shvu

Why (if we are to assume that Gautama isn't the Buddha Avatara) isn't the Buddha avatara famous? All the other avatars of the Lord are famous and we know Their different Lilas. Why is this one different?

If we take the avatar route, then any position other than equating Siddharta <=> Gautama Buddha <=> Vishnu avatar will raise more questions and increase complexity. Simpler to go with the option of one Buddha who was the founder of the religion and also the predicted avatar.

And, if # 3 is the most logical choice, then how can we trust the Puranas on Krishna or Rama or any of the other Avatars?

It is possible because,

1. The followers of Krishna & Rama see them just as they are described in the Puranas. This is not the case with the Buddha as his followers follow a different set of scripture which is very unlike the Puranas.

2. Krishna and Rama are not predicted. All the sources describing them are written after their existence on earth. This is different from the case of the Buddha who is a prediction.

3. Historically, Ashoka's patronage to Buddhism resulted in major changes in the status of the Brahmana in society. Perhaps for the first time, people from lower varnas were holding more authority than Brahmanas, which was a red flag. It is natural that they would have attempted to check their growth by discrediting the Buddha's teaching as false.

4. The Buddha avatar is not found in all avatar lists. There are several instances in the Puranas and even in the Mahabharata where the Buddha avatar is not mentioned. No such problem exists in the case of Krishna and Rama.

5. Finally, it is well know that the Mahabharata and all the Puranas have been subject to interpolation from a long time. Hence, it is not necessary to accept them verbatim. The general approach is look for corroboration, preferably in the Vedas and if not, then there is always the possibility of doubt.

Cheers

Brahmajyoti is never called 'impersonal' in sanskrit. It is sometimes called nirvisesa or UN-DIFFERENTIATED, a place of no distinctions, but such subtelties are lost on people with partisan and biased agenda. There is NOTHING impersonal about brahmajyoti, as it entirely consists of PERSONS, or individual jivas!

Just out of curiosity,

All the branches of Vedanta hold that Karma is beginnningless, but there is an end to this bondage in Moksha, which is irrereversible. This is also explicitly stated in the Gita where Krishna describes his abode as the "abode of no return".

But apparently some Prabhupada followers say it is possible to return from this abode and it is a matter of personal choice. My question is, other than this group, do we know of any other doctrine which holds a similiar position? Like the Vallabhas, Nimbarkas, etc.,?

Cheers

Advaita does not say fire and pain are illusory. This ia typical nonsense post from a Hare Krishna. Another Hare Krishna made a similar nonsense post that according to advaita I am you and you are me.

 

I am not an advaita supporter...but this level of ignorance on the subject is hard to believe.

Spend as much time here as I have and you will have no trouble believing it.

We live in a world where high school dropouts have the audacity to criticize a genius like Shankara without knowing even the basics of his doctrine!

Cheers

Here is a short analysis related to avatarizing the Buddha.

Let us assume the Bhagavatam, Vishnu Purana and the Mahabharata are 5000 years old or at least older than the Buddha, i.e., before 2600 years old and the author through magical vision predicted the arrival of a Buddha whose teachings would be atheistic. Now flash forward to the time of Sidharta who has just been enlightened and is gradually getting famous.

1. Who is the superbrain who decided this Sidharta was the predicted Buddha? There were a number of famous teachers during that time, most of them preaching atheistic philosophies.

2. Or do we assume that somehow (magically) no one in the Buddha camp read the Mahabharata or any of the Puranas; were completely unaware of the prediction and just innocently named him Buddha?

3. There were never any predictions. A bunch of unscrupulous Purana editors inserted the story of Buddha being an avatar of Vishnu who intentionally came down to preach false philosphies.

#3 is the most logical choice to me. There is extensive Purana research available from Winternitz, Hazra and others to show the Buddha was not avatarized until the 5th century AD. And perhaps the most compelling reason would be that the Buddhists themselves do not see the Buddha as an avatar. Hence, such ideas of a Buddha avatara that originate externally have no value.

Simpler to see the Buddha as yet another teacher like Mahavira and others whose teachings became popular due to royal patronage & missionary activities from Ashoka and other kings.

Cheers

A general statement can be made that people who died a painful death; their loved ones who have been left behind to feel the pain of their loss, etc., are all suffering due to Karma.

But it is impossible to get specific and create a link between two actual events and say one was the outcome of the other. No one has the means to know these things.

Cheers

<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

You must have talked to a foreign born Gaudiya Vaishnava. As they are mostly born into Christian families, they would have a hard time converting to a Hindu sect. Therefore they were told that Gaudiya Vaishnavism is not Hinduism. There are several Gaudiya Vaishnavas on this forum who have all but admitted that they would not have converted otherwise.

There are also some Hindus who would make such a statement, but they are mainly people who lack clarity on the topic and are usually just repeating what they heard from uninformed sources.

Standard dictionaries and textbooks are clear without ambiguity that Vaishnavism is a branch of Hinduism. If people are willing to disagree with these dictionaries and textbooks based on personal preferences and/or the words of some x,y or z, then that is a different topic altogether.

Cheers

Imagine for a moment how different life would be if do not invent excuses for everything we do and stopped fnding complaints about everything that others do that we do not do.

Cheers

I have seen some of the same conceptions in Christianity how the Lord usually seems to protect those that believe in Him even if they seemingly go through various difficulties.

And pretty much true for all religions.

If we can successfully accomplish everything we set out to do; if we have no reason to be unhappy and/or bored, why will anyone bother with a God?

Cheers

The Highest Vaisnava Sees Himself as the Lowest of All...

So the highest Vaishnava sees himself as the lowest.

What about the second highest Vaishnava? If he sees himself as the lowest too, then we have two people of different levels competing for the same position which will result in one being incorrect.

The other option is the second higest Vaishnva sees himself as the second lowest of all. Extending this logic to the third highest, fourth highest, etc., we arrive at the conclusion that the average vaishnava is the only person who sees himself at the correct level where he is. Everyone else will be off, as higher guys see themselvesd as lower and lower guys see themselves as higher.

Cheers

Well, if there's no free will, then every child raped, every animal slaughtered, every woman abused is a part of His will and the rapist, murderer, and abuser are all just doing what He wants. Sorry... but that doesn't exactly fit the definition of a loving God.

If he does not want it, it would never exist, right? So the argument is moot.

The fact is, Krishna is looking on as children starve, women get raped and civilian homes are bombed in war zones. He has been looking on and has done nothing to stop it. This is true whether man has free will or not.

Cheers

I recall reading Prabhupada during his last years once said or wrote "demons have entered the Krishna consciousness movement".

Perhaps he was helpless at that point to do something about it. But since he communicated this discovery, why did this not serve as a wakeup call for others?

Cheers

Why do people in this world suffer? Diseases, illnesses, war, or murder, everyone seems to suffer from something. In some circumstances, good peoples' lives' are much worse than those who cause others harm. Why do the Gods let this happen to us?

 

Thanks for your time.

The answer is in your question.

1. The Gods do not care or are incapable of making things better.

2. The Gods do not exist.

Cheers

BG 18.61 is rather explicit in this regard. There seems to be no free will at all, according to this verse, where the Lord says the jiva-s are impelled or pushed into action by His mAyA. The word bhraamayan literally means that. Elsewhere, Krishna also tells Arjuna to be an instrument, 'nimitta-mAtram bhava' or something to that effect.

 

Doesn't all this mean Krishna is the only doer, and we're just his instruments. If one argues that we exercise free will even in writing this post, then these actions are similar to the "actions" performed by an instrument in the hands of an able doer. Even if it appears to move and act, the instrument isn't doing anything, it's ever the non-doer.

 

Similarly, are we also non-doers even though we appear to do all kinds of actions? Is this the meaning of BG 18.61?

 

Your thoughts welcome.

I like the Tattavada interpretation detailed here.

http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/gita/bg514.html

Cheers

Mayavadis think free will to be an illusion.

No, they don't.

I see you still haven't given up offering your expert opinions on Mayavada.

Cheers

True Dat!

 

 

Cheers back to you!

Anyway, as long as it was fun for all the participants

I have a question for you. All these days gone and I was never aware of the Gaudiya position that chanting the Hare Krishna mantra at the time of death is sufficient to end reincarnation (I am not being sarcastic).

Can you point me to some material online which explains this in more detail? I am curious to see how a case is made to lead to this conclusion as I am not aware of any other Gita interpretation that makes it possible to be liberated in one lifetime.

And also if we have to explore this more, I suggest another thread as this one has outlived its usefulness.

Thanks

 

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by matarisvan

You mean Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Other Vaishnava branches reject christianity as mlechcha dharma.

I will remind you again that you are on a spritual forum and not a gaudiya vaishnava forum. Vaishnava does not default to Gaudiya Vaishnava here.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->I will accept that.

 

 

<!-- / message -->

If only this simple exchange had happened a month or two earlier! We could all have saved ourselves a lot of sparring.

Cheers

This is what I don't get about these folks that insist Prabhupada was using a preaching device when refering to Jesus as a saktyavesa avatar and saying Christianity was a form of Vaisnavism.

It is so easy to get, if you shed your sentiments and look at it objectively and dispassionately for just a minute.

Just like Prabhupada was not qualified to assign varnas to his disciples, neither was he qualified to know who was an avatar and who was not. Btw, I doubt even theist will agree with you that christianity is a form of Vaishnavism. At least, I do not recall such explicit statement from him.

Hypothetically if Prabhupada lures some unsuspecting Christian in with this preaching device and ultimately that Christian makes it to Vrndavana with Prabhupada, is Prabhupada then going to tell him that Jesus was really just some common village idiot and he is nowhere to be found now in the spiritual world and say that he just told the Christian that crap to bridge the gap between their cultures?

We will take you as an example. In your next life you may be born somewhere where you have no relation to Jesus and would care less about his authenticity or nature. After that you will live several more lives before getting to Vrindavana and meeting Prabhupada. But Prabhupada will not be Prabhupada there!

The thing is, when you get there after all these countless lives, why will you be fixated on people you knew in this life? You are not going to remember any of this. Even if you do, they are people you related to, in just one life out of billions. The mistake you are making is you are taking your physical identity from one arbitrary life out of countless lives and imagining it to be your permanent identity.

By now, Prabhupada would have taken birth somewhere and will have no memory of his past life. The same will happen to everyone.

Cheers

Sometimes pravacan can cross siddhanta. It does not change the siddhanta.

Such statements about Christ were meant to bridge the cultural gap in order to spread Krsna bhakti.

Raises a curious point. Granting that the identity of Jesus as a Vaishnava was not Sidhanta and was instead a pravachana tool to lure Christians, it still remains a baseless claim which would make it false.

So is it OK to utter falsities as long as it is part of Pravachana? What is the justification for this position?

Cheers

Doesn't matter if he is a child molester or not. Just because you can cure some illnesses and do some magic tricks like producing vibhuti, doesn't qualify you to be God.

The same logic should be equally and fairly applied to Jesus as well – for it to have any meaning. Turning water into wine or healing the blind are not qualifications.

I know better magicians than Sai Baba, and they never claim to be God.

Yes, we know better magicians than Jesus and Sai baba who - unlike them - did not introduce a religious angle into their magical tricks. But if it worked for Jesus, then it should work for Sai Baba. To state the converse, if it does not work for Sai Baba, it cannot work for Jesus as well. It is that fairness thing I was talking about earlier.

Now Sai Baba has millions of devotees who are perfectly happy with his status – whatever they see it as. They have a positive relationship with their Guru and are thankful for his presence in their lives, in spite of all the damaging, unfounded material circulated about him. Now compare this reality with what our distingushed iskcon colleaues have to say on this forum; people who have no knowledge about Sai Baba beyond what they read in trashy articles and yet consider themselves qualified to sit in judgement of his credibility.

And again, who was the one who said Sai Baba’s claim to a religious icon is due to his ability to perform magic?

Cheers

His devotees claim that he is god or he is an avatar. And he has some power. Power to over come your problems. Some of my cousins are his devotees and they are offering poojas to his image. I have not visited him nor attracted to such persons.

I don’t know how to educate these people and it’s a really shame to this world.

Why is it a shame to the world?

Cheers

Actually 'interpolation' means a later addition to a text. That is the dictionary definition and the actual meaning of the word. The fact that a passage contradicts what is said elsewhere may possibly suggest that it is an interpolation but it is not the defining criterion. With a text like the Mahabharata, which has around 80,000 verses it is not possible that acharyas could have cited all of them so that is not much help either.

 

Anyway, the actual meaning of the verb to interpolate is 'to add to an existing text'; but you may reinterpret the word so as to give a meaning you find more suitable.

 

And if we are going to say that all the passages of the Mahabharata which praise Shiva as the Supreme Deity are not really Mahabharata, then there is no point reading it all. But that is a pity because it is a wonderful work and one that all of us can learn from in so many ways.

But that has been the position on Smriti for a long time. It is valid only if it is in line with Shruti or else, it is invalid.

Madhva back in the 13th century wrote about the problem of multiple Mahabharata recensions and the difficuly of finding authentic portions of the text. He completely discarded Valmiki Ramayana as a valid source for the story of Rama.

Cheers

What is wrong in expecting proof?Would you believe a Superman comics to be real?Rama was not a coward but his act certainly was that of a coward,how else you describe it...

Like I said earlier, that is not the act of a coward. It was the smart move. During Shivaji's times, the marathas were not equipped to battle the huge Mughal army. So instead of direct combat, they engaged in guerilla warfare and found a lot of success which would most certainly not have been possible if they had fought them head-on. Does that make the Marathas cowards?

I just dont understand what is wrong in asking proof.Please enlighten me in that aspect.

I believe Rama and Krishna (if they existed) lived and died like regular humans. They were born just like other humans are born, they grew up over time just like everyone else, shaved, ate, slept, etc., just like everyone else. I had posted here earlier once that they would have even had internal organs like a liver, etc., which was met with shock and dismay by the pious devotees of this forum. Somehow, for some reason, to them an avatar can only have externally visible organs.

But all that aside, what kind of proof are you asking for? What kind of proof do you think is possible?

Cheers

Yes I can make the concession that each source does not have to be 100% correct on everything.

That is an admission of a very rare nature from a Prabhupada disciple.

It is always refreshing to see someone not take the "I know Vaishnavism better than Indians/Hindus because I have read a couple of Prabhupada books" attitude.

Cheers

Constantly dodged? It has hardly been discussed. What claim are you challenging that you have deliberately misconstrued one more time?

You are just spouting assumptions and misinterpretation from another unrelated argument. It's off topic at this point. I don't need to address it in this context whatever you imagine you have proven.

And once again, CBrahma - the greatest dodger of the 21st century - avoided the explicit quote from Sanatana Goswami on the definition of a Vaishnava which is different from the definition that Prabhupada made up to pull in Jesus & Christians.

A vaishnava is one who is initiated into the Vaishnava mantra - Sanatana Goswami

Anyone is a Vaishnava as long as we say he is. Therefore Jesus and Mohammad are Vaishnavas - Prabhupada

You ought to be play dodgeball man. Dodge, duck, dive, dip and dodge.

Cheers

Shri Sathya Sai Baba is a fake and a possible sexual predator? It is difficult for me to see why he is not what he presumes to be, but I guess you guys will know better especially for those that resides in India.

 

Many Hindus in the Carribbean revere him as The Ultimate. In temples they place his image and perform puja to him. He usually is placed on the astans next to Shridi Baba, Saraswati and Gayatri Mata.

 

Books of bhajans and collections of his discourses are treasured and used for Religious education and worship.

 

I have even witnessed friends leaving other forms of worship, such as Shakti worship because they believe in his teachings.

 

Can this be all true about Sai Baba?

Have you heard of "innocent until proven guilty?" Don't believe everything you hear about Sai Baba. All the talk you hear are from people who never met him or any of his devotees. They are just flapping their jaws based on hearsay.

Cheers