RadheyRadhey108

So, I take it you don't believe in Krishna Lila, since we only know of it through Puranas (the Mahabharata covers some of it, but not all of it)? It's always nice to have a mleccha at Audarya.

I'm not sure about Jesus being an avatar. He isn't specifically mentioned in shastra, so I suppose that would be personal preference without shastric evidence for or against the belief. However, there is evidence in shastra that there is a Buddha avatara, and people still refuse to believe in Him.

Also, He was hardly known before His enlightenment. He made Himself (His appearance) known at Bodh Gaya. Before His enlightenment, He was just another prince among princes.

He made His appearance known in Gaya at BodhGaya, and His mother was often called Anjanaa since she was the daughter of King Anjana.

Haha Rather strange. I wonder where he even came up with the idea in the first place?

I don't think the Lord only has Sanskrit names. He has many names, and there are many Lokas for the devotees of these different names and forms (Vaikuntha for Lakshmi-Narayan worshippers, Goloka for Radha-Krishna worshippers, Ram-Rajya for Sita-Rama worshippers, etc...). For all I know there could be a Christ-Loka for Jesus worshippers or a Yahweh Loka for Yahweh worshippers (although I really wouldn't want to go there). But, the people who go to Yahweh Loka or Christ Loka wouldn't be Vaishnavas, since they wouldn't be recognizing Vishnu/Krishna or His avatars. I don't consider myself a Muslim, Jew, or Christian, as I worship a completely different concept of God. Likewise, a Muslim, Jew, or Christian most likely isn't a Vaishnava. It's not a bad thing, it's just a difference. And diversity is what makes the world go round, LOL

There's nothing wrong w/ what I said. I said, "sincerely loved God in the form they were taught to worship Him. I said that they weren't worshipping God in the form of Krishna/Vishnu (who is the Supreme Form of God, but there are many others who worship the concept of God in the form of Jesus, Allah, Jehovah, etc...), and so, therefore, couldn't be considered Vaishnavas, and most likely wouldn't go to Goloka, Vaikuntha, or Ram-Rajya.

Gaudiya Vaishnavism is a sect of Vaishnavism which is a sect of Hinduism. So, yes, it does fall under the large umbrella that is Hinduism... and that's coming from a Gaudiya Vaishnava

Same here (interesting about Lumbini's location, though... I didn't know that... thanks ). It only makes sense to me. All of the Lord's avatars are famous, and I don't think there's any buddha as popular as Gautama Buddha (esp. since He's the only one mentioned as belonging to our current world age).

Also, although Gautama Buddha's mother was named Maya, she was often called Anjanaa (since she was the daughter of King Anjana). So, maybe there's only one Buddha after all.

Strangely enough, Gautama Buddha attained enlightenment at Gaya.

Hahahaha... sorry

I'm sorry you're so hurt Bhairo. I'm sure Khal Bhairo loves you very much for defending Him.

Buddhists also accept the presence of older Buddhas... so the Lord may very well have incarnated as one of them But, could you tell me about the older Buddha?

True, but I still don't think they're sent to a Naraka or something for 'mis-belief'.

Jai! Om Namoh Buddha Avatara!

Lord Buddha is clearly an avatar of Bhagavan, as is detailed in shastra, so why are there any Hindus (especially Vaishnavas) who refuse to recognize Him as such when He is clearly called an Avatar of Bhagavan in the Srimad Bhagavata Purana? Sanskrit: tatah kalau sampravrtte sammohaya sura-dvisam buddha namnanjana-sutah kikatesu bhavisyati English: Then, in the beginning of Kali Yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist. --Srimad Bhagavata Purana 1.3.24 Are we now allowed to pick and choose which avatars are real avatars based on our personal preference?!

I agree that many of them are godly people, but not Vaishnavas (since they don't worship Vishnu or any of His avatars). I'm not sure where they go after death if they sincerely loved God in the form they were taught to worship Him, but I'm sure it's not a bad place.

Jai! It looks like there are dogs in Shiva-Dhama, too!

Oh please. What were Mohammad's parents named? From what I know, his parents both died in his childhood. And, where in shastra is it mentioned that an avatar of Vishnu named Jesus would be born to a lady named Mary in th provence of Nazareth in Israel at the beginning of the Kali Yuga? Same goes for Mohammed. Where are they specifically listed by time, location, pedigree, and name? None of these things are mentioned about Jesus or Mohammed in shastra. However, the Buddha is mentioned specifically by name, it is described where He would be born, when He would be born, to whom He would be born, and why He would be born. And, no, I'm just taking what if obviously written in Shastra and incorporating it into my life (unlike you, who thinks you can just pick and choose which of the Lord's Dasha Avatara to believe in). Lord Buddha is one of the Dasha Avatara! Where is your mind? Dasha means Ten... if Lord Buddha weren't an avatar, there'd only be nine and it would be called "Nava Avatara". Oh, boo-hoo. Stop making excuses for Hindus who don't follow their scriptures. I mean, you can criticize SOME Buddhists all day long for eating meat, and then go around painting all of them as meat-eating, war-hungry mongols, but when I tell you of my experience with several Hindus who even go to the extent of eating their own Mother (Go-Mata), you make excuses for them. You are so hypocritical, it's ridiculous. I live in America. I'm not tempted by McDonald's or KFC. Face it, the Hindus that eat meat have no excuse for murdering their own Mother, especially when they're told over and over again that it's a sin. Well, if you're going to change it from Dasha Avatara to Nava Avatara (by leaving out the Buddha b/c of your ridiculous and unfounded doubts about His ahimsa) then why not make it Ashta-Avatara and leave out Lord Rama (since so many doubt His practice of vegetarianism) or how about Sapta-Avatara and leave out Lord Krishna (b/c you doubt His practice of Brahmacharya) or how about Pancha Avatara, and leave out Lord Narasimha Deva and Kurma Avatara b/c you doubt Their historical existence? Why, if you refuse to believe in an avatar of the Lord who is specifically mentioned BY NAME, LOCATION, TIME, AND PEDIGREE IN SHASTRA, do you believe in ANY avatar of the Lord? You're full of doubts. You are the most hypocritical mleccha I've ever met in my life and you criticize people of other belief systems. It's honestly nothing but a joke. Honestly, how thick are you? How many times do I need to show you evidence from Buddhist scripture (including the Buddha's own words!) showing that He clearly practiced Ahimsa?!: "Abandoning the taking of life, the ascetic Gautama dwells refraining from taking life, without stick or sword." --Digha Nikaya 1.18 "Hatreds do not ever cease in this world by hating, but by love. This is an eternal truth... Overcome anger by love, overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth." --Dhammapada 1.5, 17.3 "If one should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a dagger, you should abandon all desires and utter nothing evil." --Majjhima Nikaya 21.6

Hey Kulapavana Ji I think that as Vaishnavas, we should honor all paths to Krishna, especially those followed by our fellow Vaishnavas.

Some people really need to get their 'swami license' taken away from them if you ask me!

Theist Prabhu Ji, I must say that I truly admire your following of go-dharma.

Indeed Dakshinachara means "Right (Dakshina) (path to) attainment (chara)", while Vamachara means "Left (vama) (path to) attainment (chara)". The Dakshinacharyas ("Right Attainers") are the ones that practice the Panchamakara ('Five Ms') symbolically, while the Vamacharyas ("Left Attainers") are the ones that practice it literally (the paths would be equally beautiful to me if there weren't Mamsa (meat) and Matsya (fish) in the Panchamakara (Five M's)... but I don't think that our paths to Krishna should ever involve the suffering of sentient beings... so I prefer Dakshinachara ('Right attainment')). Thanks for answering my many questions Vaya con Krishna

I get what you're saying. The practices that may have went on in Vaishnava Sahajiya might not have been what it was meant to be all about. So, there may have been two different groups in Vaishnava Sahajiya. It all sounds so lovely, I'd like to think that there was once a Dakshinachara Vaishnava Sahajiya. Interesting... maybe your area is more like philosophy!