Dark Warrior

Well, considering that my 'ramblings' have been supported by pramana from sastra, whereas your stupidity is pretty much up for all to see, I should think I am done with you. However, its still fun... All you can do is call Jesus a 'pure devotee', quote Bhaktivinoda and Srila Prabhupada, ignore sastra and simply prattle on without an idea in your head. To boot, you lack the basic knowledge of different Vaishnava systems. Ah, I never saw this, so I did not address it. Vaishnavism is not only for Indians. But the Lord's avatars, His pastimes, have all occured in Bharatavarsha. At that time, Bharatavarsha was not a country, but a continent. Srirangam, Tirupati, etc, which are places where the Lord self-manifested, are all in India. If you are a Vaishnava, you need to believe that Rama came in Ayodhya and Krishna in Mathura. For some reason, I repeat, an unknown reason, Lord chose this strip of land to enact His pastimes. Ganga comes from Trivikrama's lotus feet. The Himalayas find mention in Gita. Salagramas are found close to Nepal. Badrinath is where Narayana instructed Nara. Gaya is in India. Again, it sounds fantastic, but what the father of Vyasa says goes. Pramana - I have mentioned it. Vishnu Purana mentions Bharata as Punya Bhumi. And only here will all karmas bear fruit in Moksha. Brahman is not limited to anything. If He wished, He could come to America. But we cannot fathom what the Lord will do anytime. This yuga, He chose India. Heck, if the Gita had been delivered in America, people would be claiming that the Lord only chose America!! So, anybody can follow Vaishnavism, but the actual appearance of Vedic Knowledge is in India. Makes this land the spiritual capital of the world. And no, I am not patriotic, just acknowledging what the Puranas say. So, Jesus has no significance to Vaishnavism. Atman is one. This whole issue is not about race. There is no 'chosen people'. However, there apparently is a 'chosen land'. From this land, all spiritual knowledge will disseminate, because the Lord's lotus feet graced it. An American will get moksha if he practices Vaishnavism. But even He will have to believe that Krishna came in Mathura, not America. And the possibility of the Lord coming to America or other lands is negated by Vishnu Purana. I do believe even Mahabharata says that Bharatavarsha is blessed, not sure. In any case, Vyasa and Parasra have clarified. If the Lord had come to other lands, we would atleast see *some* people following an austere Vaidika life there. Unfortunately, the Vedas are not accepted there.

Haha..still don't understand? Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is not the 'golden avatar' for Sri Vaishnavas or Tattvavadis. He was simply a normal Krishna devotee. Only Gaudiyas call him an avatar. There are 6 different schools of thought in Vaishnavism. Sri Chaitanya's school is just one of those 6. No Sri Vaishnava will ever agree to a Gaudiya's views. For instance, I respect Madhva. But he and Sri Ramanuja differed on Ananda Taratamya. I do not accept Madhva's view here. That's all. cBrahma's incompetence and lack of comprehension is evident here.

You always 'note' a lot of things, unfortunately, they slip out of your head like water through a sieve. In any case, its a done deal with you. Theist, of course, will continue raving over Jesus and the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as he keeps ducking arguments with others.

Um, in case you haven't noticed, Sri Vaishnavas, Madhvas and associated sects do not consider Sri Chaitanya as an avatar of Krishna, or Achintya Bheda Abheda as true. We simply regard him as just another Vaishnava devotee. Hopelessly behind, aren't you?

Obviously, I never meant to discuss it with you. It was meant to educate more intelligent members and show them that its futile to argue with the likes of you and Theist, the 'true followers of the transcendental Supreme Personality of Godhead who's transcendental pastimes and transcendental doings are known only to the pure devotee Jesus who came to rescue all Vaishnavas'. Oops, I did it again.

So what? Not everybody accepts Sri Chaitanya, in case you haven't noticed. And just to clarify, he is completely wrong here. Learn sastra, and decide who speaks the truth. Blindly quoting translation after translation is all that you and Theist are capable of.

In which case, if Jesus was a Shaivite, Christianity is not Vaishnavism. It becomes Shaivism. Can you identify the 'God' of Bible as any Vedic deity? Nope. Hence, it is negated. In any case, Vishnu Purana says no avatars have occured after Buddha, and I take it at that. Haha...that is a sentence I have seen you say so many times to me, Shvu, Raghu and all those others who opposed you. The fact is, you are just a parrot who has been taught to say one thing. Or maybe a broken tape recorder that is stuck on 'repeat'. For all to see, here is cBrahma's famous declaration from the other thread: So, comparing Christianity to Shaivites is ok, because that makes Jesus like Siva, who is a Vaishnava. And apparently, Shaivism is 'bonafide' for cBrahma, whereas Vaishnavas assert that it is a wrong path altogether. Laughable. How embarrassing that the great tradition of Vedanta, with all its logic and reasoning, is claimed to be upheld by the likes of cBrahma nowadays. Truly Kali Yuga.

And you fail to understand me. Need some vitamins to up your brain function? In any case, if anyone wants to see cBrahma's goofs, please go to the older thread. What is the point of arguing the same thing again, when all things have been said, done and recorded for posterity in an earlier thread? Vaishnavas argued with Shaivites based on scripture, with Buddhists and Tarkikas based on logic, etc. cBrahma knows no scripture, and he lacks logic. A toothless and clawless animal is good as dead, or useless. Hence, I shall not say the same things again and again. The older threads are proof enough. Thank you very much. Do not take it personally. The fact that your inadequacy is so obvious is very much a reality and not a 'personal attack'. Sorry, I have addressed it. You lack the ability to comprehend. I don't remember any Vaishnava saying that a Shaiva is following the same path.

cBrahma, you and logic are just as far apart as chalk and cheese. I said, you take things out of context. Not the Gita. Quoting that one sloka without understanding what context Krishna was employing it in is what I meant. Even atheists are following Krishna and He rewards them accordingly. An atheist accepts the reality of the Universe, and appreciates its grandeur. Hence, the Universe is the body of the Lord, and so, in a round-about fashion, even the atheist is unknowingly acknowledging the Lord. Vishnu is always optimistic. He looks at the glass as half full, rather than half empty. That is why He is karuna sagara. In any case, if anyone wants to know more about cBrahma's bloopers, refer to the older Jesus thread where he argued with me. After about a 100 posts, he was essentially reduced to an inane blabberer. He ended his argument by saying, if Jesus was a Shaivite, he is a Vaishnava, because Shaivas are Vaishnavas, as Shiva is a Vaishnava. Golden words. Comedy material. How can a person be so incredibly stupid? Real talent it takes, to refrain from using your brain.

Taking things out of context, again, cBrahma? Yes. Even Shaivites who mistakenly worship Shiva as supreme are in reality surrendering to Krishna. Because, He is the only one who takes care of everyone. However, such surrender is without jnana, and hence, will not fetch moksha. Krishna clearly says Men of less intelligence worship demigods. He rewards them in whatever way they approach Him. Vaishnavas who approach Him directly have the chance to ge moksha. Shaivites and Nastikas will get better births, but not moksha. Same goes for Nastika religions. Even if a devotee sincerely prays to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, his prayer reaches Vishnu. Doesn't mean the religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is authentic. cBrahma knows no Veda, nothing at all...just ajnana, and a blind dependence on Srila Prabhupada's translations. Got anything useful to say?Or are you simply going to prattle on about Universal Religion and the Transcedental Pastimes of the Krsna, Father of Jesus and the Supreme Personality of Godhead? Gotta admit, I love making fun of Theist's style.

I agree Guliaditya. The Bhakti Marg you mentioned is Vaishnavism. Nothing more. It seems like many people think its ridiculous that the Lord restricted His pastimes to India. But then, that's what scripture says. If you do not like it, just reject the whole scripture. I notice each and everyone of them has dodged the Vishnu Purana sloka. No explanation at all. One cannot claim to know everything about the Lord. Perhaps, if Krishna had come to only Jerusalem and given the Gita there, today Vaishnavas would be saying only Jerusalem is holy. Just because the Lord is neutral does not mean He is bound. He is a bit eccentric, and as such, He does some things we cannot understand. Giving birth to all Vedantic thought in India is something He has done, which we cannot question. This does not mean only Indians get moksha. It means, that the pastimes of the Lord have been enacted here for all to follow. Occasionally, people with no jnana or bhakti may get moksha due to the Lord's grace. Sriman Narayana chooses lands to perform His lilas quite randomly, just like a bride tossing a bouquet in the air. I am not averse to other traditions. Prove to me that there is another tradition in a foriegn land that follows Vedas sincerely, and I will accept it. But this is madness, making inane connections between an Abrahamic religion and Vedanta. Shaivites and BhedaBhedins tried to murder Sri Ramanuja when He stated that only Vishnu is supreme. Was Sri Ramanuja 'sectarian' in condemning other faiths and calling them ajnanis? Nope. He was telling it like it is.

That is the problem. I have presented my case very coherently, with ample support from Scripture. Unfortunately, you, and the rest of the Hare Christnas have not done the same. Scriptures advise intolerance to wrong knowledge. That is very much a fact. Upanishads say that the path to right knowledge is walking on a razor's edge. Hence, you need to confirm what you believe with scriptural quotes. Instead, you, theist, and the rest adopt a 'holier-than-thou' man of the world type of attitude, which really doesn't do much for you. Or, you simply quote Srila Prabhupada's words, which aren't pramana. Depends on how you view Him.

Hmm...Allright!! OK. Then you say He is not a myth. Which means, Krishna came in Mathura, Rama came in Ayodhya, the Vedas, Ithihasas and Puranas were written in Bharatavarsha (Well..Vedas are apaurusheya, though). Vyasa and Valmiki will be considered as divine sages by you. Which means, 1) you will have to accept the quote that only Bharatavarsha is punya bhumi, 2) All avatars have only come in India, 3) Sages say that Hari never violates Sastra, so it also confirms that He has only taken avatars here, and not in Germany, Switzerland or Jerusalem. Reason why He did this? Heck, He's Brahman. The world is His, who are we to question Him!! Amlesh, my intention is not to hurt your feelings. I am simply trying to make people understand what Vaisnavism is. For instance, Theist's average beliefs go like this, - Vedas are difficult to understand, so we discard them. - Puranas and Ithihasas are myths and allegories, not real. Despite Vyasa calling it history. - Krishna is real, but His pastimes are simply not historical. - Jesus really came, really did miracles, really got crucified and he was a devotee of Krishna, maybe even a purna avatar. Although there is no sastric basis for this. - Anybody who disagrees (100% of all knowledgeable Vaishnavas) is sectarian. I have nothing against your beliefs. No matter how ridiculous a belief, an individual has his rights. I only don't want you to call your belief as the definition of Vaishnavism, because it is not.

Funny, two vegetables calling me one. So far, no sane person has ever been able to make sense of your posts. Jesus is a Vaishnava, I am a Vaishnava, but Krishna is a myth, but Krishna's form is real, but Church is a worship ground for Vishnu, Puranas are allegorial myths but I accept them, Vyasa is small-minded but a great rishi, personal experience is more important than Veda.... Thanks for the laughs. This is a great thread.

So tell me, do you still think Vishnu is different from Krishna, or that Lakshmi was not in the Rasa Lila? Pathetic.

How sad. You still haven't gotten the point. Some people believe that the same god is responsible for all religions, and that all religions are therefore legitimate. Unfortunately, Vedanta does not allow this. It is a lovely thought, but the Vedas are against it. So, if you believe all paths lead to the same goal, you are not a Vaishnava. That is Neovedantic thinking. If all paths were same, one would wonder why Vedantins debated with just about everybody. And if you can worship any sort of structure (such as a church) as a temple, then why would Lord Narayana go to the trouble of preaching the Pancharatra for 5 nights running, elaborating exactly how He is to be worshipped? Again, you are not under compulsion to accept all this. Just do not call yourself a Vaishnava. Coming to Theist's ridiculous views, he holds that God cannot just come to India because it becomes partial. However, the fact is, nobody knows the mind of Brahman. We cannot dictate to Him as to how He must behave. Sastras clearly and coherently say that the avatars of Vishnu, right down to Buddha, came in India. Theist also would say, 'how did Ravana have 10 heads'? So, it must be a myth. OK, if you are not a Vaishnava, I won't argue. However, Ramayana is a sacred text for Vaishnavas. It is a historical account of Lord Rama coming to Earth, particularly Bharatavarsha. So, a true Vaishnava accepts Valmiki's account regardless. This isn't patriotism on my part. If scripture talked about Jerusalem, I would probably glorify it. So, two options lie ahead - Accept the Lord as coming down to Bharatavarsha and be a Vaishnava. Reject the Ithihasas as myth, and say you are not a Vaishnava.

Theist, plainly put, you are a prize idiot. So, Vyasa is small minded? Nobody is 'chosen'. But the Lord, for some reason, chose a strip of Land that turned out to be mordern day India. Why did He do it? Can you really question Him? After all, this is the Brahman who creates this gigantic universe and yet becomes delighted when someone offers Him a flower!! It is indeed strange that the Lord picked Bharatavarsha. But then, Ithihasa means 'That which happened TRULY'. Meaning, Valmiki saw Rama building a bridge from India to Sri Lanka, and wrote it down. Vyasa saw Lord Krishna in Mathura, and wrote it down. And so on. You either accept this and be a Vaishnava, or reject it as myth and say you are not a Vaishnava. Simple. Now, I have substantiated everything with pramanas. 1) I showed why Christianity is a nastika religion for Vaishnavas, 2) I showed why one cannot violate Pancharatra and go to a church and worship Vishnu, 3) I have provided pramana from Vishnu Purana, along with a quote from an eminent Vaishnava about Bharatavarsha's sanctity. I have also demonstrated that no Vaishnava, loyal to his tradition, considers the avatars of the Lord a myth. Which means, a prerequisite to being a Vaishnava is to accept that the Lord historically descended in India. However, I have remained absolutely fair. I have only said Vaishnavas do not to Christianity. I wouldn't go to a Christian and say Jesus was useless. Only Hare Christnas. Irrefutable points. All Theist and cBrahma have done so far is chant 'sectarian' x times. Hey, looks to me like they have been chanting that word more times than they do Krishna's name. Bottom Line - Our sastras say Hari came to Mathura, not anywhere else. Last time I looked, Mathura was in India. Now, you are free to reject it as myth. Are you saying that you do not accept what Parasara Muni says in Vishnu Purana? If so, you are not a Vaishnava. The thread is not discussing about Vaishnavism's authenticity. Its discussing about what is Vaishnavism. Puranas are accepted even by mordern Vaishnava scholars. And it says Bharatavarsha is Punya Bhumi. I have given pramana from an authentic text. Its up to you to accept or reject. Quite right. If you are a true christian, I wouldn't interfere with your beliefs. Stop trying to bring Christianity into Vaishnavism. I am afraid you are in a minority there, dude. I'd like to know how long your Jesus-is-a-Vaishnava cult has stayed alive. About 40 years old? You are supposed to let go of Shiva, Durga, Kali, Brahma, etc. What to speak of Jesus, Popeye, Mickey Mouse and the Sandman? Theist has no idea of what Vaishnavism is, nor do his buddies. All they can do is prattle on about achieving the 'transcendental bliss of Krsna Consciousness in the realm of the Supreme Personality of Godhead with Jesus as the pure devotee of Father Krsna'. Sorry, this isn't Vaishnavism.

On a cordial note, just understand that I never called you tamasic or anything. I don't have the right to judge other jivas. I am merely stating that Vedic Scripture recognises such kinds of worship as tamasic. It is high time people actually understood what Vaishnavism is. And stop making their own theories. Next thing you know, there will be a 'Theist Sampradaya'.

I am afraid so. Worshipping both Shiva and Vishnu equally is tamasic, so worshipping Vishnu from the lens-view of an unvedic religion is tamasic. This is not said to offend anyone. I am merely pointing out the Vaishnava tenet. If you say you are not a Vaishnava then, of course, you can disown this explanation. One needs to differentiate 'sectarianism' and 'truth'. Destroying false knowledge is recommended by the Lord. That is why Vedantins are fierce debators.

Once again, you are ignoring sastric injunction and formulating your own opinion. The Lord does grant freedom, but He has organised only one path. That is Vaishnavism. Bhakti without Vedic knowledge will not bear fruit. Therefore, Christians may try whatever they want, Hesychasm, Jesus Prayer, hail Mary, but no matter what the Bhakti is, it is not endorsed by Veda. Little realisation may occur, of some personal kind, but that is simply because Narayana wishes to keep them on the path of theism. God became flesh, etc. is also not Vedic, as such, just like Shaivism, it is condemned. Shaivites have some lovely methods of worship, but we do not go and pray with them. Same for Christianity.

That is what you don't understand. A Vaishnava should never go to a Shiva temple and worship Vishnu. Because the temple has been consecrated against the injunctions of the agamas, with the notion that Shiva is supreme. Hence, it will not yield fruit. Similarly, a Church is not consecrated based on Pancharatra agama, and certainly is not in line with Veda. While it is a religion for ajnanis, no Vaishnava should step into a church and worship Vishnu. Bhagavan asks you to follow Veda. Churches, Mass, Trans-substantiation, etc. are nastika rituals, as they are not in line with Veda. Austerities that are performed without Vedic injunction is tamasic, no matter what the devotion is.

Dude, you still fail to get the point. If there was a westerner, african, european, etc. who followed Vaishnavism as it should be, ie, worship of Vishnu, without bringing in all these 'universal hippie' nonsense, rejecting nastika religions, etc. I would prostrate before his lotus feet. Recently, an Australian convert to Sri Vaishnavism came here to give a discourse on the Gita. I certainly have no problems with him. I only have issues against Jesus fanboy-Pseudo-Vaishnavas.

Please, not that again. We are not discussing bhakti here. Certainly, I wouldn't call myself as a perfect Vaishnava, just a Ramanuja Dasan. You obviously do not get my point. Vaishnava is one who worships Vishnu. Not 'Divine Person', 'Random Unknown God', etc.

Actually, I'd say Gnosticism is more advaita than Buddhism. Advaita minus the theory of an unreal world and Saguna Brahman worship. In any case, it was men who chose what gospel is authentic and what is not. So, really, we have no idea of who Jesus was. It takes a great stretch of imagination to ignore the fact that Jesus never talked about Veda or Hari, that he may have been an advaitin, or that he may have worshipped Shiva as supreme, etc. and proclaim that he was a Vaishnava. By Occam's Razor, a theory that makes minimum assumptions wins. I assume that Jesus was not a Vaishnava, because of the lack of evidence. When we define Vaishnavism, we think of acharyas like Sri Ramanuja, Sri Madhva and even Sri Chaitanya. I do not remember any of them telling their disciples to consider our Puranas as allegory. The whole reason Vaishnavism is against Shaivism is because Hari Katha is sanctifying and can provide moksha. The sanctity of Hari Katha is because it is a historical account of the Lord's lila. If we were to consider it as allegory, Sri Ramanuja wouldn't have advised us to not read Shiva Purana and other works. For us, God has 4 hands, dark blue complexion, rests on a snake bed, etc. You, of course, have the liberty to call our belief as foolish or immature. You do not, however, have the right to claim that you are a Vaishnava who does not believe in the historicity of scripture. You also have the liberty to consider Jesus as son of Vishnu. Just don't say that you are a Vaishnava. Just like there are people who worship Vishnu along with other devas, Hare Christnas also fall into that category. All these people are not Vaishnavas. Vaishnavism does not mean 'Universal Bhakti to Unknown Personal God'. It means 'Worship of Vishnu'. Only Vishnu. EDIT: Here is what Sri Velukkudi Swami has to say on the Vishnu Purana issue. You asked me to tell you when I met a real Vaishnava, remember? "Bharata desam is the karma bhumi as mentioned in Sri Vishnu puranam.It is only here that all sastric deeds bear fruits in moksham. I remember to have read somewhere that once Indian Prime Minister Sri Lal Bahadur Sastri landed in China along with a few vedic scholars. The then Chinese Premier Mr. Mao Tse Tung greeted them along with chinese scholars. He had conveyed the belief in china to our Prime Minister - "To take birth in Bharat is the penultimate step to attaining salvation." Now, call this foolish or stupid. In his discourse, Swami elaborated on this and said clearly that the lord, for some reason, has chosen only this strip of land to take avatars, and has not gone anywhere else. He ended the discourse by saying that only Hari knows why He chose this land.

Nope. Sorry. Ask any learned Vedantin and he will tell you what it means. According to Vedic tradition, Bharatavarsha is the Punya Bhumi for cleansing karmas. If you are a Vaishnava, you have to believe in the historicity of the Puranas and Ithihasas. Please stop ducking the issues. I see. And what 'missing links' are they? Shaivism has a tradition of Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Jnana Yoga and Saranagati to Shiva. Are you even aware that there are Shaivites who follow the Gaudiya Philosophy of Achintya Bheda Abheda? There is no proof that the Christian god is Hari. Heck, Jesus in the gnostic gospels sounds like an advaitin. Once again, you are simply harboring assumptions. The concept of original sin, etc. is Unvedic. Furthermore, the religions rely on the personal experience of Jesus or Mohammed, which is opposed to Vedanta. Vedantins do not accept personal experience as a valid pramana. In any case, Vishnu Purana has completely negated any sort of 'divinity' for unvedic characters.