Dark Warrior

Amlesh, you do not first of all have the brains to understand anything about Vaishnavism. I reproduce your famous declaration, 'worshipping Popeye is OK and makes one a Vaishnava'. Demonstrates the level of maturity you have. So, until and unless you bring some valid pramanas, clam up. Bija, you are hopeless. You never did get it, do you? 1) Vedas are not any old 'book'. They are apaurusheya, and the eternal breath of Brahman. Without the Vedas, you cannot understand Him. Due to maya, personal experiences may be hallucinations, we may never know. Even Dhruva during his penance had some imaginary visions of the Lord. 2) A text like Vishnu Sahasranama is needed to understand the kalyana gunas of Brahman. We cannot get to know of his lilas by 'personal experience'. And according to Vaishnavism, spiritual progress means reading the pastimes of the Lord. 3) Lastly, Krishna may be everyone's God, but that doesn't mean everyone accepts Him. Have you ever heard of the 63 Nayanmars, devotees of Shiva? They were completely surrendered to Shiva and did extraordinary things. They also were austere, humble and pure of heart. Yet, it is a fact that no Vaishnava 'pays respects' to the Nayanmars. We do not even consider them as god realised, for they believe Shiva (and not Vishnu) to be supreme. Jesus and the Nayanmars belong in one category. No amount of so-called 'bhakti', martyrdom and sacrifice is relevant unless they worship Hari. Bija, it gets really annoying when you keep rambling about 'bookish knowledge' without understanding what Vedanta is about. First understand what vaishnavism is, and then comment.

Bishadi, a simple question - do you know how to write coherently? Or do you have dyslexia? Because, even a chipmunk tap dancing across the keyboard would be able to string sentences better than you. Not a lick of sense in any of your posts. Hence, there is no use answering you, since you appear to be in another dimension althogether.

EDIT: Sorry about the triple posting. A slight problem with connection. In any case, Amlesh and Co. first need to understand that no Vaishnava ever calls a Shaiva as 'spiritual' or 'on the right path'. Every Vaishnava acharya was categorical in condemning Shaivism as tamo guna. A few isolated slokas of Gita understood without context by Christian Vaishnavas leads to this confusion. Of Course, a Shaiva will not accept this. No problems with that.

Edit

Absolutely shocking. Is this what you really thought Vaishnavism is? He certainly makes their faith stronger. Have you even understood the context? He makes their faith stronger because the jivas are in a state of rajasic or tamasic modes when they worship demigods. Hence, at that stage, they are not qualified to worship Hari. So, Vishnu simply keeps them in that path until their karmas are cleansed sufficiently to be eligible for Hari bhakti. The Lord is neutral, but He abides by the laws of Karma out of His own will. Vaishnavas have always maintained that it takes a jiva 7 births of Shiva worship to be completely purified to merit a Vaishnava birth. So, in essence, it means that 1) The Lord is clarifying that even if a Jiva has faith in a fictional deity, that faith is only due to Vishnu, and hence, He is urging jivas to recognise Him alone, and abandon that fictional deity, 2) The Lord says that He keeps the faith of the Jiva in that fictional deity/demigod intact, but HE DOES NOT LIKE DOING SO. Krishna clarifies that only unintelligent people worship Him this way. However, being the neutral Lord of all, He simply makes faith of jiva in another deity strong as a matter of duty. He doesn't like it or recommend it. Thirdly, He makes it abundantly clear that the only way to moksha is one minded Hari Bhakti, not Shaivism or Christianity. By saying 'Mam EKAM Saranam Vraja' and not 'Mam Saranam Vraja', He makes it clear that the right way is to have EKA bhakti, and not meander to other paths. Good Lord, you don't even know this simple fact, and you think you are qualified to judge who is a Vaishnava and who isn't. Again, a completely wayward statement. A person who worships Jesus, Popeye, etc. refuses to acknowledge Hari is the supreme God. Hence, it is an act of disobeidience. The Lord, understanding that the jiva is not yet cleansed of Karmas, makes the jiva's faith strong in the chosen deity until after a few births, the jiva realises Hari is Supreme. Austerities not sanctioned by the Vedas are tamasic. Hence, Shaiva Agamas, Baptism, Renunciation of Jains, etc. are all tamasic, because they have no Vedic Sanction. You are free to do what you want. Like Ravana, you can even fight Vishnu. Doesn't mean every path is authentic. And why do people rarely choose this path? Because, Shaivites, Christians et al. are deluded by karma, and cannot understand Hari is Supreme. So, their paths do not bear fruit. Bhagavan chooses people randomly, like a bride throwing her bouquet to the crowd. First of all, it is an ISKCON thing that we 'fell' out of Vaikuntha due to disobeidience. The Jiva has been in samsara eternally, and is deluded due to karma. Until the jiva realises that his position is to serve Hari and NOT to serve Shiva, Jesus, Allah, etc., he will NOT be liberated. Simple as that. I do not know why I am debating with a complete non-entity like Amlesh. No knowledge of what Vaishnavism is, and he blabbers on about all paths being authentic.

And you would soon probably have a personal experience of Mickey Mouse coming in your dreams and telling you to ignore the Vedas, rely on hallucinations and that all paths are equal. I guarantee that.

Amlesh, forget abut scripture. You lack the ability to even use pratyaksha. Do you see any Vaishnava reading 'Shiva Purana'? After all, this purana teahes Bhakti Yoga to Shiva. Should be 'bonafide', as Hare Christnas put it. Yet, no Vaishnava acharya has ever recommended this Purana. Understanding that God has 4 hands, and is the dark hued Vishnu is the prime criterion for Vaishnavism. Anybody who does not follow the rituals of Vaishnavism, is not a Vaishnava. Anybody who worships anyone other than Vishnu is not a Vaishnava. Anybody who says all paths are authentic because there is one God has not read scripture properly. God is One. Vishnu. Path to realise Him is only one. Other paths are simply a distraction.

You are going way off track, my dear Hare Christna. Irrespective of whether we get moksha or not, Vishnu wants us to worship Him alone. Hence, it is our duty. Krishna makes it absolutely clear that worship of devas, Jesus, Popeye, etc. and surrendering to them is imperfect knowledge and only reaches Him indirectly. He also makes it clear that all jivas should only worship Him, and not anya-devata. This follows that the bhaktas of other gods, even Shiva, are not Vaishnavas, nor are their paths recommended by Vishnu. Without understanding this simple fact, you claim to follow Vaishnavism. Terrific. Krishna, first of all, is even behind Buddhism. Does not make it an authentic path. Secondly, Krishna did not personally inaugrate all religions. Some man made religions are simply that - man-made. Thirdly, just because Krishna is god of all, does not mean all religions are authentic. Krishna makes it clear that people should follow the principles of Vaishnavism as enshrined in the Vedas. If a person worships Shiva as supreme, he is disobeying Krishna. Same goes for all these cults. Gita clearly says demigod worship will not lead to moksha. So, first learn sastra and then comment. Tomorrow, I could write a new book on how Mickey Mouse is god, and invent rituals for surrendering to Mickey Mouse, with Bhakti Yoga. Doesn't make my path authentic.

*Sigh* A Hare Christna teaching me Vaishnavism. Terrific. Anyone who worships Shiva, Durga, kali, Indra, etc. along with Vishnu is not a Vaishnava. Eka Bhakti to Vishnu alone is Vaishnavism. Worshipping Jesus as a pure bhakta without sastric pramana, is equivalent to demigod worship. Or worse, as Jesus is not even in sastra.

A shaivite is not considered a Vaishnava. A Christian is not a Vaishnava. Shaivism is denounced as a path that will not lead to moksha. Same goes for Christianity. The idiocy has reached new levels. For that matter, a dog, a cat, Hiranyakasipu and ravana are Vaishnavas in their original nature. But a dog, a cat or Ravana won't get moksha, and the paths they follow are not authentic. A Shaiva refuses to acknowledge that Hari is supreme. Understand? So, if Jesus was a Shiva Bhakta, he wuldn't worship Hari. Which makes the Bible a Tamasic scripture.

Sorry. A true Vaishnava does not perform bhajans to Devas. Similarly, a true Vaishnava does not say Jesus was a bhakta. Vaishnavas are not classified by 'purity' alone. Indra, for instance, is known to have lust and greed for power. Yet, whenever he is in trouble, he only goes to Vishnu for help. Indra, thus, is a Vaishnava, despite his faults. Because he goes to Vishnu, and not other Devas, for help. The basic criterion for Vaishnavism is, 'Worship of Vishnu'. Bija, for the last time, stop viewing Vedanta with a semitic view. The Vedas are not 'bookish knowledge'. Every Acharya, Sri Sankara, Sri Ramanuja, Sri Madhva, etc. clearly says that something is valid only when it is validated by the Vedas. The semitic religions place great emphasis on personal experience. Jesus was divine because he performed miracles. Mohammed saw an angel in a cave, so he is a messiah. Nonsense. Vedas are apaurusheya. Hence, they constitute the final authority in Vedanta. Personal experiences are valid only in light of Shruti.

Pure bhakta of which God? Answer this one. If he was a Shaiva, then he, along with other Shaiva Bhaktas, are not Vaishnavas. Saying that Christianity is a 'bonafide' path or an 'element of Vaishnavism' is completely against the teachings of Vedanta. Bhakti is not the criterion for being 'bonafide'. Bhakti to Sri Hari is the main thing that counts. I understand what you say. However, answer this - Shaivism has more bhakti in it than Christianity. Then, why don't we use Vaishnavism as a 'standard meter' to judge the degree of 'religiosity' in Shaivism? Stop ducking the issue. To a Vedantin, silence means lack of ability to put up a coherent theory. Logic and reasoning is the only tool that works in Vedanta. Coupled with a knowledge of sastra. Definition of Vaishnavism is something anyone can understand. 'Worship of Vishnu, while considering that any other 'bhakti' path is useless'. We differentiate between even Vishnu and Shiva. What to talk of other religions. And once again, you are quite stupidly quoting this nonsense. A shaivite considers that God is Shiva. So, if Jesus was a Shaivite, he would consider himself to be 'Son of Shiva'. Shaivism is not Vaishnavism. Your point?

Amlesh, first of all, I never mix up anything. Its you who has been blabbering incessantly about Jesus being a pure bhakta, about me 'disrespecting' Mirabai, and other such nonsense. You mix up a completely irrelevant religion like Christianity with Vaishnavism, and then accuse me of mixing up stuff. Way to go. I asked you some very relevant questions in the other thread about Christianity. I bolded those questions, yet, you haven't answered them. Instead, keep yammering something about 'ego'. Your very belief, along with Theist and cBrahma's beliefs, is irrelevant to Vaishnavism. Then what's the point? This statement clearly exposes how ignorant you are of Vedanta, or exactly what constitutes polemics. Congratulations.

It doesn't matter what they follow. Bottom line is, they claim to be Vaishnavas, and yet do not even know what Vaishnavism is. Whether they belong to ISKCON or not is irrelevant. First of all, debating is not an unhealthy practice. Maintaining respect to acharyas is important, but that doesn't mean their philosophy is correct. I have the utmost respect for Sri Chaitanya or Sri Madhva, but that doesn't mean we cannot debate with Gaudiya Vaishnavas or Tattvavadis. Srila Prabhupada's most essential teaching is surrender to Krishna. Accepted.

The main thing that I find so hypocritical about these Hare Christnas, is that they ridicule everyone who believes that the Puranas are history, and yet force people to accept that Jesus really resurrected and really did miracles. In fact, I wouldn't even mind this 'Jesus was a Vaishnava' nonsense if they actually had *some* attraction for the real Vaishnavism. There are some ISKCON people I know, who, despite believing Jesus was a 'bonafide' guru, still do not obsess over it and follow Krishna dutifully. The difference here is, while they still hold some of those 'Jesus is a Vaishnava' beliefs, they do not force non-vedantic doctrines as 'original sin' into Vaishnavism, as Hare Christnas do. Nor do they keep glorifying Jesus and Christianity on a regular basis. These people are OK because they simply follow Srila Prabhupada, and have no idea of sastra. Believing all words of Srila Prabhupada is not a crime. However, Hare Christnas say that Krishna's rasa lila is mythological and allegorical, but the Bible is a historical account. Talk about hypocrisy. In any case, there have been Shaivites, Jains and Buddhists who have done miracles and attained heights of mysticism. Doesn't mean they were divinely inspired, does it? Same goes for Jesus. IMO, even if he had resurrected historically, it still doesn't prove anything.

Shvu, he was not agreeing with Theist. Guliaditya was saying that Theist refuses to accept the truth, meaning that Jesus is not linked to Vaishnavism in any way. He does not support Theist. However, let me clear things up - For Thiest, cBrahma and the rest, even the words spoken by Srila Prabhupada in an interview is 'apaurusheya' and 'Veda'.

Behemoth's songs are also quite cool in this context. 'AntiChristian Phenomenon', 'Slaying the Prophets of Isa', 'Christians to the Lions', 'Sermon to the Hypocrites', 'Christ-Grinding Avenue', etc. Blackened Death Metal at its best. Just kidding, of course. In truth, I could care less whether Jesus is mythological or historical. Whether He did miracles, or resurrected is not the concern of Vedantins. Christianity has as much relevance to Vaishnavism as does Shaivism or Buddhism, ie, nothing.

Vishnu is benevolent, but still looks out for His interests. Sri Vaishnavas, particularly the Alvars, regard Lord Narayana as an immature child. While He does love us all, His love of mischief is far greater. Furthermore, He does not care about the sufferings of people in samsara, because from His point of view, all these jivas are destined for Vaikuntha. So, a bhakta of Narayana, will get moksha. In order to extinguish the bhakta's karmas, the Lord makes Him suffer pretty badly. Furthermore, His lilas are all due to His desire to have fun. Take the Mahabharata. An exercept from Sri Velukkudi Swami's discourse: There you go. This incident proves that the Lord is really looking for fun. To some, killing 18 million people in 18 days for 'fun' may sound cruel, but to a Sri Vaishnava, Vishnu is just like a playful child. To Him, Samsara does not matter. Only Moksha matters. Brahman knows everything that can be known, making Him omniscient. But there are things that have no limits, and cannot be knowable. His omniscience is not compromised when we say He doesn't know some things that are unknowable. For instance, there is no limit to His greatness. Hence, He cannot know something for which there is no limit. That is why role of acharya is important.

Sri Adi Sankara was a true advaitin, just like Sri Ramanuja was a true Vishishtadvaitin and just like Sri Madhva was a true Dvaitin. Hare Krishnas mistake Adi Sankara's poetry on Krishna as an indication that he had a 'change of heart'. Nope, praising the attributes of Saguna Brahman, ie, Bhakti as the means, is part of Advaita. And Sri Sankara was an exceptional devotee of Saguna Brahman, ie, Vishnu. He was not a 'covered' personalist, just a Vaishnava advaitin.

That's true. In fact, Advaita is such a pliable philosophy. In the case of Vishishtadvaita or Dvaita Vedanta, there is a need to prove the superiority of Hari and establish His worship. However, Advaita does not need to prove any god's supremacy because all differences are constrained to the Vyavaharika level. Adi Sankara, being a Vedantin, recognised that the Vedas did not say all gods were equal. Now, to an Advaitin, these differences in divinity should be redundant. But since the Vedas cannot be ignored, Sri Sankara compromised and came up with an explanation for Vishnu Sarvottama - that meditating on Hari is more efficient for obtaining Jnana rather than meditation on other deities. This pliability has been stretched further by Neovedantins, who, despite claiming to be following Sankara's philosophy, advocate that all paths are the same. This appeals to more people. A traditional Advaitin, however, is quite within the Vedantic tradition. Not trying to start an Advaita-Vishishtadvaita debate here, but I just found this interesting enough to reply. Vishishtadvaita avers that the Self is like a flame, and the consciousness is like a light that radiates from the flame. Just as the light cannot exist independent of the flame, and just as the flame is self-luminous and does not require any extraneous source, the Self pervades the body by its very consciousness. Furthermore, the light is also inherent to the form of the flame, making consciousness the form of the Self. This makes Consciousness an attribute of the Self and also makes Consciousness as a form of the Self (just like light radiating from the flame is the same as the luminosity of the flame itself), thus negating the need to call the Self as 'undifferentiated, pure consciousness'. An attribute is non-different from the owner. So, whenever the Upanishads refer to the Self as 'consciousness' , it is simply identifying atman with its attribute, just like a flame is inseparable from its light. So, a localised soul can still pervade the body, as its inherent consciousness becomes an attribute, just like the light radiating from the flame is an attribute of the flame, allowing the flame to spread its influence everywhere. A substance with attributes is personal. A similar explanation for 'Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahma', ie, Brahman is endowed with the attributes of Truth/Consciousness, Knowledge and Bliss. Atman, thus, expresses itself through its consciousness. No, we say, 'I HAVE a headache/stomachache', etc. It isn't identity, but rather, a description of 'I's attributes, IMO. If we remove the headache, stomachache, 'I' still exists, but then, some attributes are changeable, and others permanent. In the case when we say 'I am happy' or 'I am sad', there appears to be identity. But consider this - when you call me 'Dark Warrior', by default, you refer to my body as well as my soul. These two are different entities, but by virtue of the dependence factor, they get colored as one entity. Similarly, 'Happiness' or 'sadness' is a non-essential attribute, subject to change, of the 'I', which has some permanent attributes like 'consciousness'. Scripture says, 'His form is not assumed for His sake, but for the sake of His devotees'. His form is eternal and completely shuddha sattva. His ears are not like our ears, His feet are not like our feet. He can eat through His eyes, listen through His mouth, and yet, He does not need any of these organs. Simply for the sake of looking attractive to devotees, He assumes that form. And when we say 'assume', once again, we take the AnAdi factor into view. There never was a time when He didn't assume this form. Chandogya Upanishad cleary calls Brahman as Pundarikaksha, Lotus Eyed. Lord Rama was especially praised for His beautiful eyes (for some reason, it appears as though Vishnu's eyes are the most attractive for everyone). The same Upanishad describes His 'form' as effulgence, I believe.

Brain dead, aren't you? If you are an atheist, well and good. Enjoy.

Still doesn't make it pramana, or make those beliefs Vaishnavite. Vaishnavism prides itself on following what is enshrined in the Vedas, therby lending great antiquity to our tradition. We can't change it in one day just because of the needs of a mordern day guru. Let me say one thing - even people like cBrahma may get moksha in this birth itself, because despite all that is said and done, faith in Srila Prabhupada, and a tremendous change in life attitude, has been a part of his (cBrahma's) life. Thus, I have no grudges against him as a person. However, even if he gets moksha, it won't be because his path is perfect. Its because of Srila Prabhupada's grace, and mainly, the Lord wouldn't expect as much out of him as he would out of traditional vaishnavas. But I still have to correct his stupid opinions. Sure.

I try to be polite. Good. You are a mystic, and don't call yourself Vaishnava. I have no issues. Believe that what traditional Vaishnavas believe is nonsense, or allegorical or phantasmagoria. Now, if only Theist can get it into his thick head that he too is not even close to being a Vaishnava follower. Nope. I believe in universality of Vaishnavism, as long as everyone follows the right path. one path, but universal in the sense that everyone will someday follow it when they get a better birth. I do! On the contrary, I have been more of an agnostic than anyone else. I am right because I know what Vaishnavism is, unlike mordern day gurus. What contradicts sastra is labelled as ignorant. I speak with pramanas. Logic is absent even in your blood. Your atman's dharma bhuta jnana is really contracted, eh? Invitation - cBrahma, get rid of your sentiments and worship Hari properly. You will find that membership to this 'elite club' is completely free of charge.

All in all, a poor article. Bhaktivinoda calls Tilaka and deity worship as an external symbol, when sastras are replete with detailing the importance. Archa Avatara, when consecrated with agamic rites, are verily avatars of the Lord, more accessible than Rama or Krishna, who we cannot see at the moment. Branding oneself with tilaka, chakra or sangha is moksha giving and an indication of our understanding of Veda. Atharva Veda says, 'He who wears Chakra and Conch of Vishnu crosses Samsara'. Not Ash or cross. So much for Neovedantic nonsense. Truth is rough. I define Vaishnavism. I am not trying to be a 'Universal Sympathizer' here. Such things are not a 'standard' in society. For one thing, we don't 'attribute' or 'imagine' personalism or impersonalism. We debate on what is true, as per Vedanta. Secondly, Installing deities is a necessity to get close to the Lord. When installed properly, the Lord descends with all His kalyana gunas into the archa murthy. Thirdly, we don't 'speculate' on the after life. The Chandogya Upanishad and Kaushitaki Upanishad are authoritative and give full details of what happens after death. Being Vaidikas, we take it literally.

Very nice article. Now tell me, where did Thakura give any pramanas there? So, you are free to follow his beliefs. Just do not define Vaishnavism for everyone. For one thing, even if I attack everyone, I post with pramanas. Secondly, personal attacks have been, since times immemorial, a part of Vedantic debates. Madhusudhana Saraswati calls Dvatins 'dogs' in his criticism. Post with substance and pramanas, Bija. Thakura's article looks more Neovedantic than Vaishnavite. EDIT: I notice Bija and cBrahma still haven't provided pramanas.