shvu

I can go silent as I do not have any pending questions to answer. Not the same with you as you made some tall claims and now that you have been asked to walk your talk, you are on the run. He contradicted Sanatan Goswami on the Vaishnava definition - something that you have constantly dodged. Nor can he pull things like "Christ-loka" out of his hat. Sai Baba's devotees make claims about their Guru which do not contradict scripture, but not found in scripture either (just like Prabhupada's Christ Loka). Why do you have a problem with Sai Baba then? I want to say - Walk your talk, CBrahma but then we know you cannot. You have run out of substance, but apparently not out of steam yet. Cheers

I am not aware of Rama being accused of cowardice in this episode. On the contrary it was the smart move, as he would have failed to win a head-on battle with Vali by virtue of the latter's unique abilities. So I do not see any problems here. Cheers

Mohammad did not do any of these either. Yet Prabhupada had no problems calling him an avatar. Rama, The Buddha, Narasimha, etc., did not lift the goverdhan. Can we conclude that they are not avatars? Why the special tests for Sai Baba while being lenient in the case of Mohammad? Cheers

I don't think that was TB's question. Since you claimed that *all* of Prabhupada's statements are supported by scripture, you are being challenged on this point to present scriptural evidence of "Christ-loka". You cannot claim to not believe in Chirst-loka as Prabhupada is the one who told you folks about it. If you claim to be his follower. but refuse to believe in Christ-loka, then you are guilty of the very problem you are accusing Kulapavana of. And earlier, I notice you claimed all GV acharyas say the same thing and when presented with a quote from Sanatana Goswami which clearly is different from Prabhupada's view [on who is a Vaishnava]. you have gone silent on the topic. Does that mean you accept the inconsistency? I suppose that would be too much to hope for...but you never know. Cheers

AM, Just as you are willing to accept good/positive teachings, regardless of the source, are you also willing to concede that it is not necessary that each source has to be 100% correct on everything? Because as you can see, some people here are of the belief that Prabhupada statements are infallible and ought to be defended at all costs, however ridiculous some of them may be. Sentiments override logic and rational thinking, for these gentlemen as is evident from how each discussion spans across several pages. Cheers

It is only speculaton. Without evidence, there is no reason for us to conclude Srikanta did not exist. Dr BNK Sharma, the Dvaita scholar, accepts Srikanta as the Bhashyakara and also admires the quality of his work, though he would not agree with it. Discussing Appayya here is a digression, but to add my angle, Advaita Sampradayas do not see things this way. Appayya and his descendants have contributed significantly to the tradition and he would certainly not have been held in high regard, if he lost debates lacking ability to defend his own doctrine. If you take the positon that the Lord misleads people sometimes, then it is possible that he was actually misleading the Vaishnavas. How does one rule that possiblity out? Anyway, here is the problem. Iskcon used to quota a verse from the Padma Purana which criticized Mayavada (by name) as a false philosophy which was intentionally delivered to mislead people. Yet Madhva - whose primary goal was to be as different from Advaita as possible - is silient about this verse. If this verse existed during his time, instead of writing pages of criticism, he would have simply quoted this verse and closed the case. Knowing that Puranas have undergone several revisions over time and knowing the history of Shaiva/Vaishnava relationship, it is more likely that these verses are interpolations, just like the Mayavada verse or other Purana verses that popped up in Bengal overnight as evidence of Chaitanya's avatarhood. Another key point that has not been discussed here is the origin of Shaiva sects. Vishnu comes from the Veda, but Shiva does not. Shaiva sects originated outside the Veda and eventually when they all came together to form Hinduism, Shiva was mapped to the Vedic Rudra at some point. From what I have seen, Shaivas generally do not attach much importance to the Rig-veda just like many Vaishnavas do not bother with the Yajur. Strictly speaking, there is not much common ground for logical debates between the two groups. Most of these debates draw upon sentiments or from sources which are valued in only one group. For example on this thread, trying to determine the status/nature of Shiva by quoting Vaishnava texts like the Gita, Bhagavatam, etc., will not help much. Cheers

It really depends on interpretation. Shrikanta, a Shaiva [12th century] was able to interpret the Brahma sutras to mean Shiva was the Supreme Brahman. We also have Vaishnava interpretations which say something else totally. Smarta traditions interpret Rudram, chamakam, etc., of the Yajur Veda to be talking about Shiva. Of course, you will not :-). The Shiva Purana does not call itself Tamasic. The accusation is made in some Vaishnava Puranas(they call themselves sattvic, btw) and given the history of hostility between the two groups, it is no surprise. On the topic, the "Shaiva Purana" listed in the 18 major Puranas is actually the Vayu Purana. The Shiva Purana that is commonly mistaken for the "Shaiva Purana" is actually a Upa-Purana from the 11th century AD. It is not tamasic. But to have a uniform doctrine, it becomes necessary to interpret several sections to mean something other than what they outwardly mean. Every doctrine has its share of interpretations. So you first draw a baseline such as Vishnu is the greatest or Vishnu = Shiva and then proceed to interpret everything that does not directly agree with your foregone conclusion. And then say, "Hey, look! my doctrine is correct because it is consistent!". Cheers

x

I have a problem because some sections of Hinduism are monotheistic too. So the usage of either of the two on Hinduism is incomplete. Cheers

Should be possible. But the point is english words like polytheism, etc., do not adequately address these philosophies. Perhaps sticking to sanskrit words like Deva, paramatma, Brahman, etc., may make it easier to communicate. Cheers

Iconism - The formation of a figure, representation, or semblance; a delineation or description. Polytheism - belief in or worship of more than one god Monotheism - the doctrine or belief that there is only one God Theism - belief in the existence of a god or gods Impersonalism - the practice of maintaining impersonal relations with individuals or groups Impersonal - having no personality; devoid of human character or traits. Pantheism - any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe. The above is from www.dictionary.com Unfortunately there does not exist a single english word which will take into account the Hindu concept of many Gods woven into the fabric of a single God. You are using words or concepts which were formed to distinguish Christianity from other religions prevalent during its rise in the Middle East area, which are simply not enough to capture the intricate nature of common Hindu beliefs. In short, Polytheism as is commonly understood just does not apply to Hinduism. Cheers

Based on what? Cheers

Yes, but then you should not be arguing with non-Gaudiya Vaishnavas using Gaudiya specific scriptures, don't you think? But you seem to be doing exactly that. You appear to think your Gaudiya proprietary scriptures and Gurus are to be treated as authority even by people who are not part of the GV system. Cheers

There is really no reason why a Vaishnava should bother with worshipping Shiva, when that time can be utilized to worship Vishnu/Krishna instead. There is no value add in taking time out for other Gods. On the other hand, Shiva's status in relation to Vishnu is not a universal truth. It strictly depends on the context, scriptures chosen as authority and the levels of priority assigned to them. Cheers

The word Veda as used in the context of Hinduism or even just the Gita is used to mean the Rik, Sama and Yajur only. Even the inclusion of Atharvana in this list is questionable. So in general, though the term means knowledge, contextually it means specific knowledge - about Brahman or Vishnu. Knowledge that cannot be obtained through any other means. Growing potatoes, chip design, extracting coke from opium, brain surgery, etc., also fall under the category of knowledge, but not under the category of Veda. Of course, if Amlesh has a different view, I stand corrected and I hope he will forgive me for my ignorance. Cheers

Well then, I guess we should be considering ourselves fortunate to associate with a rare soul such as yourself who has correctly understood the conclusion of the vedas. Salutes

Not bad at all. Very unlikely that anyone else can answer these many questions from memory. Cheers

I do not know if Valimiki turned into a Brahmin, but a more stronger example of such an exception is that of Vishwamitra, a Kshatriya turning into a Brahmana and today we have two Brahmin gotras that claim to have originated from him - Vishwamitra gotra and Kaushika gotra. I vaguely remember reading more on the topic in Pargiter's book [Ancient Indian History Historical Tradition] on of how a couple of very early Vedic kings turned into Brahmanas, really before the time of Gotra formation. But they were very special circumstances and these individuals appear to have undergone a lot of effort in the cross-over process. Cheers

You will find both good and bad opinions about this guy. This is true for most Gurus these days anyway. So you can rely on third party opinion only so far. Picking a Guru/doctrine and sticking around is a very personal choice and the lesser you rely on general opinions, the better off you are. In reality I have seen most people who pursue religion/spirituality have very superficial levels of interest. Their interest/involvement is above and beyond all other other activities that are going on in their lives. For such people, it does not matter whom they pick as any damage that may be caused by a religious system is very low as the involvement was low. There are some people who are interested enough to make drastic changes in their lifestyle by choosing a teacher or system. Changes that cannot be reversed, if there is a fallout like lost youth, education, etc. In such cases, extra care is strongly advised before taking the plunge. I have personally seen terrible damage happen to two people, a 18 year old and a 27 year old. I think you are of the former type, so you do not have to worry. Cheers

Baed on what? The Christian idea that you simply accept jesus as your savior and everything is take care of? There are no such shortcuts here. Certainly not what the Gita says... After several lives, the wise man reaches <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<a href=""" /><st1:State><st1:place>Me.</st1:place></st1:State> Very rare indeed is the great soul who understands that Vasudeva is all there is. BG 7.19 There are Upanishads which describe the path as hard as walking on a knife's edge due to worldly distractions. But since you and your camp do not attach any importance to Upanishads, let us not use them in discussion. Cheers

The problem is the first two sentences are not related to the rest of the quote at all. He could have have just dropped these lines and the meaning of the verse would have meant the same. This is how writers create confuision by adding redundant statements. And since Varna comes from Birth, he was a Brahmana no matter what he said. There are some people who do not like to attach themselves to any country...they call themselves citizens of the world. However, in reality, he will be born/nationalized in some country and that is his country...no matter what he says. Same logic. Therefore Chaitanya was a Brahmana by birth and that was his Varna. I know it is a waste of time to discuss anything with you, but I think the absence of a link between varna and devotion should be emphasized on this forum. Cheers

Technically the caste system in India and the varna system are different. A Brahmin of subcaste A looks down upon a Brahmin of subcaste B. Mixing up varna and caste will result in erroneous conclusions. And why are you taken by what someone else says how worthy you are? Cheers

What is meant by qualification? Who is the judge and who authorized this judge to determine someone's or his own qualifications? It is impossible to evaluate a person and classify him into a varna. Look at some of the long time devotees right here on this forum. They have been devotees since the 70s and yet after 30+ years they are so arrogant and offensive, not to mention shallow. What varna will you assign to them and on what basis? A good point was made on how Prabhupada classified some devotees as Brahmanas who eventually did not measure up. But at the time Prabhupada "made" them Brahmanas, I assume they appeared to have all the necessary qualifications. But that was not really the case. In the absence of a judge, for the concept of Varna to make any sense, it has to be classified by birth. Or there is no meaning to the whole concept and may as well be trashed. Anyway AM, You said you are here to learn. A number of posts have been made on the topic and so what is your current view? Has your outlook on Varnas changed or does it remain exactly the same? if you have not learnt anything, why? And also your ancestors eating cows has no bearing on you. It is what you do and not do that matters. I suppose Iskcon telling people they have shudra mentality/intelligence makes it easier to brainwash young people by lowering their self-esteem and their confidence in their own ability to think independently. Has that possibility occured to you? Cheers

If we take a vote, it is you and theist who would be accused of fanaticism on this forum. Consider this: Christians, Hindus, Vaishnavas...everyone disagree with you two. Cheers

The frustrated Mlechcha's reasoning for not having a varna. Here is a story in connection to your frustration http://www.bartelby.org/17/1/31.html ONE hot summer’s day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. “Just the things to quench my thirst,” quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: “I am sure they are sour.” The moral of the story -> It is easy to despise what you cannot get [or what you do not have as in CBrahma's case here]. Cheers