Dark Warrior

The title of this thread is 'Christianity and Vaishnavism'. The thread starter says that Jesus was a Vaishnava and that those who don't accept christianity as a legitimate path are sectarian.

Yes, I would say many people in this forum are of this view.

Obviously, a Vaishnava would consider all Christians as following a wrong faith. Did you expect Sri Ramanuja to say that Shiva or Brahma can give moksha? Nope. In fact, Sri Ramanuja went so far as to say Shaivites have tamo guna.

And obviously, a Christian would say Vaishnavism is false.

So, all I am saying is, choose a faith, or remain non-committed. Don't say you are a Vaishnava who believes that Jesus will save you, or that all Vaishnavas should accept Christianity.

1) Parasara Muni clearly says in Vishnu Purana, that bharatavarsha is punya bhumi. So that negates any idea of Vishnu sending prophets to the middle east. Although yes, bhagavan can do some things that violate sastras, He never does it. Because, He feels that if He stays within sastras, His devotees will have more faith in them.

2) Shaivites call Shiva as Supreme God, and Shaktas call Devi as Supreme. If Jesus was a Shaivite or a Shakta, He would consider Shiva or Devi as supreme. Hence, Christianity becomes a sect of Shaktism or Shaivism.

Therefore, Vaishnavism is not Christianity, and the latter is also not Vaishnavism.

Realised on which God?

If its Vishnu, Good. But we have no proof.

If he was sent by Shiva, he is a Shaivite prophet. Which means, he is as unvedic as Shaivism.

There you go.

I'm not sarcastic but may be illogical. I admit about what you've said about Veda, but it's not a text to be decoded so easily. From time to time sages come to explain those texts according to time and circumstances and in a limited way. It happens because not everybody can understand the Vedas perfectly in this material world.

Haha...That's what Neovedantins say. If Veda was so difficult to understand, then what's the purpose of their existence?

You do not accept the Vaishnava acharya's explanations of the Veda, so you say it cannot be understood. I feel I certainly get its message. So does Sri Ramanuja. If nobody could understand the Veda, then there would be no Vedantic system.

True, but that does not mean we should despise them and force them to learn something which is not to their calibre. It will be detrimental for them.

When did I say that? I am simply asking people to be either christians or Vaishnavas. Do not mix the two and say one god gave both Bible and Veda. Vaishnavas believe Vishnu did not give Bible, Christians believe Jesus did not give Veda. Simple as that.

My friend, I just don't want you to confuse Vaishnavism with Christianity. They are poles apart. Unknown to Hare Krishnas, even the basic methodology of Surrender is different.

True again, but in some way or the other they are praying to those ones who are dear to God only. For e.g., Shiva is very dear to Hari, Buddha is an incarnation to Hari and so on. I know that what you would expect from a Vaishnav is far much higher than than of a Christian and Shaivate. But that's the rule in the material world you can never get real followers of Hari at one go in this material world. It is a settled rule, confirmed by Hari himself.

Shiva is a Vedic God. Shaivism is an unvedic religion. There is a difference.

Similarly, Advaita is not the philosophy of the Upanishads. But the Advaitic tradition is Vedantic.

Jesus did what he can, I can never blame him for that. Infact i respect Him for that. I know for the followers of Jesus, it's mighty long and winding road but it's like that.

Jesus may have been a swell chap, a kind fellow, but there's no way you can drag him into Vaishnavism and say that he provided a legitimate way.

As concerning me, I know that I'm not a Vaishnava. I'm always in search of one.

Thank You!!

And for sure I never mix Vaishnava with Christianity. Vaishnavism is the Universal set and Christianity is an element of it.

Christianity is not an element. It is simply too far apart.

My dear friend, I was simply saying that Vaishnavas do not consider Christianity as a true path. If you feel Christianity is the truth, please follow it.

There are more than those two. Sri Parasara Bhattar, Sri Pillai Lokacharya, Sri Manavala Mamunigal, etc.

For that matter, I highly respect Sri Madhva as well. His works are certainly superior to Bhaktivinoda's anyday.

Oh wait, Chaitanya came in Madhva's dream as well, right?

Don't think I am disrespecting Bhaktivinoda. Since you say he was a great devotee, I have taken your word for it(I don't know, really) and haven't said anything offensive. I am merely saying though, that he may have been a devotee who strayed off the beaten path.

Dark is very compassionate, he wants each and everyone on this earth to attain Moksha at one go, which is my wish also, but we are not in Alice in wonderland.

Sarcasm without substance is useless, Amlesh. Vedanta is based on logic, reasoning, and most importantly, Veda. Not any other text.

What you've said is true Dark, but the other routes if properly followed will lead some day or the other to Vishnu. It's a matter of the level of consiousness of every individual.

An animal or a plant is destined to get moksha. The only sastra given by the Lord is the Veda. Hence, following the Nitya Karmas as prescribed in Veda is the duty of all Astikas.

Those who do not follow these duties are Nastikas. Lord Vishnu did not give the Bible, trust me. Hence, Christians, along with Shavities, Buddhists, etc. are Nastikas.

If all personal religions were Astikas, its ironic that Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva accepted Advaita, Impersonalism as Vedantic, although rejecting it as a path for moksha. Yet, they condemned personal Shaivism as Nastika.

They will get moksha when they get a better birth. Christianity is not an authentic path. Its the Jiva who gets Moksha due to his own svarupa, as sesha to the Lord Narayana.

EDIT: Btw, no reason to get upset or argue, Bija and Amlesh. I am only telling you what traditional Vaishnavism is. If you finally accept that you are NOT Vaishnavas, I wouldn't be arguing with you. I have Christian friends as well, and I don't argue with them.

Just don't mix Vaishnavism with Christianity. You can certainly believe every path is right. Unfortunately, Vaishnavism does not say that.

Ok...I am open to that comment. Can you give your reasoning please?

After that lengthy explanation, you still don't get it, do you? Proper Jnana leads to Moksha.

The Bhagavad Gita says that deva worshipping does not lead to moksha. Similarly, a Christian or Muslim who does not know who Vishnu is or what His lilas are, will not get moksha despite his devotion. He may 'experience' something, but that is simply because of the Lord's grace. That 'experience' is nothing compared to true jnana.

Same goes for all cults, from Paganism to Rastafarianism to Taoism to Buddhism. Heck, a person meditating on the Flying Spaghetti Monster may claim to be a devotee, but he won't get moksha.

Bija, I do not care about your personal beliefs. Elaborate posts on pseudo-intellectual stuff about experience and flowery diagrams is not Vedanta. I am merely trying to tell you what is Vedanta. If you are opposed to this, or hold an alternate opinion, it means you do not belong to the Vedantic (or Vaishnavite) tradition, and hence, have no right to assert your beliefs.

I am not asking you to change your belief. Just avoid associating the tradition of Vedanta with this stuff. You can believe that Jesus and Mohammed will lead you to Moksha, if you want, because that's your independence.

Thakura also said Chaitanya appeared in Sri Ramanuja's dream and told him to preach 'dasya rasa', so I don't feel inclined to take the words of a 19th century guru over my acharyas.

Yes, I did come back for a 'look-see'.

We each experience God tangibly in various ways. For some, devotion has awakened them to a spiritually vibrant world, and as human birth is rare, they utilize that experiential encounter in application to find the truth. That experience, which is centered on bhakti to the Divine Person, is not limited in anyway. It is universal. By God's mercy that encounter can awaken even without scripture (even if rare). Contact with a sadhu can make that occur.

That is sadly, again off the mark, Bija. By experience, an Advaitin can claim the world is false. By experience, a Shaivite can claim Shiva is Supreme, etc. Vedanta is opposed to this sort of 'relying on experience'. The Veda is authority. What it says, goes.

Bhakti can occur to Shiva, Durga, Jesus, Popeye, Mickey Mouse, etc. Lord Krishna does not say that a person without Jnana cannot feel Bhakti. He says, that Bhakti without Jnana is useless.

There are Shaivite bhaktas who have tortured themselves in agony for Shiva. Yes, it is the same Lord Vishnu in their hearts, who causes them to be that devoted to Shiva. But their bhakti will not lead to moksha, according to Vaishnavite theology.

Similarly, a person may believe Jesus is god and exhibit 'bhakti'. The Lord will accept the bhakti, but he will not give the christian moksha. You may ask, why then does the Christian experience Bhakti? because, the Lord does not want anybody to be a nastika. A little devotion will lead to a birth where you know the truth.

If you are a Vaishnava, then that 'divine person' is Narayana. A person who has bhakti to a 'divine person' without understanding it to be Narayana is said to be in ajnana.

Sometimes, the Lord reveals Himself for no reason at all, as He did to the Alvars. The Alvars did not read scripture, yet the Prabandham is considered to hold all truths of the Veda.

Therefore, Bhakti in Christianity is useless. It will never lead to Moksha, although a good Christian will get a better birth.

God is one my friend. Your tradition has elaborated deeply on who God is. The bible sheds little light on that...and the christian would say Jesus is the image of God made man.

Correct. God is One. Narayana. Paths to know Him? One again, according to Vaishnavism. Just because He loves all jivas does not mean he accepts all the manufactured religions they throw at Him.

Very nicley presented.

 

You are very fortunate to have born in South India.You can read the Divya Prabhandham written in tamil.I am also very much attached but not able to find any source from where i can get all these either in English or Hindi.

 

Any way your posts are worth reading.

 

pranaam

Thank you, Guliaditya. I wish more people understood what I am saying. It appears as though Kali Yuga makes truth appear to be undesirable, after all.

Rest assured, I have no love for country or land. Its the Lord's lilas that I care about. Scripture says Bharatavarsha, and that's the way it is. I could care less about India's state of affairs, but I do care about Srirangam, Tirupati, etc.

Bija, much of your post is simply gibberish. Sorry to be rude, or plain. You are no different from the Neovedantins who claim, 'every path is same'. Vaishnavism clearly says, 'ONLY devotion to Hari will lead to moksha'. Of course, Lord may give moksha sometimes to Christians or muslims for no reason at all, but that is just due to His grace. The right path is Vaishnavism.

Now, you are free to accept it or reject it. Just don't say, you are a vaishnava and claim other 'spiritual paths' are not a burden. These so-called secularists may find this indigestible, but what I say is not based on sectarianism. The very reason Vaishnavas have furiously debated with other schools is because we believe only the right knowledge liberates. Destruction of Ajnana is essential. Brahma Sutras advise inquiry, not secularism.

Do I sound dogmatic? maybe. But this is the basic tenet of Vaishnavism. The Upanishads clearly condemn the 'all paths lead to Rome' nonsense. Only knowledge of Brahman as He really is, is true knowledge.

Sure, We don't condemn christians to hell. We simply say, they, along with ajnanis, need more births. That's all.

If christians say theirs is the only way, then the obvious solution would be to find out which systems have all the answers. Its Vedanta that's rational.

And Christianity is a burden to true realisation, just like Shaivism, Buddhism, etc. are. Vishnu forbids worship of devas. Let alone Christianity. Vaishnavas claim to have defeated a dozen religions in debate. How long do you think it would take to disprove silly faiths like Christianity (Gnostic or Traditional)?

Bija and co., you are free to follow your beliefs. Just, for goodness sake, refrain from misinterpreting true Vaishnavism, or our scripture. The usual knee jerk responses of 'lookee here, Dark Warrior is sectarian' doesn't hold soap, when even Sri Ramanuja has condemned Shaivites as Tamo Gunis.

Now, I really will leave this thread.

Yes. I would choose your understanding for one reason Dark...I have seen the fruit of faith in what you say. Even if my encounter is of a mystical bent. My faith says presently, Vyasa penned these literatures to open us to reality. So in that sense I would accept the tradition and aspire to be Vaisnava.

Mine is not just hinged on 'faith'. I have a knowledge of the major belief systems in the world, and noticed that Vedanta is the most intellectual and freedom allowing belief system to follow. I also noticed that Vaishnavism is the clearest exposition of Vedanta.

Having accepted this system as the best, it follows logically that one should accept everything that this faith offers. Hence, it is no blind faith, but rather, rational to accept the Avatars of the Lord as historical.

Here is a definition of Rahasya for those who may not know:

"a profound subject that is instructed by the guru and that is required to be known by those with great faith"

That is not what I meant by 'Avatara Rahasya'. It refers to the inner meanings of the Lord's pastimes.

For instance, few know the real purpose of Trivikrama's avatara. It was not to scale the world and defeat Mahabali. The Lord measured the Earth for the sole purpose of ensuring that each and every jivatma gets contact with His divine feet in the process. He blessed every single Jiva that day with His feet. This is the reason why He rose as Trivikrama and conquered the material vibhuti. Defeating Bali was just an excuse, a lila.

We would definitely have been present even at that time in some form or other, as a microbe, plant or animal. Certainly, we received the touch of Trivikrama's lotus feet then.

This is Avatara Rahasya.

And you wonder why people like cBrahma are saying that they feel as though their spiritual process is lacking (the thread on 'chanting')? Its because they have not let go of their attachments yet. And with this, I end further participation in this thread.

Notice the immediate response, 'Sectarian', as usual. The question is not about whether Vaishnavism is sectarian or not. The question is, whether you really accept Vaishnavism or not? Vishnu Purana is authentic and authoritative.

It appears as though people tend to question our scripture if they find their sentiments opposed. Like it or not, Matsya, Kurma....Kalki, etc. all take avatara in India. You accept this, you are a Vaishnava. You do not, then you are not a Vaishnava, Simple as that.

No Vaishnava considers the Lord's avatars as allegories. Avatara Rahasya is an important part of our tradition, ie, the Lord descends to mingle with us. Why He chose this little strip of land is a reason known only to Him.

It cannot be denied that the greatest knowledge, the Veda, is found in India. It also cannot be denied that philosophy had reached a peak in India more than any other country.

I am aware of people claiming that Bhagavatam was authored in the 8th century. Its rubbish. The fact is, South India has been the birthplace of the Alvars, Sri Sankara, Sri Ramanuja, Sri Madhva, Sri Nimbarka. So, tell me, does the Bhagavatam place importance to South India because it predicted these great philosophers, or was the Bhagavatam written after they were born?

I tend to take the former view.

The Bhagavatam says that great Narayana Devotees will be born near the rivers Tamra Parni, Palar, Vaikai, etc. Sri Vaishnavas believe it to be a prediction of the Alvars. Sri Nammalvar was born near Tamra Parni. Andal and Perialvar were born near vaikai. Kulasekhara Alvar was born near Palar, etc.

The Divya Prabandham is not just a Bhakti text. It contains intricate details on philosophy. It is a common chant among Sri Vaishnavas, that in order to fully understand the first 17 lines of Sri Nammalvar's Thiruvaimozhi, one needs to have a basic knowledge of over 6 Indian Philosophical Systems at first.

In the Vishnu Purana, Sri Parasara Muni clearly says that bharatavarsha is alone the punya bhumi for this epoch. Karmas can be cleansed only here, and nowhere else. What this means is that, the Supreme Being for some reason has taken avatars ONLY in Bharatavarsha, and nowhere else.

Check the Purana for the sanskrit sloka if you wish. I heard this in a discourse.

Now, why would Brahman be so partial? Who knows? Maybe next yuga He will choose America or Africa. But if you are a Vaishnava, you need to accept what Sri Parasara Muni says. And that means, Jesus, Mohammed, Little Red Riding Hood and Black Mask are not Vaishnavas.

ISKCON is simplified Vaishnavism. However, ISKCON by no means represent the core tradition of Vaishnavism. Come to Sri Vaishnavism, and we have over 108 temples, festivals every day of the year (each having a deep significance), worship of many avatars of Vishnu, divining deep meanings from Sastra like Ramayana, Mahabharata, Vedas, Puranas and Prabandham, and difference in worship of each Archa Vigraha.

No ISKCON member, or very few, have actually cared about the meanings of Ramayana or Vishnu Sahasranama. Without touching the deep aspects of Vaishnavism, people like Theist make these stupid threads.

Hence, I don't feel I need to argue over this. If Theist insists on this nonsense, let him. I have already said everything I need to say.

So it appears from the quote above that someone considers "true advaitins" as something other than advaitins, apparantly even vaisnavas. Advaitin means they don't accept a Supreme personal God with Spiritual form as do the Dvaitins. Hence the name Advaitin. We supposedly have them confused with Neo-Advaitins. Makes no sense to me

What this person knows about Vaishnavism can fit into the surface area of a pinhead. Christianity, which is not even close to Vedanta, is Vaishnavism, but a classical Vedantic tradition is apparently 'Demonic' to him.

First Theist needs to learn what Advaita really is. At the Vyavaharika Level, Isvara possesses all attributes, and Sankara considered this Isvara to be Vishnu.

Neovedanta is not classical advaita. It is a free-thinking establishment that simply borrows from Advaita. Unfortunately, majority of advaitins today are of the neovedantic frame of mind.

What is with this term Neo-Advaita? Even if you are correct and Shankaracharya was a Vaishnava, his followers have been worshiping Shiva and Devi for years. This isn't a new development.

Wrong-o. Only after the 16th century did demigod worship creep into Advaita. Read Sankara's bhashya. According to him, Vasudeva is the Saguna Brahman, and hence, only worship of Vishnu will be effective for meditation. He condemns meditation on deities like Rudra, Agni, etc. Perhaps, it can be said at best, that Adi Sankara revered Saraswati, due to her knowledge, but he never compromised on Vishnu Sarvottama.

The early Advaitins were all Vaishnavas. Later on, due to some reasons, Advaita aligned with Shaivism. Even the rituals of the samrta Brahmins begin with Narayana Smaranam. Sankaracharya organised NO rituals for his followers that included worship of Shiva or Devi.

In fact, the great Sri Vaishnava, Sri PB Annangrachariar, placed all these facts before Chandrasekhar Saraswati of Kanchi Mutt, and pretty much defeated him. This person was earlier claiming that Vishnu was not the supreme god.

ISKCON needs to learn more about 'mayavada'. In case anyone wishes to learn, please contact Sri Krishna Premi. He is a renowned Smarta (advaitin) Vaishnava, who has delivered excellent discourses on Ramayana, Gita, etc. Needless to say, he knows what his tradition really is.

In my opinion, a sincere 'mayavadi' > Theist. One should think, Theist misinterprets things more than the average advaitin.

One needs to understand the difference between mordern day Neovedantins and true Advaitins. A true advaitin would be one who believes that the world is unreal, that the Self is Brahman, etc. Now, technically, Nirguna Brahman is devoid of names, attributes, and anything else, but according to Sankaracharya (who translates 'Akshara' in Gita as Nirguna Brahman), in order to attain Moksha, one should first surrender to Saguna Brahman, who is technically unreal as well, but as real as the illusory state goes anyway (correct me if I am wrong). So, Sankara advocates surrender to Narayana ALONE (and no Devas).

Vishnu is the highest Saguna Brahman, and surrendering to Him in bhakti would cleanse a person of his false ego and ignorance and help him to attain the Ikyapathi Moksha (ie, identity).

Hence, at the Vyavaharika level, a follower of Sankaracharya is a Vaishnava. Just like there are Shaiva Dvaitins or Vishishtadvaitins, there are Vaishnava Advaitins.

So, a true advaitin, would agree that Vishnu is Supreme as far as the Vyavaharika level is concerned, and he would genuinely believe that Self alone exists, WITHOUT EGO. He would be humble, sincere and full of renunciation despite considering himself as Brahman. Therefore, while this path is totally wrong and the philosophy totally unattractive, the individual isn't 'sinful' or 'deadly'. Sure, the advaitin would be considered to have tamo guna, as the philosophy is wrong, but he will be humble, and generally devoid of ego.

It is the mordern advaitins who have completely veered off the path and become bloated with ego, thinking themselves as Brahman, and posing as intellectuals. An Advaitic Vedantin is, by the very term, a Vedantin. He simply disagrees with other Vedantins on the nature of Moksha. He may also not obtain moksha due to false knowledge of identity, but he should be given respect. He does NOT get egotistical. In summary,

True advaita - Self being Brahman is a natural thing, so no ego is ever nurtured. Nothing to be proud about.

Neovedanta - We are Brahman, so let us just act supercilious and make a big fuss about how spiritual we are. Oh, and say that every religion is true, but at the end, only advaita is correct. Courtesy of Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, etc.

Bhaja Govindam and Govindashtakam by Sri Adi Sankaracharya are classics. His philosophy is another matter, but on the whole, I certainly have no problem listening to nama sankirtanam by sincere advaitins. Adi Sankara was most definitely a Vaishnava.

First of all, Chinmayananda is useless. He follows Advaita, and even does not stick to it properly. He also does not accept that Reincarnation is a fact and has a massive inferiority complex.

It is true that Shruti is extremely difficult to understand. But that is the reason we have acharyas who have given us the correct meaning. Vyasa was not dissatisfied with what he received from Shruti. He was simply afraid that others wouldn't understand what he understood from Shruti.

Vedanta does not mean 'End of Veda'. There is no end to Veda, which is apaurusheya. It means 'Goal of Veda'.

The Brahma Sutras, Puranas, etc. are composed as an aid to understand Shruti. Ironically, Adi Sankara has a tougher time with the Brahma Sutras than with Upanishads, when it comes to proving Advaita!!

If you do not prove your point in Shruti, you won't be accepted as a Vaidika, no matter how many Puranas and Ithihasas you quote. The genius of our acharyas is their ability to prove that Smriti is concordant with Shruti.

No offense.

EDIT: To the challenge that only 2 dozen people know the Veda and 3 dozen know the Brahma Sutra, that was certainly the case, but only BEFORE the time of Vaishnava Acharyas. Sri Ramanuja's bhashya for me is sufficient to understand what the Sutras and Upanishads say about my relationship with the Lord, etc.

And the Veda is certainly in use. I perform vedic rituals like Sandhyavandanam daily. And Vedas are recited in every temple of Lord Vishnu, an age old practice.

DOUBLE EDIT:

am feeling incomplete, though myself I am fully equipped with everything required by the Vedas. This may be because I did not specifically point out the devotional service of the Lord, which is dear both to perfect beings and to the infallible Lord'."

There you go. Vyasa was not saying study of Veda is incomplete. He was unhappy that he had not helped others to understand it properly. However, Vaishnava Acharyas have filled that void with Hari Sarvottama.

Bhakti to Hari is the theme of the Upanishads. Each and every one of those injunctions, 'Meditate on Brahman' is nothing but Bhakti. Vyasa was upset because he had understood this, but had not pointed it out.

That being said, Srimad Bhagavatam will suffice to understand the pastimes of Lord Narayana, the eternal. It cannot be given authority over Shruti, and certainly, one should never say Shruti is useless or incomplete...that is a-vaidika.

Freedom is allowed. Hari, Lord of the Universe, is compassionate. Although all religions do not lead to the same path, He doesn't get angry or upset with rajo or tamo gunis who lack jnana to understand Him. Rather, He, as the antaryamin, follows the jiva and guides Him through Samsara.

Vyasa was not satisfied with what he collected in the Vedas, arranged in the Puranas and composed in the Mahabharata....

Thakura is wrong here. If I have noticed something about BVT, He seems to be completely off-track on many issues. One can wonder if he was really focused on Krishna Bhakti, or was just another 'one-of-those-gurus'.

Vyasa initially wrote the Mahabharata to glorify Krishna, but he got sidetracked into elaborating the doings of princes in various dynasties. Vyasa felt that descriptions of Duryodhana's doings and rishis like Drona were unnecessary, and that only Kesava should have been the prime subject of the Mahabharata. Hence, to make amends, he composed the Bhagavata.

It is illogical to say Vyasa was not satisfied with what he collected from Shruti, because Shruti is apaurusheya. Vyasa simply compiled it and divided it for the benefit of the common man. Shruti is basically the only way one can establish legitimacy of Sri Hari's worship.

No book is without its errors.

The basic premise of Acharya Ramanuja and for that matter, Vaishnavas like Sri Adi Sankara and Sri Madhva, is that Shruti is completely free of defects and is apaurusheya. Mahabharata and Ramayana, along with Bhagavad Gita, Vishnu Sahasranama and the Sattvik Puranas are also affirmed to be free of defects, despite being Shruti. And not just Vaishnavas, some Nastika Matams also had regard for Veda in ancient India.

So, I don't know what in the blue blazes Bhaktivinoda was talking about here.

I think its best that we follow the age old teachings of Acharyas who have realised the scripture, rather than new age gurus like Bhaktivinoda Thakura who appear to have formulated their own opinions. Although I have high regard and respect for Srila Prabhupada, I certainly claim no affliation with Thakura's line.

In my humble opinion, having read some of the Chaitanya Upanishad, the portion of Navadvipa Dhama Mahatmya where Thakura says Sri Chaitanya appeared in Acharya Ramanuja's dream and told him to keep it a 'secret', etc., I feel that Bhaktivinoda was not above fabricating scripture. Of Course, no offense to any of his followers, but all this is certainly disturbing for other sampradayas.

The need for repentance, remorse and guilt are all vaisnava feelings.

They are also Shaiva feelings, as even Shaivites surrender to Shiva. And we do not call them Vaishnavas.

Mea Culpa is different from Vaishnava philosophy. Vaishnavas accept that they have sinned due to Karma, but we do not accept that the Jiva's svarupa itself is sinful (Christianity posits that man is innately sinful). Your brand of Christian Vaishnavism, of course, ignores that.

The prodigal son felt great shame and remorse for having left his Fathers estate and tried to find happiness away from that connection. ...blah, blah

We were never with Vishnu, we did not 'fall'. The Jiva is eternally in Samsara. There is only an end to Samsara, no beginning.

The whole philosophy of Vedanta is based on the fact that Brahman, Jivas and even insentient Prakrti are eternal. So, biblical tales of the Prodigal Son are restricted only to Theist's imaginations.

We of course are the prodigal son's of God. To return to our true glorious positions in our Fathers eternal estate we must also have our own personal Mea Maxima Culpa.

Sri Vaishnava theology accepts that repentance and admission is needed for Saranagati. But after performing the act of Surrender, one should never even worry about his past sins. He should feel secure and revel in the fact that its all up to the Lord now, and continue serving Him with confidence.

But what was our own grievious sin? Well the original sin of course. That moment when we experienced the urge to be the prime enjoyer forgetting Krsna.

Are you a self-professed 'Vaishnava', or a Christian evangelist? There is NO original sin in Vedanta. There is no beginning to Samsara. Kapish?

AnAditva is unique, and is what separates Vedanta from Western Philosophy. The reason many thinkers like Spinoza, Aquinas and the rest struggled to even define a 'soul' is because they did not have the useful tool of AnAditva.

Think long and hard on why we avoid the Supreme Person Krishna even as we chant and offer flowers our hearts are still somewhere else.

Coming from a guy who still lacks the very basic knowledge of Vaishnavism, and yet keeps asking all believers, 'Why did Ugrasena have a million bodyguards?'

The problem with this person is that, he hasn't taken his nose out of Srila Prabhupada's books, and discovered that there is more to Vaishnavism than the latter's translations of two books, vis, Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavata Purana.

Knowing this leaves me feeling very dry and empty. In fact it can be said that my Vaisnava spirit hasn't yet truly begun to awaken. I am still only considering the need for it to awaken.

He's got it right. So far, I don't even see a 'Vaishnava Spark' in him, let alone a 'Vaishnava spirit'. Just pompous posts full of self-professed 'knowledge' on matters he hardly knows a thing about.

Hopeless. That is there is no hope but Krishna's grace. And since His grace is unlimited hope springs eternal for all of us and that is reason to rejoice in spite our completely fallen status. The ONLY reason.

Since you have ignored me, my post will not be visible to you. I can only hope that others avoid your misinterpretations, by Krishna's Grace indeed. Which is the reason for my posts.

If one wants to understand the relation between Science and Vedanta, please do not look at ISKCON books. No offense, Srila Prabhupada is a great devotee, but misrepresentation of texts is a major problem with ISKCON.

If you think Sri Krishna is a fictional man, that what are you doing in a Hindu forum? Are you here to corrupt Hindus' mind with further evil from your own close-minded attitude? Most likely.

 

PS : Sri krishna is more real than Jesus. At least Hindus have found the city of Dwarka (both on land as well as the one submerged in the city) as well as follow Gita perfectly even so it have been 5,000 years. Jesus is a mythical figure, created by Romans in order to rope Romans who were leaving their society and becoming Christians.

That is not for us to say. We have no right to call Jesus a myth because its the belief of the Christians. All I am against is the theology of Hare Christnas, who seek to integrate Vaishnavism and Christianity.

Coming to the 'truth' or 'myth', every individual has a right to believe or disbelieve. No questions asked. If you wish to believe that Krishna is fictional, and that our scripture is a lie, its your independence, and I don't care about it. What I do not like is:

- Saying that the Mahabharata is historical, but that Krishna is a human who was deified. This sort of 'middle ground' is detestable. Either accept or reject...do not compromise scripture.

- Saying that so-and-so event is an allegory, even when Scripture calls it historical. Again, accept or reject...do not take this stupid 'middle ground'.

The reason why I am against these two positions is as follows - The deeds of the Lord are intertwined with Philosophy. For instance, Krishna lifting the Govardhana is not a mundane 'miracle' to show proof of His divinity...it demonstrates how the Lord protects those who surrender to Him (the residents of Gokula). Krishna multiplying Himself and playing with Gopis is also not a magic trick...again, it shows the accessibility of the Lord, that He loves to mingle with people. Krishna killing Kalinga is not a display of prowess to make people worship Him...it is to show that He is always there for His devotees.

Some people say, that these acts are simply allegorical and only illustrate that God is merciful. Unacceptable because, if the Lord is so eager to mingle with us, He will really do it, rather than giving us useless allegories. If He is merciful, He will personally come down to show His mercy, rather than giving us myths to show how merciful He is.

If you say it is allegory and not real, you are a closet atheist. The Lord is not so lazy that He stays up in the sky and sends us myths to show how personal He is. If He is all that we think He is, then He takes avatara ONLY for us.

If you are a so called Vaishnava who thinks it is allegory and yet embraces Vaishnavism, then why did our acharyas prevent Vaishnavas from worshipping Shiva, or readng Shiva Purana? After all, an alllegory is an allegory...so, differentiating between fictional deities is not even needed. Hence, this position is negated.

The second position of saying, 'Krishna was a man who was deified' also is refuted. Let us take an example. Suppose it is proven that Jesus was not crucified, or that he did not walk on water, etc...or that Mohammed did not climb a rope ladder to heaven. Does it really affect the message of the Bible or Koran? Jesus says 'Turn the other Cheek'. Is this dependant on his ability to walk on water or heal people? Nope. Even the Bible does not show Jesus as God. Therefore, even if we think of Jesus as a man, it does not reduce the message of the Bible.

Come to Krishna. If we say that He did not do all the things He did, then what happens? Firstly, the whole Gita needs to be ignored, because it is completely BASED on Krishna's divinity. The Vishnu Sahasranama, which calls Vishnu as the Son of Devaki, needs to be ignored. All the acts I mentioned above, that of Rasa Lila, killing Kalinga, lifting Govardhana, etc. will have to be ignored.

So, take away these divine acts, and what do we know of 'Krishna'? Absolutely nothing. While in the case of Jesus, we can conclude that a philosopher named Jesus indeed existed, who was deified, we cannot do that for Krishna. If we reduce Him to human, what really is there that we know of Krishna the person? Nothing. We can't even accept Him as a normal human who killed Kamsa and became a King, because even the killing of Kamsa is based on supernatural aspects of His birth and purpose.

Thus, you have two choices - Accept Krishna as God. Or reject Him as a myth. I choose the former. If anyone chooses the latter, I could care less. The middle ground, ie, that our scriptures are allegory, or that Krishna is a human, is untenable, especially if we consider that Veda Vyasa insists that everything is historical. Of course, we will still get some people repeating statements such as 'How did Ugrasena have a Million Bodyguards?', or 'How did Ravana have 10 heads?' like a broken tape recorder, without understanding the basics.

It is as my acharya, Sri Manavala Mamunigal said, 'Astikas (believers) are fine, and Nastikas (non-believers) are OK as well, because we know where the latter stand. However, the most dangerous group are the Astika Nastikas, ie, believers who preach the wrong message'.

No offense intended.

You are saying that it is possible that something is written by Vyasa in Mahabharata but it is wrong. As you yourself said, Mahabharat (an itihasa) is a better pramana than any purana (including sattvik).

And Shruti > Mahabharata. Thus, even wrong things in Mahabharata are rejected.

Therefore, if Vyasa could write something wrong in Mahabharata, it is possible that he wrote something wrong in a sattvik purana also?

Certainly. But both Vishnu and Bhagavata Purana are consistent with Shruti.

You have said earlier that if some verse in a sattvik purana contradicts shruti, then that verse should be rejected. Fine, no problem.

OK.

But consider a verse from a sattvik purana, which neither supports nor contradicts shruti. In other words, shruti does not say anything about it? Should we accept or reject? So far, you have been accepting it. But why can't it be wrong?

There is no such verse.

If Vyasa can write something wrong in sattvik purana, then even if some verse does not contradict shruti, it may be wrong.

If a verse does not contradict Shruti, then it is not wrong. Shortage of brain function here?

Padma Purana calls Shiva Purana as tamasic. Such a thing is nowhere there in shruti. So, why should we accept it?

Let's see - Padma Purana says, Shiva Purana lies, and is not consistent with Shruti.

We examine Shiva Purana. We find that it lies, and is not consistent with Shruti.

So, Padma Purana was correct. And Padma Purana is consistent with Shruti.

Hence, Guna Classification is right.

Moron, Shruti also does not say Lord will come to give us Gita. So, do we reject Gita as well? Shruti also does not say Bhishma will give Vishnu Sahasranama. Does that mean we reject it?

Do not say that it does not contradict shruti, so it is pramana. It does not contradict shruti, but it does not support shruti either.

Look at my earlier sentence, numbskull.

Since Shiva Purana contradicts Shruti, and Padma Purana says so, it means that Padma Purana is correct. And if we examine the core verses of Padma Purana, it is consistent with Shruti.

The guna classification is supported by the fact that Shiva Purana contradicts Shruti. Hence, it is accepted as authored by Vyasa, and all schools of Vedanta. No Advaitin, Mimamsa-kara, Vishishtadvaitin, Dvaitin or even Shaivites have ever quoted it.

We don't even need a guna classification. Why do you think Buddha's words, Bible and Koran are rejected? Because they are also not consistent with Shruti.

Avinash, I am not telling you to stop worshipping Shiva. Just refrain from blindly quoting Shiva Purana. If you have a belief, good. I am not going to hinder it.

I have said it 5 times already in this thread, but this time, I will mean it - I am out of here, really. I think I have done enough, and people who read this thread can make their own decisions. Really don't care what these fans of Shiva Purana say anymore.

Dark Warrior, I understand everything you say; it is just that I don't share your views or interpretations in their entirety. I do consider the Shvetashvatara Upanishad a Shaivite text because it refers to the Supreme Deity as Rudra and Shiva. I know you don't agree and I completely respect your opinion, although it differs from my own and that of many others. There are some who will agree with and there are many others who will agree with my views. We have to learn to live with that and perhaps try to learn from it.

Nobody really cares what you think. Who said I wanted to convert you? 4 years at Hindunet could not.

You have no knowledge of how to argue. Understand my point. I am not asking you change your opinions. But stop telling me that all Vaishnavas are 'sectarian' and stop attempting to define how Vedanta should be interpreted.

Express your belief. Stop calling it authoritative.

And to insult those who do not share your own view by calling them morons, bloody idiots, ignoramuses etc is in fact an archetypal sign of a one with a sectarian mentality. Again QED.

You note, that these morons, bloody idiots and ignoramuses are those who cannot get beyond BORI, Shiva Purana and other such texts.

You have the cheek to call me sectarian, when your understanding of the Vedic tradition of polemics is abysmal.

In truth this discussion is doing nothing for either of us is it? And it seems to be having a rather negative effect on our states of consciousness by inducing harsh words and angry sentiments. So I will withdraw from it now. I really will . Thank you again for your attention to what I have said.

Sentiments, huh?

Did I say it is doing something for us? No. So, go read your Svetasvatara Upanishad, do whatever you want. Just stop plaguing Vaishnavas with your ridiculous opinions.

Well it is hard to hold a discussion with an angry man (or woman ) but I am afraid I cannot accept your view of the Mahabharata. There are in existence a number of old manuscripts of the Sanskrit text and although these do differ there is still a very substantial core that is common to all. And I would prefer to regard this as the Mahabharata. It is what we have.

You are a prime idiot, Kimtadbrahma. Vaishnavas explained everything to you in Hindunet, yet you never really got their point. Instead, you kept calling their interpretations as 'sectarian'.

Whether Vyasa wrote it or not, it is rejected because it is against Shruti. Krishna came as Buddha and told us, 'do not worry about God'. We reject even His words if they are not in line with Shruti.

However, I don't expect you to understand, as you never understood it when the Dvaitins and Vishishtadvaitins explained it to you anyway.

Just to say that if it doesn't agree with my own interpretation of shruti it must be an interpolation is not an argument that convinces me. I am sorry if that makes you angry but that is the way it is.

- Your interpretation clashes with other portions of Shruti.

- My interpretation makes Shruti uniform.

Again, you brought up this same argument in Hindunet. Politely, they called you 'silly', I believe. Well, even 'silly' is too polite to describe you.

Whether verses that glorify Shiva were given by Vyasa or not does not matter. But since they contradict Shruti, they are simply aupacharika. Get that, Kimtadbrahma?

My reference to Robert Zaehner's translation was not meant to elevate Western scholars but just to show that people without an agenda (or even with a pro-Vaishnava agenda) for the most part share Shankara's view on the meaning of 11.15.

I see. So Kimtadbrahma has no agenda, but all Vaishnavietes have an agenda?

Robert Zaehner considers the Veda to have an origin. No Vedantin accepts such ludicrous views. So, shut it.

And 'for the most part', who shares Sankara's opinions? Shaivites, Advaitins and of course, non-entities like yourself and Zaehner. All 3 groups have no understanding of Shruti, they have all been defeated.

Note the arrogance? Casually dismisses Sri Ramanujar and Sri Madhvar's views for Sankara's? And why, because it suits his asinine opinions. He takes verses from Mahabharata, one verse from Sankara, ignores a major portion of Upanishads, and formulates his views.

Vaishnava view is consistent with Shruti and Smriti like Ramayana, Sattvik Puranas and the major part of Mahabharata. Rest of the verses are useless, and Smriti recommends discarding it.

So, he takes Sankara's view, ignores pramanas from Shruti, ignores the fact that no scholar has ever commentated on anything like Shiva Sahasranama (Only Vishnu Sahasranama is the essence of Veda), and force his opinion on others.

Again people will disagree but there is no malice intended; we are simply exchanging views and inevitably disagreements will arise. It is a shame if such exchanges lead us into anger and other lower states of consciousness.

Politely labelling every Vaishnava interpretation as 'sectarian', not being able to understand how Shruti should be interpreted, ignoring valid pramanas, calling paurusheya/corrupted scriptures as pramana over Shruti...all this is worse than any anger exhibited by a 'malicious' person.

Sorry, I missed one point. The cremation of a body of Krishna is mentioned in all the existing Sanskrit manuscripts of the Mahabharata as collected and published by the BORI scholars. Now you can say that it is just an interpolation but that is a bit of a soft argument. There are certainly ways in which a Vaishnava explanation can be given. If you just shout 'interpolation' every time something appears that contradicts preconceptions then anybody else can do the same.

So,let's see.

- Shruti, Gita say Krishna is Supreme.

- We know Gita and Shruti are in pristine form.

- We know Mahabharata is an interpolated text.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that it is an interpolation. No acharya has ever considered that Krishna is not God.

And you say anybody can call anything interpolation if I do so? Funny, because first they have prove their viewpoint from Shruti. Since they can't do that, theirs (and your) opinions are rendered invalid.

Even the Shaivites will condemn you for this. You are a bloody atheist, so I don't really care what you think.

I have discussed the Mahabharata with one excellent scholar from the Sri Vaishnava tradition who is based in Chennai. He seemed to have no problem in accepting the BORI Critical Edition and as I recall he used to work from it.

Moron, anyone can accept 'BORI' or 'Ganguli'. But only in light of Shruti. I'd like you to tell any Sri Vaishnava scholar like Sri Puttur Swami your ridiculous opinions that Shiva and Vishnu are one, or that Krishna was burnt. Let's see what happens.

Nobody uses BORI for debates, or to establish supremacy of a God. I'd like to know, exactly which 'Sri Vaishnava' Scholar 'works' from it? If he says Vishnu and Shiva are one with BORI as pramana, then he isn't a Sri Vaishnava.

Of course, you completely ignore what I said about Sri Puttur Swami, Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swami (whose website is so helpful) and about Shaivites like Appaya Dikshitar not using such pramanas.

Kimtadbrahma is just another fool with an agenda. And he has the nerve to call Vaishnavas sectarian, without knowledge of sastra.

Kimtadbrahma has been at this for 3-4 years on the net. If people go to Hindunet forums, you will see that he persistently labels Vaishnavas as 'sectarian', calls Svetasvatara Upanishad as 'Shaivite' and maintains this nonsense.

So, he is pretty much a useless character. No sense arguing with him.

Madhvacharya didn't 'stealthily omit verses' because he never produced an edition of the text to omit verses from. There is no 'Madhvacharya Mahabharata'. He wrote a work entitled 'Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya'. This is not a version of the Mahabharata but a work of his own that retells parts of the story along with incidents taken from the Bhagavata Purana and Harivamsha. Even including the expositions of Dvaita philosophy and the extras from elsewhere it only contains 5200 verses, which is just a fraction of the Mahabharata's content. So in that case he 'stealthily omits' over 90% of the Mahabharata. I hope this makes it clear.

Aren't you that loser named Kimtadbrahma from hindunet forums? I suspected as much. You had an agenda against the Dvaitins and Vishishtadvaitins there, and you are continuing that vein of ignorance here.

IF there was a verse that glorified shiva, and if that had been accepted by everyone, Vaishnavas would have explained it. But of course, a layman like you can never understand what exactly the Vaidika Sampradaya is.

Moron, I never said Madhva wrote the entire Mahabharata. I said, he used portions to explain the supremacy of Vishnu. Hence, verses glorifying Shiva are simply to be rejected.

Remember the cremation or burial thread? Where you were foolishly quoting Ganguli that Krishna was burnt. That reveals your stupidity. Gita is preferred to interpolated texts like Ganguli's Mahabharata. Krishna is God, not human.

Madhva explains that verses that say Shiva is supreme are meant to mislead. Hari Sarvottama is the whole purport of all texts.

Shruti says Vishnu is Supreme. We know that Vyasa originally wrote Mahabharata. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that nonsense like the Shiva Sahasranama are interpolations or, as mentioned, simply for rajasic/tamasic people. Of course, Kimfelix is simply an agnostic, so he will never understand this.

Shruti has also had interpolations. But Shruti has an advantage in the sense that the metre of hymns will fall if there is an interpolation, which means - nobody can properly get away with it.

Kimfelix, or give him the right name, Kimtadbrahma is brain dead. His posts in the other forum were also severly criticised by Vaishnavas there. His total lack of knowledge on what constitutes a pramana is the main problem here. This is why, our books should never be read without proper guidance. These people torture the texts and come up with ridiculous opinions.

It is also clear that he relies on indology to explain our texts. Since he apparently doesn't understand the apaurusheyatva of the Vedas, that explains his incompetence. Nobody gives a damn about western scholars. Nowonder Kimfelix is unable to understand anything...his inclination towards indology is clear.

And what you are saying is, a text, which has so many versions over the years, is a pramana over Shruti. So, I suggest you stop using BORI, Nilakantha and Ganguli as pramana if you want to gain credibility.

Again for the last time - Verses in Smriti that contradict Shruti are discarded as invalid. Is that so hard to understand? Have you ever heard of a Shaivite proving his point with Shiva Purana and Mahabharata, in ancient times?