shvu

If one accepts God as omniscient, I am inclined to go with Raga that what we perceive as freewill in only apparent or more specifically, there is no freewill. If there is no freewill, it follows that everything is predetermined, which raises the question of variations. Why is one person's karma negative while someone else's karma is positive? What could be the basis? This reminds me of tattvavaada's taaratamya. I should learn more about it. On the other hand, if we accept the possibility of free will, it means God is not omniscient and has no knowledge, or has limited knowledge about what we will do next. God knows beforehand, the events during the course of one's life which are based on past karma, but does not know events that will create new karma. However, this position contradicts BG 7.26. Theist, The Vedaanta schools hold that karma is beginningless. But it can have an end, which is reaching the ultimate place as described in the Gita. Once this point/equilibrium is reached, there is no return. Raga, BG 18.63 is a strong indicator of freewill. On the other hand, 18.60-61 deny freewill. Cheers

Right dude, You go ahead and finish up the Swaminarayan topic. Perhaps, we'll get back to the other topic some other time. Cheers

Please direct this to Prasad and Prasad. Apparently, they dislike to see disagreemnt and think it is a good idea for people to try and live with the common points. Cheers

You are digressing. You should perhaps start a new thread to deal with this orthogonal topic. Happily enough, yes. To put it mildly, it is a very poor article, thrown together in an ad-hoc fashion by someone who along with lacking writing skills, lacks basic knowledge of sanskrit. We will deal only with authoritative sources for they can be verified easily. When these pieces of evidence are shown to be incorrect, it will by itself show that the rest of the alleged evidence is just as worthless. I select the chaandogya upanishad and the shvetaashvatara upanishad. I eagerly browse your list to see evidence in the chaandogya and what do I find? [...] Why don't you explain the *chaandogya evidence* to me and other readers here ? [point #1] SU 6.3 has been quoted next, where even your translation has nothing to show the avatarhood of chaitanya. The same with the next piece of evidence which is SU 3.12. What did you find in this verse that points to the avatarhood of chaitanya? [point #2] #1 and #2 together show that there is no basis for such a claim of avatarhood. Hence, it stands concluded that the author is an unscrupulous person who has intentionally attempted to spread falsehoods. Look again. I just checked and it is still there. Cheers

Omniscience vs freewill I've had this doubt for a long time and was wondering if anyone has taken up this paradox and resolved it. Or perhaps someone here can offer some useful insights on this topic. If God is omniscient, as claimed in most religions, it/he is completely aware of the future. This means God is aware of every action, thought that will be carried out by a human x at any given point of time. If x's actions are known beforehand, what is meant by freewill? For instance, Krishna towards the end of the Gita, concludes his long didactic talk by telling Arjuna to reflect on the discussion and decide his next course of action. If Krishna was omniscient, he would have known exactly what Arjuna would do next, in which case Arjuna didn't have a choice. He could never have chosen not to fight the war. To make this more complex, Krishna also says at one point that Arjuna has no choice ! Being bound by your own duty born of nature, O son of Kunti, you, being helpless, will verily do that which you do not wish to do owing to indiscrimination. - BG 18.60 Anyway, the BG aside, I would like to see support (or the lack thereof) for a reconciled view. Cheers

Dear Prasad & Prasad, Is there a mistake? You should be talking to Vaishnava dasa and team for criticizing the Swaminarayan sampradaya, who ironically happen to be fellow Vaishnavas. I am merely pointing out that his arguments are baseless. Unless, you think iskcon people can criticize swaminarayan folks, but no one should criticize iskcon? Cheers

There is a Shiva Gita in the Padma Puraanaa. Rama prays to Shiva and Shiva instructs Rama in the matters of creation, Shiva Bhakti, etc. I can pull out specific details, if necessary. I also recall there is a Shiva Gita in the Mahabharata, but I am not sure. Cheers

The above post was by me. I have made a couple of corrections. You are being clever too. This is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. There is no scriptural proof beyond the skewed and brazen misinterpretations of some Gaudiya folks to prove that chaitanya was an 'authorized avatar' [sic]. You are sitting in a glass house and throwing stones at others. People who are unaware of the misinterpretations I am alluding to can read, http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml#4 http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/iskcon.pdf Cheers

Madhav, I gather you want all Hindus, including HKs, to unite against Islam terrorism. Assuming everyone has come together, what is the next move? 1. Kicking out Muslims from India 2. Invading Pakistan 3. Wait for them to make the first move. Or something else? Thanks

Knowing sanskrit will not help here. If you read the Gita by yourself, without the aid of commentaries, you will interpret it in your own way, based on your background and nature. If there are n different interpretations, it follows that only one or none of them are correct. Given the metaphysical nature of the content of such texts, it is impossible to objectively evaluate different interpretations and pick out the right one. To answer your question, there is no basis to judge and therefore any choice that is made, depends entirely on faith and personal preferences. Your choice may be incorrect...but the good side is, you will never know. There are instances where Krishna and Shiva jointly conspired to fool people, which resulted in Buddhism and Advaita. There are many iskcon adherents here, who can provide more details. Therefore, at least according to iskcon, it is not true that Krishna never had the intent of confusing people. Cheers

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/jan/03jose.htm An example to show that there are better ways of doing things. Raghuraman, Your sweeping accusations against christian missionaries are unjustified. They have only one intent and that is to spread the gospel. If some of them employ unethical means, it is not reason enough to blackball the entire group. Holding onto such negative views against christians and muslims in India will not improve the situation. I have many Hindu and muslim friends in India and they are fine people. I have seen no hatred in them for hindus, while on the other hand I have come across enough hindus who hate muslims and even christians. To an extent, every religious group can be accused of proselytism. If you will not condemn Ashoka's efforts to spread Buddhism or the Hare Krishna's efforts to spread Krishna consciousness, there is absolutely no reason to protest against christian missionaries. Cheers

The similarity is both groups are Vaishnavas -- worshipping Naaraayana/Krishna. They however follow different philosophies with the Sri-Vaishnavas following Vishishtadvaita and the Gaudiyas following Achintya Bheda-abheda. The philosophies are quite different and it is of interest that Raamaanuja rejected the Bheda-abheda doctrine as even worse than the doctrine of Maayaa (Advaita). brahmajnaana pakshaadapi paapiiyaanayam bhedaabhedapakshah. Check out Mani Varadharajan's www.ramanuja.org for details. They have a mailing list too, where one can pose questions about the doctrine. None. Cheers

There in no extant culture that can be called "Vedic". Vedic is an english term meaning "related to or of Veda" and has been much bandied around to cover anything that is archaic and Indian -- inaccurately in most cases. Culture during Vedic times comprised of performing Yajnaas, contemplating on Brahman and following rigid Varnaashrama rules. This later gave way to Puraanic times, with the birth and rise of Bhakti. Today, what we have is a hotch-potch of systems in India, which are however linked by their common roots. How many people perform Yajnaas and how many are following the Varna system? Culture keeps changing with times and the "vedic culture", if we may call it that, went out of fad ages ago. Even a cursory examination of the content of the Samhitaas, Braahmanas and Aaranyakaas will make this clear. It is quite wrong to say iskcon is practising vedic culture. Iskcon does not perform Yajnas, nor does it follow Varnashrama. Instead, iskcon engages in idol worship, chanting, provides halwa for prasadam, worships a female God, etc, none of which are Vedic. Neither does iskcon engage in study of the Mantraas or Vedaanta. On the contrary, I have seen statements from iskcon sources that the Vedaas do not work in this Yuga and therefore one should not bother with them. Thus, it follows there is nothing Vedic about iskcon's culture, for most of it's practises are drawn from Puraanaas, Paancharaathraas and local traditions of Bengal. If anyone can rightfully claim to be vedic, it has to be Arya Samaj. Hinduism is a very generic term that covers all systems in India which acknowledge Vedic/Puraanic Gods. Hence, what you call as Vedic is only one part of Hinduism. You will not find this label in scriptures -- for reasons already mentioned. A standard dictionary is where one would want to look up the term. Being in contact with many Indians who visit iskcon temples (in the US as well as in India), I must say that none of them are aware that iskcon alienates itself from hinduism. As far as they are concerned, it is a Krishna temple which ipso facto, makes it a Hindu temple. Given that, there exist numerous,divergent ramifications in Hinduism, they would have a very tough time trying to understand how or why iskcon is not part of Hinduism -- if at all. IMO, this is something one will not understand, unless he has lived among Indians and seen their ways. I believe, this covers all your points. Cheers

Thanks. The meaning of the term Hindu has always been unequivocal. Originally during it's inception, it meant the people residing east of the Sindhu and now it's meaning has changed and has become more specific to mean those who follow the indigeneous religion of India. Today, the term is known to billions of people in the world, has entered dictionaries and is used by both by academia and traditional, religious people of India. Unlike this, there has been no link made between the terms christian and jordanian and there fore the analogy is unwarranted. The point is, there is nothing imprecise about the term Hindu, with it's meaning being perfectly univocal. Non-sequitur. What is the basis on which some terms are sectarian, while others are not? Someone can just as easily say Jesus was a Shaivite, the reason being, he never worshipped specific Hindu Gods. Nonetheless, you will agree that Prabhupada would have strong objections against a Shaivite who claims supreme status for Shiva and secondary status for Vishnu/Krishna. Irrespective of how great a devotee this Shaivite may be, one simply cannot see Prabhupada referring to such a Shaiva as a Vaishnava. That is Vaishnava vs Shaiva, sectarianism, so commonly found in India and that is what I am alluding to. If not for these differences in India, there would have been no reason to use the label Vaishnava. Anyway, we are digressing from the main point. The point is, objectively speaking, Krishna is a hindu God as has been universally recognized. The ontological position can be entirely different and is not a touchstone to reject objectivity. The term Hindu encompasses just about anything that has it's roots in Vedic/Puraanic literature and as far as I am aware, I don't see iskcon doing anything subversive, that makes it independent of Hinduism. Therefore, while iskcon will claim to be autonomous, the rest of the world will continue to view it's philosophy and culture as yet another branch of Hinduism. Cheers

I would appreciate it if you explained what you understand by hindu dharma. According to joy, Prabhupada's intent in isolating his group from Hinduism was to rise above sectarianism. By this logic, is it also accurate to say Prabhupada was not a Vaishnava -- for the term was concocted much later and also has sectarian overtones? Thanks

Leyh, This behooves you/iskcon to explain Hindu_Dharma. If you say there is no such thing as Hindu dharma, then what religion are the millions of Hindus practising? Ontologically, Vishnu/Narayana/Krishna is THE God, as far as Vaishnavas are concerned. Objectively however, Krishna is a hindu God, just like many other Hindu Gods. Mirriam Webster offers the following meanings: Krishna : A deity or deified hero of later Hinduism worshiped as an incarnation of Vishnu Hinduism : The dominant religion of India Hare Krishna : A member of a religious group dedicated to the worship of the Hindu god Krishna. From another dictionary. ISKCON : A religious sect founded in the United States in 1966; based on Vedic scriptures; groups engage in joyful chanting of 'Hare Krishna' ('O Krishna!') and other mantras based on the name of the Hindu god Krishna; devotees usually wear saffron robes and practice vegetarianism and celibacy. Thanks

The Shaiva perspective is exactly the opposite. Shiva is the supreme Being with everyone else including Vishnu and Brahma, being subordinate to him. Wroshipping anyone else will result in downfall, etc, etc. Even the Padma Puraanaa which is supposed to be predominantly Vaishnava in content, in one place says that mentioning the name of Vishnu incurs the wrath of Shiva and should be avoided. Cheers

I haven't read the Brahma-vaivarta (BVP), but I have read elsehwere that the BVP goes into detail about the relationship between Krishna and Radha and also assigns divine status to Radha. Cheers

http://news.sify.com/cgi-bin/sifynews/news/content/news_fullstory_v2.jsp?article_oid=12064171&page_no=1

It is de ja vu, theist. I have answered all the above questions in the past and some of them, more than once. This time, someone else will have to take up the task. Cheers

I can hear Theist laughing in the background. It is good to know you guys are having fun. Imagine my disappointment. Krishna is Sadguna Brahman and hence is not a Jiiva. While jiivas are under the influence of Maayaa, Krishna was not. Refer the "Is Advaita a genuine tradition?" thread for more info or try the BG Bhaashya of Shankara. That is Sadguna Brahman...magic. You have no issues accepting a digestive system-less Krishna and yet you are skeptical about Krishna being in control of his own Maayaa? Cheers

Theist, If you want to enjoy word jugglery, I can help you. Try the thread where the disciples attempted to defend Prabhupada's slander. I am sure, you will not be disappointed. Cheers

1) Brahman is absolutely nondual. [Paramaartika] 2) Brahman incarnates. [Vyavahaarika] 3) Actually Brahman doesn't incarnate, only the illusioned jivas perceive it to incarnate. [Wrong] -- The Jiiva perceives incarnations/jiivanmuktaas [Vyavahaarika] -- No one is ever born. [Paramaartika] 4) Perception of variety is due to avidya.[Correct] 5) The incarnation perceives and interacts with the multiplicity (variety) and thus is also influenced by avidya. [Wrong] 6) That illusioned incarnation teaches us how to be free from the duality he himself is in. [Wrong] Cheers

Once again the same old problem of mixing up the the real with the apparent. So long as you keep doing this, you will continue to have this distorted picture of Advaita and you will continue to find it one big joke. The bright side to this is at least it makes you laugh. Cheers

That is it. So long as one is clear about the distinction between Vyavahaarika and Paramaartika, there will be no confusion. All doubts about Advaita arise due to mixing up the two. Cheers