shvu

And what evidence do you have that early Christians were any different? History says Christianity has been a violent religion putting down opponents by any means necessary to acquire and maintain total domination. If Christians were always narrow and parochial, where is your logic in trying to defend the bible? The roots of this violent outlook are in the Bible - preaching narrow exclusive status to Christians and condemning non-Christians aka idolators. This intolerant approach moulded the minds of Christians - then and now - to render them incapable of accepting the possible validity of any religion other than their own. Hardly makes sense to separate the bible from its followers and condemn only the followers. I do not have to quote those verses as everyone knows them and they are unequivocal as can be - much as you would like to pretend they do not exist. Christians and Muslims - who together form the majority of the world's population do not consider anyone outside their own fold as theists. For instance, it does not matter if the Hare Krishna gave up everything to live a religious life centered around Krishna worship. In the eyes of the two dominant religions, the Hare Krishna is worshipping a false God and is hell bound. In their eyes the Hare Krishna is an atheist. There is nothing in the bible to challenge this position. Of course, we live in a global world today and confrontation is not like what it was a few centuries ago. Today though a lily white conservative may not like to eat at a restaurant which serves other races, there is not much he or she can do about it. It is a "smile and look happy" thing. Similar facades are necessary for religion too. So if the Christian does not condemn a Hindu for idolatary and worshipping false Gods, it does not mean those thoughts are not running in his or her mind. In short, as far as a Christian or a Muslim is concerned, you are an atheist. This is not something he or she makes up, it comes straight from the Bible, much as you dislike to hear that. Your attempts to reinterpret other religions to suit your Hare Krishna beliefs are of no value to anyone but to yourself. The link between the two exist only in your mind and exists only because you want it to exist. Cheers

Not for GHari and his flock. They read a single page article about Prabhupada's derogratory opinion on science and concluded they know everything about science which has been developed for 1000s of years. Without knowing the first thing about science they very confidently go around mocking the "flaws" of science and its methods and are of the belief that they understand science better than scientists who have devoted their lifetimes to the study of the subject. All this from a single page article! Given this, attributing false statements to Dawkins is not something they would lose sleep over. If theists truly believe God is behind everything as they usually claim, they should be gutsy enough to admit God is behind the development of science too. And it hardly makes sense to think that God would give one intelligence and curiosity and then expect him to set all that aside and faithfully follow books written 1000 years ago during a primitive and ignorant time; books that offers no evidence and fail to answer basic questions. If God does not value the intelligence he created, then that would make him inconsistent according to theists who are of the opinion that man should put faith before intellect. Cheers

A while since we did this... An atheist would have a similar opinion of a crusading theist. So it is just a matter of which side of the fence you are on. Any contempt found on one side will be matched on the other side too. Atheists are of the opinion that theists are moronic; losing out on their lives by living a life of repression and denial, waiting in anticipation for something to happen after death - which is a terrible waste. The clock cannot be turned back. A crusading atheist however is a kind of a paradox. Atheism - when it happens - should be a natural outcome of one's basic questions not finding satisfactory responses. Not because someone is shouting about it from a rooftop. One can argue that interest in religion should happen naturally too and not because someone is shoving it down your throat (as some religious grous do) or because you want to "fit in" to a certain group. In general however, theist or atheist, everyone believes their vews are right and most people want to convert others over to their point of view. Cheers

Where did you get the "5000 years" part? Nothing specific happened 5000 years ago - not from religion nor from history. Perhaps you were told Hindu books are 5000 years old on some internet article? That is incorrect information propogated by some ignorant groups. There is no religious book relating to Hinduism that can be pushed back beyond 500 BC. Though some books claim to be existing from the beginning of of time, none of them claim to be 5000 years old. The Vedas of the Aryans are older, but that is not to be confused with Hinduism though there are some remnants of that religion integrated into Hinduism. Hinduism as we see it today with idol worship, singing bhajans, etc is at least 2500 years old. The still mysterious Indus valley civilization had seals containing images images of Gods that look like Shiva and a form of mother Goddess. If this group moved into India and was the original root of present day Hinduism, then Hinduism in the form of Shaivism and Shakti worship may be 4000 to 5000 years old, although we have no serious evidence to support this theory as there is no documentation available from that period other than the IV seals. The Aryan civilization of North western India that came after the Indus valley civilization had its own Vedic Gods like Indra, Agni, Vishnu, etc., of which Vishnu gradually became popular. They believed in the concept of heaven and practised fire worship for their popular Gods - Indra and then later Vishnu. They were not worshipping idols and the concept of temples, etc did not exist. Towards the fag end of this period (1000-500 BC), present day Hinduism came to be formed which was a merger between the indigenous religions of India and the Aryan religion. A new set of "Hindu" Gods like Rama, Krishna, Ganapathi, etc., replaced the originally popular vedic Gods like Indra, Agni, Vaayu, etc. These non-vedic Gods most likely came from native Hinduism and some were mapped to Vedic Gods (Rama & Krishna to Vishnu, Shiva to Rudra, etc). Fire worship and animal sacrifice gave way to Idol worship and vegetarianism became fashionable in many circles. I think Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Hanuman, etc., are very old and were part of Indian religion from long ago. Idol worship most likely had its origins from this group. These Gods were borrowed by the Aryan/Vedic Brahmanas and after throwing in some Vedic elements, they created a new form of religion which is now Hinduism. It is noteworthy that the Mimamsa school of Brahmanas did not care a hoot for these newly added Gods and practises and stuck to their fire worship rituals until 1000 AD after which they went into decline. Cheers

Of course, the Vaishnava acharyas will say that. What else does one expect them to say? And who other than a Vaishnava is gonna attach any value to their ridiculous claims? And why did Vyasa fail to mention in the Shiva Purana itself that it is a tamasic purana? What excuse have the Vada Killai folks cooked up to counter this question? Give it a rest, dude. You are repeating your same old misinformed beliefs again. You incorrectly gave the names of Appaya Dikshita and Madhusudhana Saraswati when asked for evidence. The Madhvas claim they defeated Advaitins and all other schools of Vedanta (including your Vada killai group). Iskcon claims Chaitanya the bengali saint traveled through South India once and defeated/humbled both the followers of Ramanuja (your group, that is) and Madhva. Most, if not all of these claims are bogus. Every group lays claims to victory just like you do. Result? Naive people like Gokulr are only told a few success stories (not all of them real) and no stories of defeat at all, thus giving them a completely wrong picture. If any single group can make such a claim and support it by some evidence, it is Advaita. The volumes of criticism written by Vaishnavas against Advaita failed to create even a tiny dent. The fact of the matter is, most of these claims have no basis in facts and even if some are true, it is obvious that stories of defeat are not kept alive. For all their rave reviews of themselves and their tall claims of defeating advaita, they cannot explain their insignificant numbers vs. the dominant and vibrant presence of Advaita. On the other hand when Advaiita claims defeat of Mimamsa, it is supported by evidence as we see that Mimamsa is practically non-existent today. Don't take my word for it. Keep an open mind and make an independent study without just listening to the colorful stories of your Vada killai elders. You do not want to turn out to be the frog in the well. Cheers

Vaihnavas have been defeated countless times by Advaitins, a reason why Advaita is the dominant system today. Why don't you take a few minutes to read about Appayya Dikshita? He defeated several Sri Vaishnavas and bought them back into the Smarta fold. You asked for one example and Appayya is one. Advaita's logic is so sound that it has never perceived later interepretations of the Sutras as threats. Chitsuka, Harsha, Vidyaranya, MS Saraswati...the list goes on. There is a false story circulated in Vaishnava circles about Appayya being defeated by some Vaishnava scholar. Dr BNK Sharma the dvaita scholar clarifies in his History of Dvaita Sidhanta that this allegation is untrue. Of course, in your circle, defeats of Vaishnavas will not be propogated. Such incidents will be covered up. The same may be true in some cases where advaita/shaiva scholas were defeated. Hence, stories circulated inside groups do not mean much. The clear factor that no can dispute is that Advaita remains the most popular and widely accepted Vedanta tradition today, inspite of attempted and failed onslaughts by Vaishnavas to cut into the market share. Case closed, as far as I am concerned. Advaita does not assign sepcial ranks to some Gods over other Gods. All Gods equally represent the one single Brahman. Hence, Advaita rejects the concepts of Vishnu supremacy and Shiva supremacy alike. A tad more mature than sectarian groups, don't you think? Cheers

The above were not Shaiva scholars unless you hold on to some kind of binary logic where anyone who is not a Vaishnava must be a Shaiva. They were Advaitins; some of them are only known through Vaishnava sources while others such as Appayya and MS Saraswati are prominent Advaitins. It is a bogus cook up on the part of some unscrupulous authors that either of these two were defeated by anyone in a formal debate. They were famous in their own times and a defeat would have been sensational to say the least and not gone unnoticed. This is not unlike the story circulated in iskcon about Chaitanya going to Udipi and defeating the matha heads in debate. If Advaitins were so easily defeated by Vaishnavas, then why is it that the Vaishnava population is just a fraction of the total Advaita population today? Ramanuja lived over 900 years ago and Madhva lived over 700 years ago. Surely all these centuries must have been more than sufficient for the allegedly superior Vaishnava system to obliterate Advaita? Isn't this an obvious contradiction? You ask who are we to decide which god is supreme? The answer is we are the ones and there is no one else! The opinion of Vaishnava scholars has value only to Vaishnavas, who are but a very tiny part of the world's population and just one of several thousand other belief systems. It is very presumptious - to say the least - that you would think that a bunch of scholars from this tiny group are right and everyone who differs from them is wrong just because you chose to be part of that little group. How am I to choose between you who claim that Vaishnavism is the best and the Islam guy who shows evidence that Islam has the most steady growth in numbers? Should I pick you because you will read out stuff from old books and your books may be older than Islam books? Is that the criteria? Lastly, Vaishnavas are by no means a uniform group. There are several branches and they are in conflict with one another - a fact some of them like to pretend is not true. The Madhva will not agree with the Iyengar and the iskcon prabhu will agree with neither. Why don't you pick the supreme and correct branch out of these numerous branches first before taking on the Shaivas and/or Advaitins? Cheers

Out of curiosity, is impersonalist an english word? I do not find it in any of the dictionaries I have access to. If it is not found in dictionaries, how do we know what it means and how do we know this Swami is an impersonalist? He talks about Bhakit yoga, etc., and has no relation to Shankara's school. Cheers

Why is ths position a fairytale by Prabhupada? Is it not standard Gaudiya philosophy written down by people before him? As an aside, other Vaishnava traditions all agree that liberation is irreversible. It is surprising that the Gaudiya school would take a different position on this. One takes countless births to get there and can yet fall again and will have to redo everything all over again is a depressing thought. Holding the position that liberation is reversible is also in complete contrast with Krishna's statement in Gita 8.16. Cheers

Kelly, There are 4 categories of people. A big part of our reality and religion appear to be in stark contrast with each other. A contradiction that everyone deals with at some point. These categories are formed based on how an individual fares in his or her attempt to reconcile real life perceptions with religion. 1. The Atheist: Real life perception wins over religion due to lack of evidence in support of the latter. 2. The Agnostic: Cannot make a choice either way. In my opinion, the subject just does not interest him or her enough. 3. The Type A Theist: Reconciles reality with religion by not accepting everything in the religious books. Accepts religious books are embellished and are allegorical in several instances; differentiates between spiritual and material content in the books. A description of Vaikunta is acceptable as it is a spiritual realm, but a story of a 20000 year old man on earth or a talking monkey is not. However, the key is, lack of acceptance of these fantastic stories do not weaken faith. 4. The Type B Theist: Accepts religious books all the way - every line; the whole nine yards. Archaeological evidence, science, etc are rejected in favor of religious stories from hundreds of years ago when there are contradictions. Some examples, seen several times on these forums, are the moon landing episode, antiquity assigned to Indian civilization, and so on. Anything other than complete and absolute acceptance of the content of religious books is seen as a weakness that undermines faith. Evolution v. Creationism is an issue only if you are the type B theist. For the type A theist, the truth of evolution or lack thereof is of no relevance. Evolution does not challenge his religious beliefs as the two are not related in any way. So if you have a difficult time being a type B person, you may want to consider switching to type A. You will still be religious and will also be at peace having freed yourself of such conflicts. Good luck!

Outdated and irrelevant in less than 40 years unlike the Bhagavatam where every word is still relevant today? Perhaps it is just the antiquity factor. The older the material, the harder it is to place it in the right context. 1000 years from now, if Prabhupada's letters are still around, devotees from that time will find it harder to dismiss some of them as "outdated and irrelevant". If Sukadeva Goswami had left similar letters behind, you would have a more difficult time dismissing some of them as outdated, just like you are having a hard time with the moon problem. A little paradox how the older it is, the less outdated it is. Just like the Vedas - very soon the Brahmanas lost their context and sginifcance that they did not understand most of mantras. However, their failure to understand the signifance of the mantras resulted in turning the vedic canon into a sacrosanct entity that was not to be tampered with. Though many of the mantras are clearly for a bygone period, they decided there was some inner signifiicance which was relevant for all times. Cheers

You mean evolution is a THEORY unlike the FACT that God waved his wand and there were Adam, Eve and the Apple in the middle east? If evolution is a theory to you, then you have 200 years of catching up to do. Evolution says your grand daddy was a chimp...but your post says you may just be one too. Go back to school, sonny and pay attention in class this time. Until then - for the good of the world - refrain from spreading your high school drop-out level wisdom to others. The person who asked the question is an anthropologist and was certainly not directing his question to the likes of you... if you know what I mean. Cheers

It is possible, if you stop following the general ignorant line of thinking that evolution is atheistic. That is just religious politics set forth by some crooks to gain mileage. Why is evolution a threat to religion? It does go against creation stories found in some old religious books, but why are those stories essential for theism? How many really believe Adam and Eve populated the entire world anymore? A few hundred years ago - yes, but in today's world with all the knowledge gained, rigidly holding on to such beliefs is an insult to one's own intelligence. It is no different from believing the earth is flat or is a set of alternating concentric circles of land and water as imagined by the author of the Bhagavatam. No one - without exception - is 100% comfortable with his or her religion. There is always something that cannot be digested and in such case they make compromises by ignoring the disturbing elements or finding alternate explanations. As a Hare Krishna, you will find there are numerous, outdated concepts from old Indian religious books that have been compromised and tailored to arrive at present day hare krishna religion. This holds true for all religions. You have to similarly make your peace with creation stories and separate them from your religious beliefs. One can still believe in Jesus without believing in Adam, Eve and the Apple. And similarly in Krishna without the dozens of embellishments. Cheers

I am sorry, I just realized the original question of this thread remains unanswered. In the Valmiki Ramayana, it seems to be an a prioi conclusion that Sugriva will engage Vali in battle and Rama will be a sniper. No one other than poor Vali seems to have a problem with that as Sugriva does not question Rama when Rama tells him the plan. Sugriva could very well have challenged Rama about his need to avoid direct confrontation. So why did Rama avoid confrontation? The question is not answered... neither before nor after Vali's killing. Btw, in certain recensions of the Ramayana, Rama is a weakling and Lakshmana is the real hero. Cheers

That is one way of looking at them. I can say at least some of the quotes are genuine and the rest don't seem far off the mark. Quotes from the Vedas have little or nothing to do with Hinduism. The now obsolete Vedic religion and Hinduism have very little in common. You also have to separate social concepts from religious concepts to make accurate judgements. Is there a way to show that he has taken the texts out of context? Or perhaps if it was mistranslated? No...he has not taken them out of context and they are not mistranslated. Much of these arguments I know have been taken from Dr. Ambedkar's works. They are not. Ambedkar has nothing to do with them. But still, his thrust is that this is the reason for brahminism and caste based oppression in India, and that no matter how much the Mahabharat/Gita or any other texts tried to rectify this mess, that the inequality of society continue because of this. The Mahabharata and the Gita did nothing to address social issues. That was not their objective. The Gita fully approves of the varna system and restates that a shudra's primary role is to serve the other varnas. Since the Gita is part of the MB, the MB also upholds the varna system. I would like to hope that the literal/poetic/metaphorical/allegorical meanings of these texts have been taken out of context. Can anyone please help me? Thanks in advance. No luck. This is about perspective. As long as the Shudra is content with his role of service, there is no oppression. On the other hand if a kashatriya wanted to be a temple priest or a Brahmana wanted to be a commander- in-chief, that would not have happened either in a society strictly following a varna system. If yes, they were oppressed too. The question is, was there ever a time when society rigidly followed this system? Probably not. Smart Shudras would have found ways to break out of the system and would moved to other varnas in various ways. There are other cases where the Sri-Vaishnava tradition liberally bestowed Brahmin-hood to several non-Brahmins on a religious affliliation basis. Another example would be of Mayura Sharma the founder of the first indigenous Kannada kingdom (Kadamba dynasty) who was a Brahmin by birth, but eventually became a kshatriya and changed his name to Mayura Verma. Once again, keep social and religious concepts separate. Cheers

Good catch...that was faulty logic, alright. Yes, I even glanced through the Kishkinda khanda again and reaffirmed that Rama does not answer Vali's question on his unfair act and instead goes into a long argument on why Vali deserved to die. If not anything else, his lack of response is evidence that his method was incorrect. That is a different topic by itself. But if the avatar concept is rejected, then the Ramayana has hardly any value at all. Cheers

it is not me, dude. Read the discussion between Rama and Vali when Vali is dying. Not a color book version of the Ramayana from iskcon you may be accustomed to, but a more authentic one that has been around for a few hunded years. Nothing similar. Rama was a Kshatriya and had prescribed dharma to uphold and he deviated from it in the case of Vali - whether you like it or not. He had to kill Vali as that was part of his deal with Sugriva - I get you your kingdom back from Vali, you help me find my wife. But unfortunately, Vali could not be beaten in a fair game. So guess what? Rama resorts to a little trickery to get the job done. If he did not need an army to find his wife, he would have had no reason to bother with Vali. Narasimha is not not a human avatar and no Dharma is prescribed for non-humans. Cheers

You specifically said Advaita and not Shankara in your earlier post. Anyway, my standard recommendation is Upadesha Saahasri - straight from the horse's mouth. Easily available through Ramakrishna Ashram for just 45 Rs ( ~$1) at <http://www.advaitaashrama.org/publication/book-details.php?bid=357> Cheers

A common excuse people come up with, when they cannot answer the question. In the Gita Krishna says he follows Dharma because what a great man does, others follow. He has to set an example by being the example. If an avatar has to have any meaning, his actions should be easily understood by the common public. Else, why bother with the concept? He can just wave his wand from above and fix everything he would have fixed as an avatar. Rama killed Vali from hiding simply because he had not the ability to face Vali in Battle (no one did). As Vali is dying, he criticizes Rama for his shameful behavior. Rama skirts the topic and instead digresses. Anyway, in his next avatar as Krishna, he is killed by a hunter in a similar fasion to atone for that deviation from proper conduct. The conclusion? His act of killing Vali from hiding was not Dharma and was incorrect. It is not an example for other to follow suit. Cheers

Did you read any statement by Shankara where he stipulates maintaining at least 3 paradoxical conclusions to accept his doctrine? I have not come across any such statement. The fact is, there are countless people who accept Advaita as the correct interpretation of Vedanta without maintaing paradoxical conclusions. A common rookie mistake. Accepting the real nature of everything as Brahman entails a lot more than that. Accepting the real nature of everything as Brahman => there is no you and there is no God. There is only Brahman. The absurdity of what you have written has its roots in your absurd understanding of Advaita. The world is unreal only when the real nature of everything is perceived and not until then. Until then, everything is real. Yet another rookie point that you have missed. But if it makes you feel better, you are not the first or the last person to make this mistake. Already covered in point #2 Half knowledge is worse than no knowledge as adequately established in this case. You drew your knowledge of Advaita from improper sources and drew a whole bunch of incorrect conclusions. You can side with Ramanuja or Madhva - but not both as they disagree with each other and are two disparate systems. Perhaps you were not aware of that either? If that is indeed true, then you first have some unlearning to do. Then, learn about Advaita from a credible source and make sure you get the basics right. After that you can disagree with Shankara and be sympathetic to his opponents. That way, you will at least have sound arguments to back your position. Cheers

Then your understanding of Advaita is incorrect. This is not advaita. These 2 equations are true for all vedanta traditions. The conclusion you draw is flawed and incorrect for all traditions of vedanta including Advaita. The webmaster is perfectly correct. Surprising that you would not post this question on that web site and instead post it elsewhere where there is no one knowledgeable of Advaita. No surprise then, that you will receive incorrect responses. Comparing Vaishnavas to Advaitins is comparing apples and oranges. Viashnava/Shauva/Shakta classification is based on the icon worshipped. Advaita/Dvaita/etc is a classification of different traditions of Vedanta. There are many advaitins who worship Vishnu and Advaita has been the dominant tradition of Vedanta since its birth. Vaisnava A's beliefs != Vaishnava B's beliefs if A and B are from different traditions. According to A, B is hell-bound and according to B, A is hell-bound. When there is much of disagreement amongst Vaishnavas, what is the good sense in lumping them into one group? More questions? Go post them on the advaita vedanta website if you are really interested in meaningful answers. Cheers

Not to belabor this point, but blind faith is not required in science. On the other hand, religion is all about faith. There is no evidence that the good Lord descended on rare occasions in human form to help a few select fellow humans in North India, but a religious person believes it anyway. In short, the religious person is not looking for evidence and the science geek is not into faith. In your situation, you need to know where to draw the line. A description of heaven in a religious book is acceptable, but an account on the different kinds of soil is of no value if it contradicts established facts. Science has no business being in a religous book, in the first place. If you take this approach it will be easier for you to make progress with the book and not get bogged down with inconsistencies. Cheers

Well, if you take this route, then every response you receive to your question will open up more questions. Science and Religion do not go together - something that people of religion generally have trouble accepting much less admitting. My suggestion is stop mixing the two. Else, you will not get far with the Gita or any other religious book on the planet. Cheers

Neither is Sanatana Dharma found anywhere. Didn't stop you from using the term though, did it? Aren't you bored with repeating the same excuses over and over again? Who cares about the origin? The term Hindu is understood and accepted by Hindu followers today and that is what matters. Sometime ago there was a discussion on the origin of the name 'Sanatana Dharma' on the Indology list. This name was invented less than 200 years ago by some patriotic Indians who wanted to coin a new name of their religion. Quite an anitclimax, isnt it? The term Hindu is hundred of years older than Sanatana Dharma. Completely wrong. Varnashrama is a social concept and was never the name of the religion. It is important that people who ask questions here should be aware of your ignorant and incorrect remarks. Who cares? Does not alter the meaning of the word in the least. I bet this never occured to you. It is more interesting to find out what the Buddhists and Jains called this religion 2600 Years ago. Of course, in those days there was no concept of idol worship and temples. So all the common Hndu beliefs of today such as Rama, Krishna, Temple worship, Bhajans, etc were not yet born or were not yet mainstream. The religion was simply called the religion of the Brahmanas or the Veda-Dharma primarily consisting of Mimamsa style sacrifice rites. This would be a good time for you to give up your political rhetoric of "Hindu is a foreign term". It is has gotten too boring to endure. Cheers

I think it is appropriate to mention here that Guruvani is from a sect that does not even to Hinduism. His opinions on Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma are very sectarian and incorrect. People who have questions on Hinduism are hereby cautioned. Please seek some authentic sources and avoid falling into such traps. Cheers