shvu

I think both sides [Theist, CBrahma vs. Rest of the world] have said enough and repeated their position multiple times for everyone to know exactly what they are saying. No point in repeating the same stuff over and over again. I am fine accepting that CBrahma and his company of over-the-hill geriatrics are incapable of change or undoing the brainwashing that has happened to them over a long time. The real concern was that no novices should be taken by the same nonsense and I believe we have made enough posts to avoid that and make people think instead of blindly sticking on to incorrect views for sentimental reasons. So in making people think, we have done our job. Case closed as far as I am concerned. Cheers

Everything you say about the Gita, Acharyas, etc., is part of the doctrine and is hence sectarian. This is like Christians arguing for the validity of the bible by quoting the bible. I cannot believe it is so hard for you to get it. You are just being stubborn in your old age. If Prabhupada had not made the following pitch, 1. Vaishnavism is not Hinduism 2. Vaishnavism is above every religion 3. Jesus was a super-duper guy and he has an elevated place in Vaishnavism you, theist and a number of your buddies would never have become Hare Krishnas to begin with. Having been conditioned to think this way for years, it is now impossible for you to think objectively and call a spade a spade. Cheers

Do you believe that your real varna is Shudra to the point that you gave up your Brahmana duties and have taken up Shudra activities? If not, why? Cheers

Sanatana Dharma was and is still widely used as a synonym for Hinduism. The logic is since many branches of Hinduism draw from the Vedas which are eternal, the name seems apt. Consequently all branches drawing from the Veda - to whatever extent - can lay claim to be the *real* Sanatana Dharma. Tattvavada is Sanatana Dharma Vishishtadvaita is Sanatana Dharma Advaita is Sanatana Dharma (booo!) Arya Samaj is Sanatana Dharma... They all differ from each other of course, but you get the idea. Cheers

If both the killed and the ones left alive will be liberated, then I fail to see the point of his incarnation again. Actually going by the mission statements attributed to Chaitanya and Kalki, Chaitanya's avatar makes a lot more sense than Kalki. C's model allows for a number of people to be liberated eventually while Kalki is more of a short term cure to destroy evil. And we know evil never really gets destroyed. It is gonna come right back. Cheers

Then the whole concept is pointless. Why bother to read the Gita - a set of words, or listen to a Prabhupada lecture - which is another set of words? Since you claim words cannot capture the richness, then how was this richness communicated to you in the first place? And since you evidently have a problem with using the word sect - surprising for someone who is not into semantics - why don't you provide your alternate definition of what you understand from the word sect so that we know what exactly your reservations are? Cheers

Sorry....you are completely off on that. We are dealing with well established english and sanskrit words here and this is pure semantics. If you bring in your sentiments, then so will the other guy and by that logic, then there is no sect in the world as all sects will claim to be above sects - based on sentiments similar to yours. And that moots the discussion. Cheers

Similar proof can be found in every sect/religion by using their own scriptures. So this proves nothing. And to my knowledge, no one outside the Gaudiya line interpets 18.66 as giving up all varieties of religion and that includes all the other Vaishnavas. About that long description of s Vaishnava from the Chaitanya Charitmarita - let us be realistic. If you were to set out looking for such a person, you will not find one. it is simply impossible for a single human to possess the superset of all those traits. That list was the product of someone's whimsical imagination. Let us stick to meaningful and practical definitions where possible and in this case that would be Vaishnava - worshipper of Vishnu. Now this creates ambiguity too. There are several Advaitins who worship Krishna like crazy. But they do not call themselves Vaishnavas nor will traditional Vaishnavas be inclined to label such Advaitins as Vaishnavas. So we will have to narrow down the definition further. . Cheers

Not to disrupt the flow or anything, but in my opinion, this discussion would be more meaningful if standard, accepted definitions of the two words - Vaishnava and Sect are provided and shown per standard definitions that Vaishnavism is indeed a sect. Without using prevailing understanding as a frame of reference, this thread will merely exchange individual opinions and no one is right or wrong. Then people who disagree with accepted standards can offer their arguments and make a case for deviating from standards. Obviously, singing the praises of their own affiliations and Gurus without any objective data does not qualify as an argument. An argument that can be reused by other sects by simply substituting the term Vaishnava with their own affiliation, is not a valid argument either. For example, a statement such as "Vaishnavism is the true religion of the soul" can be used by a Shaiva as "Shaivism is the true religion of the soul". Such statements are no better than idle praise and are completely worthless as arguments. Just to go the extra step, here are the accepted standards as I know them. Vaishnava - worshipper of Vishnu Sect - a group adhering to a specific teacher or doctrine Vaishnavism is a doctrine that selects scriptures which praise Vishnu as the highest entity and lays down the principles of Vishnu worship and the ultimate goal to be attained by mankind, among other things. Hence, by the above definitions, it follows that Vaishnavism is a sect or a family of sects when it may consist of multiple groups with certain differences in detail. Now one can raise the argument that Vaishnavism is not about the physical world. but of the soul and a trascendental realm. This concept however is still part of the doctrine [or it would be an invalid statement otherwise] and hence does not deviate from the standard. Cheers

To add some more detail to the origin of the name - The Mahabharata has in several places referred to the Dharma it adheres to as eternal [esha Dharma sanatanah]. This statement has since then been copied over to other texts like the Manu Smriti, etc. Meanwhile, the name Hindu found its way into embellished versions of the Bhavishya Purana, Kalika Purana, etc. Sometime during the 19th century, the etymology of Hindu was seen as a patriotic issue and the new name "Sanatana Dharma" was coined, inspired by the Mahabharata statements. This name was eventually popularized at a globa level by Vivekananda as he thought it was a more appropriate name for Hinduism than the word Hindu for its original meaning meant something else. Today most internet articles are ignorant about this, and incorrectly write Sanatana Dharma was the original name of the religion, without providing references. While there exist a number of articles researching the etymology of the word Hindu, no articles exist which research the origin of Sanatana Dharma. If people are more interested in the topic, I would suggest posting questions on the indology forum or getting in touch with University students or professors who are involved in Indology. Cheers

How does a one time world tour on a horse cutting off asura heads, help? There are many people in the world at this moment who are responsible for causing pain and suffering in the world. But their parents [previous generation] were not bad people. So even if all the bad people of today are slain, many of the children born to the good people of today will be evil tomorrow and things will be back to exactly how they were. Kalki's stated mission appears to be a pointless task. It would be much better for Kalki to offer some concrete evidence of an afterlife, so that people who are not taken by fairly tales can accept the big picture based on evidence and not because some old book from India wrote stories about it. That would be much more sensible, in my opinion. Cheers

I admire your ability to survive in a group for so long where rational thinking is discouraged. I know I could never have managed that. But like you said, things can always get better. I have been arguing with theist for quite a few years now and he is a practical man too, as long as he does not get emotional. But he gets emotional all too quickly and then most discussions go south after that. Anyway, we are all born with different endurance levels. I do not think it is something we can cultivate. Cheers

I'll partially agree with this point. If I accept a Guru as bonafide after appropriate scrutiny, then it makes sense that I take him at his word. However, in this case, you scrutinized the Guru for his abilities as a spiritual Guru only. You did not evaluate his knowledge on the english language, history, geography, politics, etc as that is irrelevant to your spritual quest. But you seem to say that the Guru's word should be the final matter on these subjects too. And that is where most of the differences here are. I will remind everyone once again that this thread is on semantics and has nothing to do with spirituality. Cheers

If I may, You are an odd bird in the flock. Theist and CBrahma are model Hare Krishnas who cannot think beyond "Prabhupada said so". You on the other hand, by thinking logically and calling a spade a spade, are in danger of being ostracized by the HK community. Cheers

I would say the same for your view on Hinduism and all related topics. It has been given way too much attention here than it deserves. But that is exactly what happens we have free time on our hands. Cheers

More than a response to post #1, this is really a response to post #8 [which has since been removed by a moderator]. It would be shameful to look on and not act to curtail ignorance and falsities when we see them. And certainly not when we see moronic attempts of Christians trying to redefine Hinduism. Half knowledge is worse than no knowledge. However, here it appears increasingly obvious that half knowledge is all there is for people who take the “Prabhupada said so” approach. It is commonly misunderstood that Sanatana Dharma is an ancient and original name of Hinduism – the reasons being it is made up of Sanskrit words and most writers themselves are unaware of its origin and therefore assume its antiquity in their writings, thus further propagating the error. The word Hindu is of Persian Origin. Several centuries of foreign rule during the second millennium AD eventually bought out enough resentment of everything foreign in the minds of some indigenous Hindus of India which was the time [19<SUP id=gk1- goog_docs_charIndex="881">th</SUP> Century] when they started revolting against British rule. About the same time, some the educated people for various reasons decided to rename Hinduism as Sanatana Dharma. The reason behind the name was the belief that The Vedas are eternal and therefore Hinduism which had some roots in the Vedas must also be eternal. So the reality is the other way around. The name Hindu is much older than the name Sanatana Dharma. Needless to say, the usage of Sanatana Dharma as a noun naming the religion is completely absent in scriptures ranging from the Rig-Veda to literature as recent as the 18<SUP id=qeb7 goog_docs_charIndex="1477">th</SUP> century AD. It just did not exist. However, in spite of its recent origin, the sanskrit name has become quite popular in some sections and leading dictionaries have recognized Sanatana Dharma as a synonym for Hinduism. Though this is a general spiritual form, Hare Krishnas form the majority of participants and therefore a special note of their interpretation of Sanatana Dharma is in order. Prabhupada the founder, clearly unaware of the political and recent origin of the term Sanatana Dharma, went overboard in writing long rambles of what the name means which is grossly incorrect. This is not the only mistake he has made however. The long list includes alternative views on moon landings, alternative theories on gravitation, incorrect meanings for Hinduism and Vaishnavism, believing the moon to be a star, and perhaps also believing the earth was flat! Some of his mentally challenged followers – mostly of Christian background – have been known to exhibit extreme fanaticism by adamantly sticking on to the “Prabhupada version” even in the face of glaring evidence saying otherwise. They probably find it easy to take the “Don’t make me think” position as this type of religious fundamentalism is not uncommon among Christians and in most cases these fanatics dropped out of school, lacking basic education required to think clearly and without prejudice for more than ten seconds at a stretch. As Rajan Parikar put it aptly several years ago, Let me first list some of their virtues: 1) Nice, friendly, personable fellows. 2) They make excellent food and are enthusiastic about sharing it with others; In particular, their semolina halva gets a solid A. 3) They sing besura bhajans and pronounce them as "baajaans." They have only one vice: They don't know what the hell they're talking about:-) To close, take statements from the Christian turned Hare Krishnas with large doses of salt, as most of their statements come without supporting evidence and the only justification they can provide is “Prabhupada said so”. If that is all the evidence you need, then their statements are correct. If not, then they are usually incorrect. And for the denser ones, if you want to prove me wrong on the origin of the term Sanatana Dharma, avoid empty quotes or long rants from Takurs and Srilas. You are however free to engage in your usual ad hominem spiels. We have seen them for so long that we have grown accustomed to them. Cheers

Bhakti Vinod is not an authority on the topic. Something does not become true just because Bhakti Vinod or someone else said so. It appears that is sufficient for you, but I would like to remind you that you are in a generic discussion forum arguing with non-Gaudiya Vaishnavas. And therefore, bald statements from Gaudiya Gurus without substantiation add no value. If you were to pick up a history book or a Purana or a sanskrit dictionary and read about Vaishnavism/Shaivism/Shaktism, their growth, their interactions, etc., you will be in a much better position to understand this. But without any of the above and wholly relying on Prabhupada's propoganda statements will continue to leave you ignorant and misinformed about some ground realities of religion in India. If you are aware that your view of Vaishnavism is specific to you and your Gurus and you are fine with continuing to hold on to the same view regardless of its veracity, then you are welcome to. We all are entitled to our own opinions, however incorrect they may be. But if you want take a step back and learn more without applying your biases, then you can start here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaivism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaishnavism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaktism And to round off, Dictionary meaning of Sect - A group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or a leader. You will learn that Vaishnava is an Indian sect just like several other sects, no matter how much some people here may try to distort the real picture. Other than sentiments and baseless statements by some Bengali Babus, there is nothing else to support the elevation of any of these sects to a non-sectarian level. Cheers

Then try and explain how it relates to Shaktism and Shaivism and how they have been perceived in history. I mean the actual perception, not your understanding. Also your understanding othe word sect will be helpful. Cheers

Very well. You will agree then, that this non-sectarian movement should not have been given the sectarian name Vaishnavism, as Vaishnavism has a long history and through all its history, it has always been sectarian, even to this day. There is really nothing in scripture to to show Vaishnavism as anything other than sectarian and any liberal meanings associated with the name are nothing more than unfounded claims from recent Gurus. In the absence of historical and scriptural evidence, it boils down to this - If you have faith in the words of these Gurus and require no further corroboration, then a new, universal non-sectarian movement can pass for Vaishnavism. If mere faith in the words of these Gurus is not sufficient and alternate corroboration is necessary, then as no such evidence exists, it is concluded that a non-sectarian movement such as iskcon cannot qualify as Vaishnavism. It has to have a different name. Pure semantics as I see it. Cheers

I will say then Jesus was a Shaiva in line with the Shaivas from India who worship Shiva as the ultimate Supreme person and consider total surrender and unconditional Bhakti to him as the ultimate goal for mankind. How do I know this? Jesus's God has no name, so this unnamed God becomes a candidate who can be mapped to any other God with a name. Since Jesus's teachings of love, etc are compatible with the Shaiva system, it stands to reason that Jesus was talking about Shiva without naming him and was therefore a Shaiva. And in case, you are not familiar with Shaivism, please educate yourself on the subject and avoid pontificating on topics you do not know. Some of your dropout/Hare Krishna colleagues on this fourm have been known to do that in the past - talk big about topics they know nothing about [Advaita, Kundalini, Shiva, India, Hinduism, Science, Astronomy, Archaeology, British conspiracies...the list is endless]. Cheers

That statement is generic enough to be identified with Shaivism, Vaishnavism and probably a dozen other religions around the world. On what basis will you argue that it means only one of these dozen different religions? Cheers

If the distinction was real, then why bother to continue age-old sectaran practices such as the nama, etc from India and expect Americans to follow these Indian traditions? Should you not as a follower of the tradition accept the rules he laid down as having some significance? Then you will have to accept that these external rites exist for a reason and they are connected to Krishna consciousness or else Prabhupada would have kept these rites outside his universal movement - Iskcon. If you as a Guru intended to create a universal spiritual movement which was free from the limitations of existing religious systems, then the first thing you would do is give it a new name to clearly identify the uniqueness. But if you choose to use a 1000+ year old name [which is still in use] to your new movement and try to modify its meaning, how does that work? Instead of C vs. V, if you argued for C vs. GV - which is what you are really arguing for anyway - then I doubt you will have anyone objecting here. But when you use the more generic term Vaishnava and read new meanings into it, then it is only fair that you expect to be challenged on a general discussion forum. Cheers

I know he wore saffron, the nama, practised ekadashi, etc, etc., which - surprise, surprise - is exactly the set of traditions peculiar to Vaishnava sects in India. What make it is a universal solution to the world's problems? I do not see Hare Krishnas from Prabhupada's time necessarily being happier than other humans. In fact, it is the other way around for a number of them - their misery and repressions a testimony of the failure of the path they chose. So much for an universal solution. Cheers

As I have said several times before, Sanatana Dharma is a term coined by Indian patriots less than 200 years ago as they were resentful of the term Hindu for its foreign origin. It was an outcome of the mood of the time, much similar to how Bombay became Mumbai recently. I fail to see how this now becomes the eternal religion of the soul. A christian will make the same argument for his religion and a moslem will do the same. Cheers

Still did not respond to Raghu's quote from the PP. Aren't we changing direction here? Weren't you the one who [mistakenly] demanded Shastric quotes to prove a negative on this thread a short time ago? Now you do a 180 and expect peple to accept a positive claim without corroboration from scripture solely on the basis of "Prabhupada said so". Cheers