shvu

I'm not about to start up every thread and discuss all statements I made in this or that context. I don't need to. The topic of this thread has to do with Vaisnava gods being targeted. Do you have anything to contribute. You have gone silent for a lot longer.

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.

Nothing Prabhupada says contradicts scripture. Do you contend that he does?

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

According to MadhvAchArya, the arguments pointing to alleged flaws in the Lord suffer from upajIvya virodha. Put simply, it goes like this, if we consider the oft-repeated accusation that Rama was a coward and lacked powers, because he killed Vali hiding behind a tree etc. etc.

 

Inference or anumAna: Rama is a coward

Source of Inference (hetu): Vali Episode

Source of this hetu: RAmAyaNa, which NEVER says Rama is a coward.

Conclusion: anumAna contradicts the source of its hetu, and therefore renders itself invalid. Technically, it's called upjIvya virodha.

 

The same logic provided by Madhva can be extended to ANY accusation regarding the Lord's alleged flaw, doing which we can render the opponent's argument invalid and meaningless.

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

If Saibaba tells us he is god then he has to prove it. Can he lift Govardhana Hill with one finger? Can he exhale universes from his pores? He he subject to birth death old age and disease?

That's why sastra needs the support of guru and sadhu.

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

It wasn't a question. It was an assumption. I don't have to 'believe' in Christ loka to know that Christianity fits under the umbrella of Vaisnavism.

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

Yeah I will listen to them.

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

Shvu, at this point, I would like to clear this up. There is speculation that a 'Srikantha' never really existed. A saivite advaitin by the name of Appaya Dikshitar in the 16th century wrote that Bhashya under the name of 'Srikantha'.

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.

Similarly, Appaya Dikshitar also wrote Saundarya Lahiri, Shivananda Lahiri and passed it off as the works of Adi Sankara.

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.

Look at it this way. If Vaishnava interpretation of scripture sees the sattva/rajas/tamas classification as natural and not an interpolation. Because Lord Vishnu certainly is known to mislead people at times.

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

I am sure there are ways of reinterpreting this text so as to get an alternative meaning, but one can hardly say that there are no Vedic pramanas for Shaivism when the overt meaning of this text is that Rudra is the one supreme lord without second. Other verses in the Upanishad confirm the overt meaning.

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.

Why is the Shiva Purana tamasic. I have read it a couple of times and there is nothing in it all to indicate the influence of Tamas.

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.

Is the Mahabharata also Tamasic? If not, what is the problem with citing it as support for a Shaiva position?

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 no problems saying Hinduism is polytheistic.

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

These theological concepts are not so easily dispatched by a dictionary which only gives a minimal clue to their meaning.

Is Vaisnavism so mystical as to defy logical analysis? I thought it was scientific. It's too easy to say that about any religion or mode of thought.

'It transcends categories of thought'. No doubt God is beyond our comprehension but the belief system can certainly be understood to pick out one God over many. This is impossible?

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

Of course the sectarian religionists like the Christians, Hindus and Islamists will not like this idea but it is the truth nontheless.

Based on what?

Cheers

I don't know who EVERYONE happens to be. In fact I don't care, because Gaudiya Vaisnavism is not EVERYONE's system of belief. Jiva Goswami accepts the Samhita. Whether you do or EVERYBODY does is of no consequence from a Gaudiya Vaisnava perspective.

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

However, very few can understand the conclusion of the Vedas. You are wise enough Theist, to understand what I mean.

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

Some hard questions there. Some I answers I am pretty sure of, some guesses and some I don't know at all.

 

1. During the yuga-sandhya between kali and satya

2. A guess--chakshush

3. Dharma, from the Mahabharata

4. Dana, Shaucha and two others. These I am guessing are the four legs of the bull encountered by Parikshit.

5. ----

6. One year old?

7. Om namo vasudevaya shuddha-jnana-virupine

8. Because he wanted to be greater than an earthly king. He was a kshatriya by disposition and so sought greater power. A bit of a guess.

9. Narada persuaded Daksha's sons to renounce the world and not produce offspring. He was cursed to have no permanent home.

10. Was he blessed so as to survive the pralaya at the end of the creation?

11. ----

12. Bhakti?

13. Vajranabha

14. Arjuna?

15. Bhishma

16. No he was not angry, he felt blessed to have been allowed to see Krishna and to be welcomed by him with such humility.

17. Nriga gave away the same cow to two Brahmins and so was cursed to be a lizard.

18. ---

19. ---

20. ---

 

That's the best I can come up with without looking at books, but that would be cheating. Good quiz. Thank you very much.

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

Cheers

You yourself believe one is born into their caste, so I don't need to give any evidence there. I will admit, I can't think of any examples of people changing castes, that come directly to my mind from the texts I mentioned, but didn't Valmiki change his caste from an outcaste to a Brahmin?

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

without sparking any type of debate or anything, what do you guys think about the Divine Love Society http://www.jkp.org ? are they recognized as being legit? I kind of like what have been reading but i don't want to get involved with any kind of culty stuff.

Jai Sri Visnu!

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

That spiritual life should depend on so many material contigencies is too strange to believe.

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

Lord Chaitanya says:

 

"I am not a brahmana, I am not a ksatriya, I am not a vaisya or a sudra. Nor am I a brahmacari, a householder, a vanaprastha or a sannyasi. I identify Myself only as the servant of the servant of the servant of the lotus feet of Lord Sri Krsna, the maintainer of the gopis. He is like an ocean of nectar, and He is the cause of universal transcendental bliss. He is always existing with brilliance. "

 

Chaitanya Caritamrta Madhya 13. 80

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Sort of like how caste centered Hindus tell people who are born into shudra familys that they must always remain subordinate and humble to those born in brahmin familys, and can never gain as much self worth as the brahmins?

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

That sounds reasonable now that I see you are acknowledging that qualification does have something to do with caste and not just merely birth. With that understanding I don't see how this has turned into such a controversial subject.

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

Fanaticism is attacking people like a bull dog when you have no substantive argument. That's your specialty.

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

Caste elitism at its finest!! Everybody in Kali Yuga is born sudra or lower.

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