Dark Warrior

1) If you are not a Vaishnava, you are free to believe that what we believe is nonsense. I am addressing people who claim to be Vaishnavas here. According to Vaishnavism, other paths are not valid. 2) Srila Prabhupada's words again, are not pramana. I have explained it a thousand times. Shut the clap-trap.

Vaishnavism may be the ultimate truth, but then, the ultimate truth also states that there is one sastra (Veda) and only one Lord (Sriman Narayana). Which means, only devotion to Narayana, with full knowledge of His glorious attributes, is a path to moksha. All paths are not same, and that thought is condemned by the Brahma Sutras itself. Hence, Vaishnavism alone may be a path that anybody can choose, but that doesn't mean everybody chooses it. Because not everybody can, due to karma. Even in krita Yuga, there will be Shaivites, Advaitins, buddhists, etc., with Vaishnavas being a minority.

'Vishnu' and 'Bhakti Yoga', along with 'Archa' and 'Vaikuntha' are not 'terminologies' to be discarded. They are the very instructions of Vedanta. No Vaishnava ever discards them in search of 'transcendence'. This will be good. The 'patterns' that you convey suggest that your brand of spirituality is about as far from Vaishnavism as possible. First of all, single minded devotion to Narayana is not a 'subjective experience of mind'. It is an order given by Rishis, Alvars and Vaishnava Acharyas. Hence, anyone who follows it is a Vaishnava. Anyone who doesn't, is not. Secondly, I am not interested in deciphering your inner most thoughts. What you have revealed is basically this - people who think Vishnu alone gives moksha, and who condemn other paths as wasteful, are 'sectarian'. Basically, this message is simply contradictory to hundreds of years of hard work by Vaishnava thinkers who have shown that one path and one god is all that the Vedas advocate. Vaishnavism, as I have presented it, is 100% correct and is the Vaidika Dharma. Anything that veers off this path is not Vaishnavism. You have the liberty to accept or reject this path. 'Heart Life' is not a pramana. As mentioned before, Lord Krishna in the Gita clearly says that anyone who prays incorrectly will nonetheless get some experience, because He abides in their hearts and makes their faith strong. It doesn't make this experience or this way correct. Get out of personal experiences, hallucinations, delusions and resort to a sincere read of Sriman Narayana's divya lilas. Wow, that is the wittiest come back of the century.

It is a fact that Ash wearing Shaivas do not get moksha, according to Vaishnava theology. If Bhaktivinoda said something different, then I am afraid he was sadly wrong. Differentiating the worth of different gods like Vishnu and Shiva is the very core of Vaishnavism. The same Bhagavatam only expounds Krishna Sarvottama and advocates bhakti only to Krishna. Commentaries that do not stick to the basic frame of Veda, ie, Vishnu being the only one to give moksha, are wrong. It has been established that the words of an acharya are valid only if they have vedic sanction. That point is excellently brought out by both Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva. Even Sri Sankara remains true to it. In case you think I am biased towards Sri Ramanuja, let me assure you, I don't quote from his Bhashya. I quote from Gita and Vedas that clearly depict a hierarchy of Gods, and hold that meditation on Sriman Narayana alone is superior. Bhaktivinoda Thakura, no matter how great a devotee you think he is, cannot be taken as pramana. If you think this is sectarian, prove from Bhagavad Gita, that what he says is true. Lord Krishna clearly says worship by any other means is futile. You lack jnana about the basics of Vedanta, and talk about sectarianism. However, it may have escaped your mind that Vaishnavas have not painstakingly shown Vishnu to be the only one worthy of worship for nothing. Answer a basic question - Why do Vaishnavas distinguish themselves from Shaivas? Isn't this 'sectarian' to claim Shaivites are wrong? But then, Vedas do not say there is Spirituality independent of Narayana. Useless argument, isn't it? One would think, a person who is more equipped with sastra, rather than personal experiences, would qualify as a better debator. Not the case here.

Seriously, I don't care what you are or what you believe, Bija. Just stop mistaking Vaishnavism for something else. Vaishnavite definition of 'Spirituality' - Dedicated devotion to Narayana only, and no other gods. No other paths are considered 'spiritual'. So, if you are an aspiring Vaishnava, first redefine your 'spirituality'.

Finally, atleast a difference is being acknowledged here. Rest assured, I know the basics of every religion from Wicca to Paganism to Christianity to Judaism. I was a devoted agnostic for many years before understanding that my own tradition is the best. You still don't get it, do you? Vedanta is not an 'ingrained belief system'. It is a coherent exposition of the Vedas, Upanishads, Upa-Brahmanas, etc. It conveys the ultimate reality to be a Dark hued God resting on the causal ocean, on a snake bed. It also establishes exactly what one must do to attain Him - ie, shun every tradition that doesn't recognise Him. Nothing is accepted based on personal experience, or belief. A Vaishnava accepts things based on Vedas. For instance, Vedic texts say a person will get spiritual experience when he prays to an Archa of Vishnu. Hence, that experience is authentic. However, when a person like Ramakrishna says he merged with Jesus and Shiva, it is nothing more than a product of maya, designed by the Lord to simply give jivas what they want. Get it out of your system that Vaishnavism is an 'ingrained belief system that we must transcend'. If you are a Vaishnava, accept that it is the path advocated by Veda, that must never be discarded. Hopelessy wrong again. A 'single eye', meaning, one minded devotion to Vishnu alone is the ONLY path recommended by all acharyas, including Sri Chaitanya. There is no way another person can derive benefit from another. Devotion without Vedic sanction will only cleanse karma for a better birth. Bhakti as dictated by the Vedas is moksha dharma. One minded devotion to Vishnu is a hard and fast rule for every Vaishnava.

Natch, Christians are pure devotees and mayavadis are 'demonic' according to some people here. Sort of like Satan and Job, I guess.

Well, technically, Jesus's story is pretty tragic, and evokes emotion. Besides, Moses belongs to the Old Testament angry god, whereas Jesus apparently was a 'pure devotee' of a loving God. 'Course, I can sympathise with Jesus, he was a peaceful, compassionate bloke, but then, so was Mahavira the Jain. Jnana has nothing to do with this. Neither of them are Vaishnavas. However, I do not know what they find in Mohammed, seriously. And 'Faith in God' is not the quality of a Vaishnava. 'Faith in Vishnu, Lord of Devas' is the quality of a Vaishnava.

Thank you. Anakin Skywalker is one cool dude!! However, let me make one thing clear. Spiritual Progress means what Krishna says. Something like this, 'My Pure Devotees are constantly immersed in Me and converse with one another about My pastimes'. This is the duty of a Vaishnava. 39 Avatars of the Lord have been described by Vyasa. read them, understand the inner meanings. Read Vedas, and other texts, get a grasp of philosophy. No need to go for 'mysticism' or other such process to 'strive' for truth. A true devotee, surrendered to the Lord, will realise that everything has been handed to him on a silver platter by our rishis. Mysticism has no relevance to Vaishnavism, and contrary to popular opinion, Vaishnava sages are not 'mystics'. They have received jnana from the Lord by mere grace, without their effort.

Haha...Bija, its funny you accuse me of imagination. Your own posts in this forum have been nothing but a case of your imagination running riot. At the outset, you post somethings like 'I feel conscious of the other plane and reaching out to the transcendental awareness' or something like this. But on closer examination, I find that such pseudo-intellectual posts do not contribute to spiritual progress. Vaishnavism defines spiritual progress as 'describing and enjoying lilas of the Lord' and not ravings on personal experience that may be a product of maya. Religions not based on Vaidika Matam cannot give moksha. So, can you please tell me, exactly how is it authentic? Firstly, desires are a different matter. What Upanishads say is that, 'Wrong Knowledge is tamasic'. That is the very premise which was used to defeat Advaita, Shaivism and other paths. Bija, you do a great dis-service to Vaishnavism by confusing yourself with this nonsense. All paths are not valid, but Christianity is not inadequate, etc.. A religion that doesn't even have the very basic mantra 'OM' is related to Vaishnavism? Even Buddhists and Jains are closer than Christians in that respect, as they atleast share some common mantras with Vedantins. Is the Dalai Lama alone barred from making progress? Is Vivekananda alone barred from making progress? Is George Bush alone barred from making progress? Jesus knew what he thought he knew about God. Because of karma. Vaishnavas would be inclined to recognise him as a normal jivatma with no god realisation, just a mystic/good guy. He may have done miracles or really resurrected, but then even Yogis, normal Jivas with no realisation, can do those things. Of course, if he had remained a sattvik person, compassionate to all, he will get a birth as a Vaishnava. Or, if Hari wills, he may even get moksha without jnana. Clearly, your ignorance of Eastern Philosophy is revealed. There is no doubt that some personal experiences are valid. However, one cannot trust it unless scripture confirms it. An Advaitin can argue, 'Brahman is Nirguna by my personal experience', or a Shaivite could say, 'Vishnu is not supreme by my personal experience'. Hence, it leads us nowhere. We have a reliable authority in scripture to verify whether our experiences are genuine. Stop talking like a pseudo-intellectual, and please, for goodness sake, learn something about our tradition.

Again, without understanding the context. Yes, we are Vaishnavas. Not Shaivas, not Christians, etc. Vaishnavism is the Vaidika path, fully authenticated by the Vedas, that is followed by people who have the jnana to realise that there is only one God, and that the proper way to worship Him is by doing what the Vedas say. Innately, every jiva is a sesha to Lord Narayana. But in samsara, due to maya, a person follows different faiths. Krishna accepts their prayers, but will not give them moksha until they realise the truth - Vaishnavism. A pointless thread, Bija. I told you, if you are a Universalist, say so, and I won't argue. Claiming to be a Vaishnava who thinks Shaivas and Christians are following an authentic path is nonsense. The higher plane for Vaishnavas is Vaikuntha, not Kailasa, Heaven or Mohammed's paradise. And God is Vishnu. Not Shiva, Allah or Jesus. EDIT: Here is a bit of Bija's errant thinking: From the viewpoint of Scripture, a Buddhist, a Jain, a Shaivite, a Christian are all in the same boat. Souls who have not realised who Brahman is. There is no such thing as 'Christianity contributes 10% to spiritual progress, so that we can become Vaishnavas in another birth and complete 90%'. Every nastika or a-vaidika matam is futile and useless for moksha. Personal Experiences are simply given by the Lord to help the jiva retain its faith (as Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita). But such faith, without Jnana and Bhakti as sanctioned by Vedas (Christian devotion is not sanctioned, btw), is just as bad as Buddhism or Mayavada. Faiths that are not based on the Vedas are condemned. That is the sole reason Jainism, Buddhism, Shaivism, Shaktism, etc. are invalid. Even Mayavada has a place in Vedanta, but not the other 4 because they have absolutely no connection to the Vedas. Simply put, these A-vaidika faiths are invalid, unauthentic and inadequate. That is the thinking of a Vaishnava. We do not curse them for not following our faith, but we do not accept theirs as authentic. All souls are Vaishnavas. For that matter, innately, Duryodhana, Hiranyakasipu, Ravana and Kamsa are all Vaishnavas. But they certainly did not get moksha due to their actions. Vedas are not even authored by Vishnu. Hence, verify every statement with scripture. Blind belief such as yours has no place in Vaishnavism. Vaishnavism is indeed a designation for jivas who have realised Brahman, ie, Vishnu is the ultimate truth. Remember the Bhagavatam Statement that says 'Vaishnavam yatha Shambhu' that classifies Shiva as a Vaishnava. The term 'Vaishnava' is a proud indicator of a person who wears the lotus feet of Lord Hari (and no ash, cross or anything) and knows who God really is. Of course, this is just the Vaishnava perspective of thinks.

However, Srila Sridhar Maharaja, Srila Prabhupada and Sri Thakura are personalities regularly quoted by ISKCON, and followed. And you have been quoting them. It will suffice to say that the teachings of mordern gurus, while having merit as far as Hari Bhakti is concerned, may not always be accurate. Its as simple as this, Christian - Follows Jesus, condemns Vedas as heretic. Shaivite - Worships Shiva, considers Vishnu a demi-god. Against sastra. Vaishnava - Worships Vishnu only. Emphasis on only. He is tolerant in the sense that all ajnanis will someday get moksha by Hari's grace. He is intolerant in the sense that all other paths, which fail to recognise Hari, is futile and will only lead to a better birth. Pramanas include Pratyaksha, Anumana and Shabda. Of these, scripture, particularly the apaurusheya Vedas are important. What Vedas say, go. What they don't say, is discarded. I have outlined it for you to understand. Its up to you to decide whether you are Christian, Shaivite, Vaishnava or just a Universalist, who feels all paths are authentic.

Once again, you are simply quoting someone. Refer to sastra, refer to even the works of the traditional founders. Why are you so blindly relying on mordern day gurus? I have read Srila Sridhar Maharaja's comparisons of Christianity and Vaishnavism. Funny, nobody has compared Shaivism and Vaishnavism, and yet, he seems to think Jesus has some credibility. Therefore, if you are a sincere seeker of knowledge, go to any traditional Vaishnava acharya/guru (Gaudiya, Madhva or Sri-) and inquire about it. Not ISKCON, who are obviously influenced by their previous religion and attachments. Sri Ramanuja wastes no time calling Advaitins and Shaivites as loaded with tamo guna. Upanishads give dire warnings of a blinding darkness descending on those with false knowledge. Tell me, if all paths are same, why would such warnings exist? Obviously, Upanishads were not talking specifically about 'mayavada' as ISKCON puts it. The right way to inquire about the absolute is to read the Prasthna Trayam, and reach the conclusion. Jesus, a person who was devoted to his own conception of God, is sorely lacking in the light of the Vedas. You need to prove, with proper satric quotes, that Jesus was a Vaishnava. God has 4 hands, a lotus, mace, discus, conchshell. True devotees will read Vishnu Sahasranama and Bhagavad Gita regularly, and understand that one should never worship other Gods or go to other religions and regard them as authentic. Vyasa is particularly emphatic about this, 'There is no sastra greater than Veda and no God superior to Kesava'. If all paths were same, he wouldn't be saying this. Personal experience is redundant.

Once again, blatant ignorance of facts, prabhu. Sri Ramanujacharya says there is no gradation of souls. Sri Madhva says Gradation exists. Sastras are very clear in that there is only one solution. The path to right knowledge is like walking on a razor's edge. That is why debates have been going on. There cannot be multiple philosophies in Vedas, or multiple religions that lead to same goal. Although Vaishnavism in general is correct, and any sampradaya can lead to moksha, only ONE philosophy is enshrined in Vedas. Try to understand. Sarcasm ill befits you. First off, I was born in Dubai, not India. Despite being an Indian. Secondly, India is sanctified because of its tapas, and because of the Lord's avatars. An American Vaishnava will get moksha, for that matter. So, there is no talk of being 'unqualified'. Make the effort, learn the scripture. Then you will realise that there is but one path to the goal, and that is Hari Bhakti. Any religion which doesn't accept or acknowledge Vishnu will not lead to Moksha. Of course, this is just what ALL true Vaishnavas believe. You are free to reject Vaishnavism altogether and say you are a Universalist. Vishnu won't mind.

Similarly, a Madhva would say his sampradaya contains all, a Ramanujite would say his sampradaya contains all, etc. Although we are all Vaishnavas, all of our philosophies cannot be correct simultaneously. Hence, follow Vyasa's injunction, 'Inquire into the Absolute' and debate. It is healthy. Coming from an abrahamic background, where things are accepted based on 'personal experience' an 'faith', you do not understand that tradition of polemics in Vedanta. Destroy false knowledge. Good. Where does Jesus come into this? If Theist, you or cBrahma did this truly, renouncing other Abrahamic nonsense, I wouldn't be arguing with you. What proof that Christianity was founded by a Krishna bhakta? Why couldn't Jesus have been an advaitin who was simply talking about Saguna Brahman worship? Or a Shaivite? Or a Shakta? And Vaishnava acharyas (Gaudiyas included) have condemned Shaivism, Shaktism, Advaita, etc. as invalid. Dangerous to assume Jesus was a Vaishnava in the absence of proof. Krishna Himself says, 'I am greater than Shiva', which is a blow to Shaivites, as Shiva is 'their god' and Krishna is 'our god'. So, again I ask you this question - are you aware of the tradition of debate in Vedanta? Narayana is Krishna, and non-different from Him. Shiva is a Jivatma as per the teachings of Sri Ramanuja, Sri Madhva. Worship of Shiva leads only to better births. Worship of Krishna/Narayana leads to moksha. Vaishnavas have always maintained this distinction. Vedas unambiguously teach that Narayana is the highest Brahman, and hence to say Narayana is a 'plenary expansion'...well, that is just a Gaudiya teaching. Once again, provide sastric pramanas to show your point and not sampradayic works.

I am stating the basic Vedantic premise. If you want to prove your founder is Krishna, you must then accept that whatever he says will never contradict Vedas. So, logically, if you prove his philosophy to be the supreme purport, his divinity is accepted. First of all, Sri Chaitanya never said 'Love of God is all that matters'. The Bhagavad Gita clearly denounces the notion that 'all paths are same'. Sri Chaitanya said, 'Love of Krishna is all that matters'. Otherwise, a straight question - can you tell me what was the need for Vaishnavas to debate with a personal god-loving sect like the Shaivas? Krishna is god of all, but all religions do not become authentic by default. There are certain rules and regulations prescribed in the sastras for bhaktas to follow. Christianity, Islam and other abrahamic/pagan/egyptian/greek religions violate every one of them. This means, unless it can be conclusively proved that Jesus was referring to Vishnu as 'god' and not Shiva, Allah, Yahweh, etc...you cannot say Christianity is an authentic path. A great bhakta does not necessarily have the most perfect philsophy. That is why I have patiently explained - Always verify your guru's words with sastra. Srila Prabhupada says - Worship Krishna. Perfect, according to Vedas. Srila Prabhupada says - Worship Jesus. Not true according to Vedas, so reject this. But of course, retain your bhakti to Srila Prabhupada because of his status, despite this deviation from Vedanta.

I'd like to know how many traditional Vaishnavas you have met, who have spoken of Jesus highly. There is no proof that Jesus was a Vaishnava, and that's that. So, please stop showing your immaturity in bringing this nonsense to traditional Vaishnavism. Bhaktivinoda Thakura, ironically, did demean Sri Ramanuja and even Sri Madhva. According to him, Sri Chaitanya told them to keep some things secret and preach imperfect philosophies until the former himself came. However, I have never disrespected Sri Chaitanya. His Krishna Bhakti, and the way he rescued many people from nastika matams during his time was certainly a great thing to do. The thing is, no Non-Gaudiya accepts his divinity. In order to prove a founder's divinity, you will need to establish that his philosophy is the supreme purport of Veda and all other philosophies are inadequate. Debate is the only solution. A religion that is based on personal experience, lacks knowledge of anaditva, of Lord Vishnu, etc. is a Nastika religion as per the definition of all Vaishnavas. Mahavira, the jain teacher was more non-violent and compassionate than even Vaishnavas. We don't glorify him as a great teacher.

I am yet to see one piece of evidence provided by you. Apparently, 'The Supreme Personality of Godhead' has not inspired you enough. Of course, you are only capable of quoting Bhaktivinoda Thakura's words, which really isn't evidence. Stop bleating. Your ignorance knows no bounds. Tell me, did Jiva Goswami, Rupa Goswami, Sanatana Goswami tell you that all religions are valid? If my memory serves me right, Raghu posted a quote from Jiva Goswami's works which defined Vaishnava as 'one who is initiated into a Vaishnava mantra and worships Vishnu'. Did Jiva Goswami teach you that original sin is a Vedantic philosophy? Or that we were 'once with Krishna' and fell out of the sky like an asteroid? Sri Vaishnavas do not accept Theist's views. Gaudiya Vaishnavas (true ones) do not accept Theist's views. There is a Christian forum for discussions about Christianity on the net. Also, you can go to any Neovedantic site and talk about how all paths are same. Now 'go away'. And when did I say that? A Gaudiya Vaishnava who sincerely worships Krishna alone is a great Vaishnava. Which Theist is not. And yes, it is possible for Bhakti to exist without Jnana. That doesn't diminish a mahatma's greatness. Of course, you really do not get it, and simply babble on about 'ego'. Mirabai was a Krishna bhakti. However, she certainly did not give high regard to philosophy. Does it matter? No. because some jivas are so exalted that they get moksha without jnana, if they exhibit Bhakti. That was Mirabi's case. My respect for her is always there. Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, etc. are related, and yet sometimes, independent paths. The Bhagavad Gita itself has explained it. Just because a person has perfect bhakti, you cannot expect him to have perfect jnana (knowledge of philosophy/scripture) as well. Similarly, Srila Prabhupada was a perfect bhakta. As far as Jnana is concerned, if he had said that Jesus was a Vaishnava, he was either wrong, or making compromises to convert Christians. Any of these goofs should now show me proof that Jesus was a sanskrit scholar who learned that Hari Sarvottama is the purport of the Vedas. Having failed to do so, they randomly bleat about 'ego' and 'secularism'. Guliaditya was pointing this out, but then they take it out on him as well. Pathetic. The '3 stooges', cBrahma, Theist and Amlesh need to address the following points, - What god was Jesus worshipping? There is equal chance of him being a Shaivite and calling Shiva as 'the most high father'. There is also a chance that he was a closet mayavadi who was simply advocating worship of a personal god at the vyavaharika level. There is a chance of him being just a Jew who worshipped Yahweh. Onus is on you to prove Jesus was a Vaishnava. It is very easy to misinterpret the Vedas and arrive at a false conclusion. What makes you so sure that Jesus, unlike hundreds of other Vedantins who failed, somehow, knew Vishnu was the ultimate purport of Vedas? - Secondly, if one can worship Krishna in a mosque or church, what was the purpose of Lord Narayana so painstakingly elaborating the EXACT details of how He must be worshipped, for 5 nights running, that we have as the Pancharatra Agama? And if all places are holy, why are Shaiva Agamas condemned? - If 'Bhakti to a personal God' is the only criterion for Vaishnavism, why did our acharyas condemn Shiva worshippers? - How is Christianity 'bonafide' when even Jainism and Buddhism are closer to Vedic tradition? - Vedanta says that Brahman, Jivas, Prakrti, Samsara and Karma are all anAdi (beginningless). Christianity says that Souls and matter were created at some point. How can the latter, which is so diametrically opposed to even the most basic teachings of Vedanta, be linked to Vaishnavism? Even Buddhists and Jains accept the beginningless theory and samsara. - Where is the sastric pramana (4 Vedas, Ithihasas, Puranas) that Jesus was a Vaishnava or an avatar of Vishnu? - Where is the sastric pramana that all religions that simply say 'Love God' are valid. If that was the case, why did the early Vedantins regard Advaita as a Vedantic tradition, and condemn Shaivism/Pasupata religion as unvedic? - Finally, Sri Parasara Muni's statement in Vishnu Purana needs to be addressed. For once, use your brains, and quote from scripture, rather than Bhaktivinoda Thakura's words.

I guess so, Guliaditya.

None of those references are authentic, or can be found. You must understand that I respect Sri Chaitanya as a great devotee, but his avatarhood is strictly a Gaudiya belief. These references are not in scripture, but have been fashioned by his devotees. I could similarly argue about the Philosophical truth of Sri Ramanuja as an avatara. In fact, Sri Ramanuja was also golden in color, was always accompanied by his associates (700 sanyasis and 12000 grihastas) and had the name of the Lord on His lips (Om Namo Narayanaya & Prabandham). Sri Vaishnavas believe he is Adi Sesha, but that it simply restricted to our own sastra like Divya Prabandham, etc. We don't ask anybody else to believe Sri Ramanuja's divinity.

'Pramana' means, sastric proof. Now, let us take an example. A devotee of Sri Ramanuja will argue that Moksha means equality in bliss for all jivas. A devotee of Sri Madhva will say that is wrong. Both Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva, are by definition, 'pure devotees'. However, both these views are not right. So, how do we find out who is wrong? By referring to scripture only. Similarly, Srila Prabhupada was a pure devotee, a great bhakta. But that doesn't mean whatever he says is true. A bhakta may be great, but his philosophy needs to be verified by scripture. Christians say God exists because Bible say so, and Bible exists because God gave it. See a contradiction here? In Vedanta, we do not accept such things. According to Vedanta, only legitimate proof is the Vedas and of course, Logic, Perception, etc. ISKCON followers like cBrahma say the same thing as Christians 'XYZ is a pure devotee because he said so, and whatever XYZ says is right because he is a pure devotee'. To reiterate, I am not biased. I view all people equally, as atman only. I am not fond of homeland or patriotic. Heck, I have only been in India for 3 years, having spent my life abroad. BUT, I follow what sastra says. Sastra says moksha dharma is unique to India. Anyone can get moksha, but the facilities are available only here. Bhagavan is strange. Consider the Sandhyavandanam ritual that Brahmanas do. Vaishnavas know Vishnu is supreme, yet they are ordered by the Lord to do this ritual where we must worship every other deva while understanding that Vishnu is the antaryami. What is the point of doing this ritual when we can worship Vishnu directly? We do not know the point. All we know is, it is our duty to do it because Vishnu wants us to. Similarly, we do not know why India is Moksha Bhumi. However, we accept it because that is what Sri Parasara Muni says. The meaning of pramana only changes when you are arguing with persons of different religions. I will argue with Christians and Buddhists based on Logic, with Advaitins based on scripture, etc. cBrahma, you claim to be a Vaishnava who accepts the Vedic way. Hence, the pramana here only refers to Scripture, which is the only common ground we have for debate.

I never read this, so I reply to it. El stupido, you are not supposed to go by ANYBODY's words on mere faith. However, if you choose a sampradaya to follow, you should read up on what the other sampradayas have said, how they have criticised your sampradaya. Then, you gain a little knowledge on your own, and find out if your acharya's words have remained true to the text or not. At a glance, one can easily say that Srila Prabhupada has got many things wrong, as has Bhaktivinoda Thakura. Bhagavad Gita 'as it is' is not 'as it is' because Srila Prabhupada said so. A person can be a devotee of Vishnu and still make mistakes (Mirabai, for instance was a bhakta without philosophical knowledge). It does not reduce Srila Prabhupada's stature, but we need knowledge and must seek it from the right source. Vedanta is a scientific method. Research, find the truth, reject the falsities. Sri Ramanuja makes an excellent point in his bhasya. He writes, 'Do not accept things just because I said so. Observe and decide the truth by your own merit'. EDIT: This thread was not about whether Lord has taken avatars in other lands. It is about whether Christianity is linked to Vaishnavism. And there is no link between the two faiths, because Vishnu Purana, along with the necessary criterion of philosophical strength found lacking in Christianity, rules out any chance of Jesus being a Vaishnava.

Haha...and you actually had something to say before? Your posts have never had any substance. No knowledge of sastra, and you think you are defining 'Vaishnavism'. Cool.

Very good. Then, how can you say I am committing a 'sin' by saying Sri Chaitanya is wrong, when according to my school, he is not even an avatar? Maybe cBrahma's atman was absent when Brahma the creator was handing out brains.

Funny, you posted that just to say 'go away'? I wonder when you will ever start to post with substance. cBrahma, if you were ever sincere in your spiritual progress, you would cast away all these pretenses, sit down, read Vishnu Sahasranama and divine the deep meanings from it. Sadly enough, you are wasting precious time on useless sentiments, and in complete ignorance.