Dark Warrior

Dark has too many naming conventions in his data dictionary and like to tag people with many designations, though being a Vaishnava.

 

God has given knowledge for application but you learn it like a bookish fellow and blabber like a parrot. Nothing more.

 

Dark Parrot, I think Crow suits you better.

 

See me too have stooped to your level, better not to argue with you.

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.

But he makes one huge mistake...if we adore Krsna we adore his servants. If we can raise our vision - all are his servants, and worthy of respect. This is what I wished to express in my above post - Krsna is not bound by any book or knowledge, he is bound by love. He is universal...in relation with all! If we do not raise our vision...we will never understand how harmony and truth can co-exist.

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.

Wow! seen many a folk walking in the dark, but the warrior must have bumped his head.....

 

perhaps use a 'light'

 

about to go hostile on you old timer .... you a lost puppy raging for order but simply by this one thread, you be all over the place

 

like a warrior in the dark; specifically

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

I perfectly understand that and I also understand what Hari said in the Gita, "For those who prays to the demigods, I make their faith stronger."

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.

Why should I oppose Hari. For the one who is meant to understand, I can give him my life it is needed so, to make him aware of Hari. For others they are free to pray to Popeye and Daffy.

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.

That's why he chose only Arjun to deliver his message. It's true, if everyone can understand Gita, it would have been nice, but hey, we are in the material world, very rarely people chooses this path.

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.

Disobeying Krishna is the thing you've been doing since eternity, but still today you got the opportunity to be a Devotee, same it is for others. Have patience.

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.

But you would have 'soon enough' your own band of merry followers...the mousekateers (and the mickey mouse club). And lots of cheese pakora!

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.

I would like to become Vaishnava someday, but I'll never ask for Moksha.

What do you understand by the term Moksha, my dear bookish fellow.

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.

You are champion in taking an issue to that level.

 

Concerning a path being authentic or not and correpondingly lead to Moksha, is something even the ignorant Iskcon devotees know, but my dear friend, not knowing that Krishna is behind all religions is the greatest goof.

 

He is the cause of all the causes.

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.

Which deva are you referring to here? You were not meaning Krsna is a demigod I hope.

*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.

Who said I limit it with Christianity.

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.

Then I would have called Jesus as the Grandson of God. In any case, whether he would have chosen Popeye as His God, he would have been related with Vishnu.

 

Hari is the thread that links all the pearls.

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.

To call us HareChristnas is incorrect. We worship Krsna...and perform bhajan toward Him alone.

Sorry. A true Vaishnava does not perform bhajans to Devas. Similarly, a true Vaishnava does not say Jesus was a bhakta.

The only disqualification to be classed as vaisnavas is our purity (we aspire)...not adherence to book knowledge (used to degrade us). This is the mistake of dark warrior.

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.

Jesus being a pure bhakta are rambles for you.

I didn't say disrespect, but misconceptions.

Pure bhakta of which God? Answer this one. If he was a Shaiva, then he, along with other Shaiva Bhaktas, are not Vaishnavas.

Again, out of topic, my point was mixing Bhakta's behaviour and judging Guru's teachings.

And Dark, you are not still getting it, I've never said mixing Vaishnavism and Christianity, which can never be the case.

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 said using vaishnavism as the standard meter to see the degree of religiosity present in Christianity.

Dude understand my points well before blabbering.

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.

Sometimes silence is an answer, unlock it. I'll use your own words to describe you..."Your understanding can be compared to pouring water in a sieve."

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.

You like to make yourself happy by quoting the right thing at the wrong time and wrong circumstances.

 

You seem to be holding the reserved rights for Vaishnavism, which I say is not the case. You might be well armed with Knowledge, but in terms of Realised knowledge, a long way to go [don't forget to take your compass].

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.

Thanks, it's something I'm already aware of. Say something new Dude.

 

By the way, how come you know Vedanta, but still can't see Jesus is the Son of GOD where even by Dog is the Son of Hari.

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?

So go and correct them with a stick 1 by 1 but don't mix up things.

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'.

Infact your answer to my points are irrelevant.

Your very belief, along with Theist and cBrahma's beliefs, is irrelevant to Vaishnavism. Then what's the point?

If yours is correct then congrats for others let them be stupid

This statement clearly exposes how ignorant you are of Vedanta, or exactly what constitutes polemics. Congratulations.

Theist and cBrahma give reverence to Srila Prabhupad but they themselves are not attached to Iskcon.

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.

And if you want to challenge SP's teaching then dude, I'll never paticipate on your fest.

 

Challenging your knowledge will be challenging another Vaishnava Acharyas teaching, which is less than a Vaishnava act.

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.

And what is the truth, according to you? Do you even know what the Veda is? It is not iskcon literature or what your theist friend makes up as he goes along.

 

The intent of posting here is not to teach theist the facts of life. He has - over time - proven that he is incapable of admitting his mistakes and chooses to live in denial. We post here, least some rookie is misled by theist and co.

 

Cheers

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.

Another problem with Vaishnavism is that many people find it impossible to accept a benevolent god, and also reconcile it with the evil that they see around them. No matter what we do, we can't make sense of these terrible things (just see the picture of the sudanese boy and vulture in the "tragedy" thread). But since advaita claims this world is a dream (and bizarre things happen in dreams), it sort of explains why such terrible, crazy things happen, without resorting to karma, past life, benevolent god, and all that.

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:

Uddhava- why did the war happen?

 

Krishna - To destroy adharma.

 

Uddhava - Was Duryodhana adharmic? After all, he was simply acting out of frustration that he had been denied the throne just because his father is blind (Duryodhana would have been the rightful heir).

 

Was the disrobing of Draupadi really so heinous and unforgivable? Although it was a great crime, Duryodhana was once again acting out of frustration because Draupadi had earlier insulted him by calling him as the 'blind son of a blind father'. A great offense, but once again, not entirely in control.

 

Was the war really the fault of Shakuni, who schemed with Duryodhana? After all, Shakuni was simply upset that his sister, Gandhari, was married to a blind man. Like every good brother, he did not desire his sister to be condemned to a life of blindness. Once again, frustration was the reason.

 

Was it really Karna's fault that he sided with Duryodhana, that he had to die like that? Karna was betrayed by his own mother at birth. Everyone insulted him on basis of caste. He had incurred Parasurama's wrath, and lost his power to Indra. Karna only found solace in Duryodhana.

 

Was it Bhishma's fault? He could have become King and prevented the war. However, he was only fulfilling his father's wishes in taking the oath.

 

Was it Shantanu's fault, that his lust for another woman led to Bhishma's vow? Not really, because he had the unique misfortune of having to live away from his wife, Ganga.

 

Krishna replied, 'The Kauravas were punished because their main offence was acting against My wishes. I am the Supreme Lord, hence no-one should go against Me.'

 

Uddhava - Why did they act against you?

 

Krishna - Because of their past karmas.

 

Uddhava - So they were predestined to act against you and die?

 

Krishna then realised that the shrewd Rishi was trying to pin the blame on Himself. Uddhava knew Krishna was Brahman, and just wanted to show that all this was the Lord's lila.

 

Krishna simply said, 'I must go' and left the place.

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.

SP didn't need popularity, to steal Sankara's thunder. He was just noting that Sankara wasn't a true impersonalist.

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.

Though a Vaishnava, I feel advaita appeals to the modern mind, because it doesn't depend much on fairy tales, superstition, faith etc.

 

The modern mind refuses to believe in a creator, so if Vaishnavas tell him God is a blue-skinned person (and yes, he's got a name!), they're not gonna take it seriously. OTOH, comparing the world to a dream appeals to the modern mind, so much so several movies have been made on this fascinating theme.

 

As to pramana, it's virutally impossible to convince people of the reality of, say varaha avatar that lifted the earth. But to prove that the "I" exists as undifferentiated consciousness (which is what advaita is about) is easy because it's self-evident.

 

For these and many other reasons, advaita seems to tower over vaishnava and other schools of thought, despite Prabhupada and others doing so much to spread vaishnava dharma and krishna bhakti. The modern mind just can't accept these things, when the pull of advaita is so strong.

 

This is my observation, and I feel it will remain this way for some time to come.

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.

there's consciousness without an "I." Because there's no "I," we can't call it personal. We have to call it impersonal.

 

And because this consciousness isn't restricted by attributes and forms such as body, mind etc., we call it nameless/formless/attributeless

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.

. If you have a headache, the "I" identifies itself with the head. If disturbed, the "I" identifies with thoughts, and so on. If there's no identification at all, there is no personal "I." Yet, there is 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'.

how is it possible for a God to have a human form? We have our eyes and nose for server specific bodily functions. A transcendental God does not require sense organs and would look nothing like a human.

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.

So which is it?

 

But you apparently didn't know 'with full knowledge' ..... does that mean you be left on the dock while the boat goes by?

 

and what hole are you shoveling for?

 

Just the interpretation from the Dark force is being considered nonesense

 

Then go in a closet and address whom you wish, but you on the air... stiring karma as you sit

 

Then what you be on this site for.... these people have Srila's in every temple; looking at you

 

 

 

how about some advice

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

He was preaching to the christian tainted modern (19th century) Indian intellectual. Trying to wake them up to their great heritage. He augmented a modern day rejuvination of Gaudiya Vaisnavism...which eventually spread across the whole globe.

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.

Whether is approach is accepted by people like you is another thing. But the result is that many western boys worship Krsna...and are gradually making their way home back to Godhead. As you say...maybe they will get there after several more births.

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.

Thank God us western boys got to hear of Krsna (not just Krsna as a demogod or stepping stone to the void or impersonal brahman).

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.

You are wasting time debating with him under any circumstance. He is an entrenched racist Indian traditionalist.

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.

He speaks for all 'real' Vaisnavas.

I do!

Once one assumes a 'vox populi' , or better yet a 'vox dei', there is nothing left to say to him. He is right because of who and what he is.

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.

You will notice that contradicting him always means you are an ignorant fool outside the fold of the all-knowing Vedantists.

What contradicts sastra is labelled as ignorant. I speak with pramanas.

It is a strategy I coin the 'esoteric' gambit or the Emperor's clothes. If you're not one of the elite, no amount of logical argumentation, or substantive quotation will qualify you to be right.

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.

I request you also to be so gentlemanly

Truth is rough. I define Vaishnavism. I am not trying to be a 'Universal Sympathizer' here.

The examples of alocyagata are attributing personalism or impersonalism on the Supreme Lord, installing deities, exhibiting the mood of an incarnation of the Lord, speculating on heaven and hell, and describing the future destination of the soul.

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.

 

 

 

Poor dark, always using the ploy of personal attack in debate. Maybe I am an old fashioned debator lol.

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.