shvu

Good. If he indeed said that in your dream then why are you arguing for a sectarian label like Vaishnava? You are deviating from Prabhupada's vision by doing so and incurring some serious aparadha. That is baloney. So if someone offers the correct meaning of Vaishava, they become Prabhupada haters? You do not follow Buddhism. So are you a Buddhist hater? You have to do better. I suggest you go back to bed and hopefully Prabhupada or Jesus will appear in your dream again and provide some clarity. Cheers

I read his case. He says Vaishnava has taken an unpleasant and regrettable sense being seen as another faction like Ganapathi worshippers, Muslims and Christians.I fail to see what is unpleasant about any of these names. And then he says this, 'Vaishnava', which literally and naturally means one who worships Vishnu out of pure love expecting nothing from Him in return. By his own admission, he has clarified that the label Vaishnava is for Vishnu worshippers only. He never says the label applies to any form, anywhere as you are claiming. Vaishnava = one who worships Vishnu or one of his forms. Shaiva = one who worships Shiva or one of his forms. X may be a devout catholic and and real devotee of Jesus. But he never worshipped Shiva in his life. Does that make him a Shaiva? The answer is NO. Jesus may have worshipped some form God as was known to him in his time. Is there any evidence that this God was Shiva? Is there any evidence that this God was Vishnu? or Rama or Krishna? The answer is NO. It follows he was not a Vaishnava. Simple Semantics as you can see. You cannot say all people in the world who believe in democracy are Americans. That is not the meaning of the word. I understand what you are saying. Your logic is there is one God and anyone who worships that God in any name or form is a Vaishnava. But unfortunately - you can accept it or reject it - Vaishnava is just another sectarian label from India like Shaiva and the word was never meant to be used in such a generic sense and for that reason it cannot be used that way now. As an individual you can believe what you want, but you cannot expect to have everyone deviate from the norm. I do not see Bhakti Siddanta using it that way in your quote either. Have you come across Bhakti Siddhanta and/or Prabhupada say all Shaivas who worship Shiva as the supreme Lord with love are actually Vaishnavas? Or that all people in the world who worship the supreme Lord in any form including Krishna are actually Shaivas? Or Shaivas = Vaishnavas? Cheers

Yes, but Indian kids behave the exact same way with cricket. At least in the US, there are Basketball, hockey and baseball which also enjoy national level importance. But in India nothing comes close to cricket. Cheers

Will you accept the world map released by national geographic as correct or will you accept the description of the earth in the Bhagavatam as a set of concentric circles of land and water? Yes, science may perhaps be perceived as faulty and imperfect in some ways, but it is still the best tool we have for material knowledge. Puranas by their content are religious compendiums and are not meant to provide us with knowledge of geography, paleontology and medicine. Certainly not in disagreement with the findings of modern science. Cheers

This discussion is digressing into something else. The original topic of the thread was "Is Jesus a Vaishnava?" It is irrelevant if Jesus existed or not. if he did not, he was not a Vaishnava, and even if he did exist, simple semantics say he was not a Vaishnava as made very clear several times on this thread. Now certain recent Gurus from the Hare Krishna sect have chosen to provide their own definition of a Vaishnava which has been interpreted by western Hare Krishnas to incude Jesus under the Vaishnava umbrella. But as someone clarified above, such a deviation from the established understanding of the term Vaishnava is acceptable only to those who accept the words of these Gurus over the traditional and widely accepted meaning of Vaishnava. Otherwise these deviations are worthless. Specifically, by their own explicit admissions, the Hare Krishnas have made it clear that the meaning of Vaishnava as seen by them comes from Bhakti Siddanta Saraswati and Prabhupada. They should obviously have no problems accepting that this unique case will only be accepted by their fellow men and will be **rejected** by the majority of Vaishnavas in this world (and everyone else). In short, Jesus can be a Vaishnava only to those who accept the words of Bhakti Siddanta and Prabhupada over everyone else, including earlier Gurus in their line and standard dictionaries. To the rest of the world, he is not a Vaishnava. Matarisvan made a brilliant point that they should label Jesus a "Hare Krishna" if they want him to be part of their group, in which case no one would have objected. Case closed.

The three major traditions of Vedanta different mainly in the way they define and describe realization or moksha. Before Moksha, it s pretty much the same for the Advaitin and the Vaishnava. Worship Vishnu or Krishna, read the Gita and go through the same song and dance sequence as anyone else. But the differences kick in at/after Moskha. Advaita says all duality is due to ignorance and the point of realization is when ignorance and thereby duality is removed. Brahman along exists at that point. Tattvavada & mostly all other Vaishnava traditions say Moksha is when the jiva becomes free and goes to Vaikunta where it will permanently reside with Vishnu. As you can see, they are completely different. Tattvavada says Vishnu has an eternal form and the jiva permanently remains an independent entity from Vishnu. Compare this with Advaita which holds that forms being an outcome of duality exist due to ignorance and the jiva is in reality none other than Brahman. Cheers

I think this mistaken view comes from some recent concepts thrown around in some religious groups of how it is better to live the way Indians were living 5000 years ago compared to the "hedonistic", material way of life which originated in the west and is sweeping the globe. The problem is this view is so far removed from reality. People of this generation are so used to modern conveniences that they would not last 2 minutes in this "utopia" of 5000 year old India. But to understand this, one would have to come in real contact with something or someone that gives them a first hand experience of what it really requires from them. They will never hold such ideas of crossing over to the past. But unless they do a reality check, it will continue to appear appealing and better than what they have. The Amish are one example. Their population is steadily decreasing as they have a chance to compare their way of life with the modern way and choose the latter. The world transitioned from a primitive agricultural society into a modern society as humans prefer this way of life over that. It was a natural move. When we were kids, the great thing in life was to be a detective solving complex crimes and experiencing the thrills. A reality check shows the life of a detective is far from exciting and nothing like in the movies and the novels. People who are in the profession would be glad to get out if they have a chance. Cheers

An Advaitin will say all classic literature says only thing - oneness as interpreted by Shankara. They also hold that there are no additions to the philosophy since Shankara. Some scholars may differ among themselves in the way they teach the doctrine, but they do not differ from Shankara. I cannot speak for everyone, but at least Ramanuja and Madhva in their commentaries referred to Shankara's philosophy as Mayavada. Cheers

Sure, there is a line between groups who hold identity between the soul and the Lord and groups who do not. But if you are thinking Advaita is not mono-theist, you are wrong. In fact, Advaita is more mon-theistic than any other religious branch in India including Vaishnavas. Advaita holds all Gods are ultimately the same, whereas Vaishnavas rank Gods and hold the difference between them is permanent. Advaita: Vishnu = Shiva = Ganesha = one God Vaishnava = Vishnu != Shiva != Ganesha = 3 Gods, ranked in a sequence. Who is mono-theist here? And for the sake of completeness (from the urban dictionary), ========== <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD class=def_number width=20></TD><TD class=def_word>theism</TD><TD class=def_thumbs> </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD colSpan=2>Theism is not a religion, rather it is a belief in god(s). This can be a belief in a single God, as in Islam, Christianity, or Judaism (monotheism), or a belief in deities or multiple gods, such as Hinduism & many ancient religions. Islam is a type of theism. Christianity is a type of theism. Judaism is a type of theism. Theism can be unrelated to organised religion. Theism is not the same as religion. Religions can be atheistic, i.e. Buddhism. ======== Cheers </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Herodotus the Greek from the 5th century BC is the first known person to write about seven wonders. But he did not say wonders, it was more like a "must-see" recommendation for travellers and it was also not about the entire world either; just the mediterranean region. Since then, several such lists have been drawn, the only two common factors being the number seven and the Great Pyramid. Recently a new list was made which does not have the pyramid. The Greeks believed the number seven was magical, which may have been the the basis or else it was just simply because the first list had 7 places. And finally the amazon, the canyon, the sun, the moon, etc do not figure in the list as they are not man made structures. Cheers

Beautiful, This made my day! I bet he was told to do this in a dream when he visited Navadwipa. Just like Madhva was told in Navadwipa in a dream "worship me secretly..." or something like that. First Ramanuja, then Madhva, now Mahesh Yogi. I wonder who is next in line for this secret worship? Cheers

Then you missed the entire point of the discussion as it is about right and wrong - not about usefulness or uselessness. I see theist is still sticking to his custom (secret dictionary) definition of Vaishnava and GHari is doing his usual thing. So what else is new? Cheers

Sai Baba, SwamiNarayan, Chaitanya...the list is endless. All of them share the unique feature that their arrival was not known to anyone beforehand and their avatarhood is accepted only amoing their respective followers. Cheers

I have no objections to that. Sometimes these discussions give me the feeling my presence on this earth is solely to educate the Hare Krishnas to think for themselves instead of turning their brains off and acting as repeaters. It sounds pompous, but I see that as a good thing to show you guys the light. Besides, I do not have to wear the cloak of humility as I do not have religious goals in life. Completely out of scope. The people discussing on this forum are humans and their source of information is from other humans. Non-human entities who may know more or not are of no relevance here and to be honest even if one assumes the existence of such entities, you have no way of knowing if they know the answer to that or any other question. The point is simple. None of the leading literature like the Gita, Bible, Koran, etc., address the difference between God's will/free will. I for sometime have been thinking there is no freewill. Strangely, this morning I stumble upon this article which appears to corroborate the idea. It is the tattavada interpretation of Gita 5.14 and 5.15. I had goosebumps reading it. http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/gita/bg514.html Cheers

Redsox, Good question and I admire you for not just accepting any answer like most people do. Beware of the christian interpretation of Krishna by some people here. They see Krishna as they would see the short-tempered, ever-ready-to-punish God of the Bible. That is not the picture one would draw from the Gita when read free of Bible influences. Cheers

Welcome to Audarya Fellowship! I have said this before. There is a separate section exclusively assigned for the Hare Krishnas on this forum. For some reason, they seem to be unable to grasp the concept. Instead, they have all converged on the generic siprituality section and made it their playground where vaishnava = gaudiya vaishnava and or anything else they choose to redefine as from time to time based on circumstances. As for acknowledging other brances of Vaishnavas the reaction is who, what, where??? You a Sri Vaishnava are just as unwelcome as a Shaiva or anyone else for the simple reason that you do not agree with them on everything as evident by beggar challenging your presence here for not accepting Gaudiya scripture as authority. Cheers

Matarisvan is correct in this context. Ancient mariner is correct too - but out of context. One should be clear about the two levels of preaching in the Gita, though one does flow into the other eventually. At one level Krishna is counseling Arjuna (and indirectly the world) to perform his duty by fighting the war. This context is within the material frame. At the other level Krishna is counseling the world about how to free onself up from material bondage. I say one flows into the other as performing one's prescribed duties is a path to freedom from material bondage. In the first level, Arjuna is still bound by Gunas and has to move into Sattva Guna as that is the best of the three. After one trascends the material plane (second level), then the three gunas are not relevant anymore which is what ancientmariner is alluding to. 2.45 is in the context of the first level and therefore the advice is not to give up all 3 gunas but only 2 gunas. And if someone can post Madhva's commentary, that may say the same thing Cheers

Your fellow Western Hare Krishnas like GHari are arguing - or at least countering objective arguments with liberal ad hominem attacks - that Jesus was a Vaishnava and here you are saying Jesus was an avatar himself. Make up your minds. Was he a Vaishnava or Vishnu himself? I suspect the slippery Hare Krishna excuse to beat all excuses will come up here, that he was simultaneously Vishnu and a devotee of himself at the same time...somehow. If we are going with this excuse today, then by similar logic can we agree that jesus was a Vaishnava and at the same time, not a Vaishnava? The former for Prabhupada's western disciples and the latter for the rest of the world. Cheers

or there is no answer to the question. Cheers

If you will forgive me for saying this, you sound like a proselytizer ought to win some popularity votes. A: "Pray to the Lord my child" B: "I did, but they are not answered" A: "Pray harder..you are not doing it right" B: "I did, but they are still not answered" A: "Try harder..you are not being sincere" B: "I did, but they are still not answered" A: "Its your own fault..." Back to the topic, it has been thousands of years now and the free-will/God's will paradox has never been addressed by any religious author or thinker. It has always been left to the imagination of the questioner. If an answer to that question was possible, we would have had it now. There is no reason why it has to be kept in suspense. Hence, there is no answer to that question and will never be. 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 (18.61 in some texts) O Arjuna, the Lord resides in the region of the heart of all creatures, revolving through Maya all the creatures (as though) mounted on a machine! - BG 18.61 (18.62 in some) That says it all. If you are mounted on a machine, what scope do you have for your own will? Cheers

Indian Cinema says there is no time gap in between births - right from Mahal in 1940s to Om Shanto Om in 2007. And what is more the character in question looks just like he or she did in the previous birth. The only exception was with Karz in 1980 where Subash Ghai found no reason why they would look alike and showed the 2 lives as having two different faces. Cheers

First theist, now you. What is with this canine behavior that has been on display recently by our distinguished members? Would it have anything to do with the unusually cold weather in CA recently? Perhaps a quick vacation to Cancun or Cozumel will fix you up. Common sense says making tall claims without evidence to back them up would qualify one as a mental speculator. Of course, this should be obvious by now after over a hundred posts on the subject. I am surprised that you are raising this question at this point. Where were thou hiding all this time? And the alternate dictionary grows in size by the day! Its a damn shame alright. First you distort the meaning of the term Vaishnava and now it appears you are ought to redefine the term Gunda. New meaning of Gunda: Anyone who does not agree with the new meaning of Vaishnava coined by Prabhupada and his supporters of Christian backgrounds. Cheers

Yeah....the million dollar question and I am afraid there is no answer to that question. Krishna says what you do not wish to do you will do in spite of yourself...I am sitting in your heart and controlling your actions meaning Arjuna has no choice in the matter. On the other hand he also engages in a long lecture to prod Arjuna to act implying Arjuna has a choice. So does Arjuna and in general anyone have a choice to shape the future or is it all predetermined? You will find support for both positions in the BG because (my opinion) the author pulled up information from 2 different sources and put them together which he should not have. or he just did not know how to present the topic. Anyway, what is done is done and you can read it whichever way you want. I am inclined towards the "no choice" approach. The older I get, I think freewill is only apparent and we are on automatic moving in some random fashion. If you sit back and think , how much of your life is really under your control? The way I see it, it is a very small fraction. A good example is driving' for me to drive home from work, I pass a thousand cars or more. The event of me arriving safely is not just dependant on me driving correctly; all the thousand other drivers should drive correctly too. If you analyze this way, there are a million things that can go wrong each day. For all these million to not go wrong is weird and yet it happens implying life is on automatic. I think the BG author may have had something like this in mind (Krishna telling Arjuna that all these people have already been killed...), but the difference is he mapped this to religion and I cannot do that because I cannot prove any of it - even to myself. Enough rambling...have a nice day! Cheers

Good question. Heaven/Hell and rebirth are not related. The vedic religion was not strong on rebirth...instead it focussed on the heaven concept. Depending on one's activities in life, one would go to a different level of heaven. The common practice of ancestor worship found in Hinduism is an element borrowed from the vedic religion which is connected to the heaven concept mentioned above. Eventually the theory of Karma and rebirth became more popular in Indian religions and superseded the heaven concept. But for some reason, ancestor worship (which is incompatible with rebirth) has survived the result being Hindus believe in rebirth + worship ancestors, which conflict with each other. In short, if you look at a pure vedic system such as Mimamsa you will only read about the heaven concept. But if you look at other streams which along with the Vedas also base themselves on the Bhagavad Gita, etc., the theory of karma and rebirth is given more importance. Cheers

Why is intelligence a factor here? Prabhupada takes a political position on Hinduism in the west and now the intellgience of Hindus is called into question. If you are attached to the label Hindu in anyway, you are not intelligent! So do Vaishnavas, Christians, you name it... I never heard of such a thing. If you have some evidence, please bring it forth. They all had their agendas to break tradition. This has been discussed before. Varna is by birth only no matter how many neophyte Gurus object to this. It is not about right or wrong..it is just the way it has been for 1000s of years. A Brahmin has to have a Gotra (the Y-chromosome line) and a converted Brahmin has none. He will have to make up one which would be a prevarication and therefore his Brahmin status is invalid in the traditional sense. Cheers