 'The Buddha Nature is within you. Find it.' Only those who believe Krishna (and not Shiva, Ganesha, etc.) are in their hearts are Vaishnavas. Jesus did not specify his God. We cannot assume he was talking about Krishna. Christians will not accept it is Krishna.

Let me tell you that Lord Rama Himself worshipped Lord Ranganatha of Srirangam (Lord can only worship Himself as protocol). And Lord Ranganatha is still there. When you go to Srirangam, the preists will ask you to hold two pillars while looking at the Lord. That is because it is held that the Lord's eyes are so captivating that you will be completely swept away by their beauty. Have you any idea of the greatness of the archa avatar? Of course, to a Christian, its 'idol worship'.

Because the kanistha-adhikari's faith is not actually based on the statements of the Vedic literature he cannot understand the exalted position of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, seated as Supersoul in everyone's heart. The essential qualification of a Vaisnava, which is to offer all respects to others, is conspicuous by it's absence in a kanistha adhikari. When one climbs to the Madhyama or second class platform he is able to understand the expansion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, while the kanistha adhikaris entire knowledge of the Lord is limited to the Deity. Right. That applies to all atheists, agnostics, buddhists, etc. But note this: 1) Jiva Goswami was clear that the God in everyone's hearts is Krishna. 2) Christians do not accept that Krishna is in their heart. Get the picture? And who said my realisation is limited to the deity in temples? The antaryami Lord (indweller) has been shown to be an amazing avatar by none other than the great Sri Vaishnava, Thirumazhisai Alvar. He used to talk to his indwelling Lord, and once, the Lord actually manifested from His heart. I have named my antaryami 'Hrishikesa'. My acharya recommended it. Like it? And another thing, it is Gaudiya Vaishnavism that may not lay stress on archa avatara... Sri Vaishnavism holds that the archa form of the Lord is greater than all the avatars put together. We dress Him, bathe Him, and enjoy His beauty. Some avatars in temples are self-manifested. This shows that you have no knowledge of other sampradayas.

On the contrary, cBrahma has just brilliantly pointed out that those who think Jesus is incompatible with Vaishnavism are Pseudovaishnavas. This means, 99.99% of traditional Vaishnavas are pseudo-, according to him. His major argument is, 'Srila Prabhupada and Sri Bhaktivinode Thakura said so'. However, I have provided sufficient proof from sastra to show that it isn't supported. He calls us 'pseudo'. I have been kinder and called him a moron.

Dude, you are not a mleccha if you have accepted Vaishnavism as it is. Nor am I callig cBrahma a mleccha for his beliefs. If anyone believes Christianity is compatible with Vaishnavism, fine. Your belief. But what makes him a mleccha is the fact that he attempts to make it look like this is the most logical path and that anyone who doesn't follow it is not a Vaishnava. That makes him a mleccha. Mystical experiences can happen in any faith. But again, it isn't due to the validity of the faith, but because Sriman Narayana simply chooses a Jiva randomly and gives him some 'bliss'. St.John of the Cross was not a jnani. But his experience was due to Narayana giving him what he was trying to achieve mystically - some sort of bliss. Of course, St. john will think his experiences are due to his belief in Jesus. But in reality, it is Narayana. And this means, its imperfect jnana no matter what the experience. EDIT: By the way, I am a microbiologist. I have had to dissect rabbits and rats. How do you think I feel? Everyone has their problems.

Haha...if you listen to Metal, yes, it is a good name. Sarva Dharman Parityajya MAM EKAM Saranam Vraja, Aham Tva Sarva Papebhyo Mokshayisyami Masuchaha. Only him. Krishna clearly says that even worship of devas is not going to give one moksha. Which means, Shaivites and Shaktas who pursue Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, etc. are not following the right path. Christian devotion cannot even compare to the intense Bhakti of Shaivites and Shaktas. And Christianity lacks a basic knowledge of even the most elementary Brahma Vidyas. Furthermore, the god of the Christians may be anybody. Thus, logically, Christianity is to be rejected by Vaishnavas.

1) I do not despise Christianity. I have Christian friends. I despise people who try to link Christianity with Vaishnavism. 2) Please provide me with a pramana that says Jesus was a devotee of Krishna. 3) Theatrics. 4) Very deep. How about some substance next time?

Not bodily identification. He is a jiva caught by maya. A mleccha is one who distorts Vaishnavism. Exactly what cBrahma is doing. Weren't you a Christian as well? Figures...first, learn what 'sectarian' really means and then come.

In another post, cBrahma had said that temple worship is an external symbol. Is this nutter aware of what the archa avatara is? There are four types of deities: 1) Some of them are self-manifested without human intervention. Srirangam, Tirupati, etc. 2) Some deities are consecrated by devas. 3) Some deities are consecrated by rishis. 4) Some are consecrated by man. Sri Ranganatha was brought to Srirangam by Vibhishana himself. The archa form is the LORD'S AVATAR. Christian churches are not consecrated as per the Agamas. Therfore, they are not 'transcedental', to use your word.

Again, for cBrahma's benefit, Jesus preached renunciation and morals. These are found in all religions. So, one can say Christianity is Shaktism, Shaivism, Ganapatya, etc. But our Acharyas have clearly stated that Shaktism, Shaivism and Ganapatya are incompatible with Vaishnavism. Therfore, Christianity is incompatible with Vaishnavism. Now, if Jesus had specifically mentioned that his god was Hari, it would have been different. And btw, Buddhists and Jains even accept the sanctity of the syllable 'OM'. Therfore, they are indirectly addressing Krishna (AUM is Krishna, Lakshmi and Jiva). Christians do not even have 'OM' as a mantra. Thus, the Buddhist is much more closer to Vedanta than a Christian.

You are a mleccha. That is because your retarded beliefs are not supported by any Vaishnavas except converts like Theist. Barring 20th century acharyas, noone has equated Christianity with Vaishnavism. I repeat, Jesus' teachings can be found in ANY religion. But our Vaishnavite scriptures clearly say that mere devotion in a god and morals CANNOT give one moksha. Knowledge that Sri Hari is supreme is what makes one a Vaishnava. You said there were 'enlightened' Christians. How can they be enlightened when they had no jnana at all? Mystics like St. John of the Cross could only think of God reverentially, and hence, he falls short of even the average Vaishnava. As far as the Gnostic sect is concerned, it is crude advaita.

1) No, but Desikar certainly didn't say Islam is Vaishnavism. Heck, he demolished 72 different Vedic Religions as invalid. 2) Who really cares? There are shaivites who plucked their eyes out for Shiva. They are not Vaishnavas. 3) Gandhi was a double dealing politician. 4) What has that got to do with the topic?

No, the logic lies in the fact that Jesus's teachings can be found ANYWHERE. Herein lies your ignorance. It isn't universality, but ambiguity. The fundamentals of living, such as vegetarianism and goodwill are mentioned in the Prasthna Trayam (Upanishads, Brahma Sutras and bhagavad Gita). But these texts also point out that these are only rudimentary and do not make one a Vaishnava. A person who has morals but no jnana is useless. One needs to go to the temple and the archa avatara should be regarded as the Lord Himself. Jesus preaching simple moral values are not enough. A Vaishnava is one who knows the Lord with 4 hands, chakra, conch, and ornaments. He only worships Vishnu. The Shiva Purana contains all the morals of Jesus. Yet, it is classed as non-vaishnavite. Jesus simply did not mention who his god was. Indra, Shiva, Agni, or Vishnu? You tell me. Shaivites protect cows, love God, are tolerant and wish well for everybody. They are not Vaishnavas. Why do you keep evading it? There is also a theistic devotional sect of Buddhism called Mahayana Buddhism. Clearly proves my point. Say, Christianity is the cow and Vaishnavism is the human. Both breathe, so are both compatible? Moron, consider this: 1) By your logic, Christianity is also similar to Shaivism because both have love of God and morals. 2) Shaivism is incompatible with Vaishnavism. So, how is Christianity compatible with Vaishnavism? The God of Jesus can be anybody.

Ever heard of the invasion of Srirangam, when 13000 Sri Vaishnavas were beheaded by the barbarian hordes of Malik Kafur? Islam is not Vaishnavism, moron. Sri Madhvacharya did indeed talk to a muslim King about everyone being children of the same God. But that does not mean he validated Islam. Just like Vishnu alone grants the prayers of even Shaivites, he does so for Christians. Pillai Lokacharya and Vedanta Desikar had to hide among dead bodies and rescue children from barbarians who wanted to convert Sri Vaishnavas by sword. Since they were unsuccessful, they simply killed all the people there. You dare call Islam or Christianity Vaishnavism? Christianity has done damage in another way...missionaries like Max Muller gave out perverted meanings of sastras and deluded many hindus. Let me see: 1) Love thy neighbour. Turn the other cheek. Oh wait, Lord Buddha already said it 500 years before Jesus. Buddhists are not accepted as Vaishnavas, are they? 2) Do not kill, blah blah. Again, Mahavira, the Jain teacher preceded Jesus on this one. Tell me, are Jains Vaishnavas? 3) Love God, worship him. Shaivites score on this one. So, are Shaivites Vaishnavas? And please tell me, is there any proof to show that Jesus was talking about Vishnu and not Shiva. Idiot. I see no connection. cBrahma blindly quotes Bhaktivinode without understanding. Its true that every Jiva is innately a Vaishnava because Sriman Narayana is alone the Supreme Lord for all. But since they follow different faiths deluded by maya, these faiths cannot be Vaishnavism. 'The external symbols' that Bhaktivinode was talking about is this - Discard Christianity, Islam and all the inadequate external religions and follow your true identity - Vaishnavism. As for Srila Prabhupada, he was simply calling Jesus an avatar for conversion purposes. logically, it is proven as follows: Since Jesus as avatar isn't sastras, we have to say that either Prabhupada was mistaken, or he was just appeasing christians. Since Prabhupada is an acharya, we can assume the latter, because that wouldn't necessitate us to believe that he was wrong. Keep ducking the issue cBrahma. Read guladitya's posts. Exactly WHAT MAKES CHRISTIANITY COMPATIBLE WITH VAISHNAVISM WHEN SHAIVISM ISN'T? Pathetic display of ignorance by cBrahma. He says I am a 'caste conscious brahmin' without knowing that many Sri Vaishnava acharyas are not even Brahmins!! We worship anyone who is a devotee of Vishnu. No caste differences here. And he says, my devotion is just bookish knowledge!! I see, so basically, Sri Ramayana and mahabharata are useless books. I wonder why our acharyas had to commentate on them then? Because according to cBrahma, one can understand Hari without the scripture. This is partly true, but it is possible only for those who have a high level of jnana and capabilities of doing many upasanas. Since we lack that, we can only understand Him by referring to the works of our realised acharyas and rishis.

I see. That's an admirable sentiment, but can you atleast explain why our acharyas were so quick to condemn Shaktism, Shaivism, Ganapatya and Kapalika faiths as unvedic and unlinked to Vaishnavism? After all, these faiths are also personal. But rather than appreciating the bhakti in those traditions, Vaishnavas condemned it as invalid paths. When even Shiva and other devas should'nt be worshipped, then why should we even consider a faith like Christianity? cBrahma quotes Sri Bhaktivinode Thakura out of context and calls it a proof. But first, let him understand the meaning of 'pramana'. It means, an authoritative reference from sastras. Unless there is a quote from scripture validating a theory, it cannot be accepted, even if its a personal opinion of our acharyas. For example, Vaishnava acharyas did not defeat advaitins by simply saying, 'It is our personal opinion that advaita is wrong'. They had to prove it in sastra.