kaisersose

Here is why. Other than HKs, no one else on the planet has a problem with the original classification. That's why. Cheers

Perhaps by underworld, Melvin means the Mafia realm. The Gotti family in the west, Dawood and gang in India, etc., perform Durga Puja before starting any major activity, like planning an execution, or expanding their extortion rackets. Perhaps he means Durga makes their desires come true - as the Goddess of the underworld. Cheers

I did not see see this post until just now. Hmmm....No. That is precisely what you did - call Shankara a liar - when you opened a thread titled "Advaita is a complete hoax". Now you can tap dance saying he did it because Krishna told him so, or Gauranga told him so or the British told him so, but whatever the reasons were, if the title of your thread is true, then it follows you are calling Shankara a liar. If you are changing your position now and saying Shankara was not a liar, then your whole thread right from the title, is meaningless. Hardly. Definitely not when you are debating someone who is not of your own tradition. It is. In this case, common sense says, your time would be better spent on gaining knowledge for your own benefit first, before taking on the task of demolishing Advaita. You will find some idiots on this forum prodding you along, as they themselves cannot do it anymore, having been bruised badly for trying to take on Advaita with no knowledge of the subject. The choice is yours - you can play their game and continue to embarrass yourself or go do something more sensible. Cheers

I have my history right, thank you. You clearly need a little lesson in basics of the history of Indian religion, what constitutes a debate, defeat and replacement of an existing belief. Advaita is alive and well and the biggest tradition of all of these today and it has been so, since its inception. It ousted the prevalent Vedic tradition of its times - Purva Mimamsa - to obscurity and became the ubiquitous Vedic tradition pretty much all over the country. Shankara's success has been unmatched till date and that is the way to measure success or failure. On the other hand, Gauranga's tradition was limited to the Bengal region, practically died out in the 19th century and had to be revived. If it were not for Prabhupada's success, we would not even be here having this discussion. In short, the gap between impact and reach of Advaita and Gauranga's doctrines is so wide, that any comparison would be unfair to Gauranga. And as you have been seeing on this forum, your own fellow Gauranga followers are reluctant to accept anything that comes out of the Kripalu camp. You have failed to impress your own ilk and yet now you are out to show the world that you know more about Advaita than Advaitins? Other than Bhaktajan and Theist and co, who do you think will take you seriously? Cheers

Thank you for the "Believe it or not". The answer is not obviously, for all non Hare Krishnas. Cheers

The good news is, you are not expected to either. The Puranas have already been been categorized and accepted as Smriti for at least 2000 years, if not more. So there is no new type of categorization necessary by Hare Krishnas or by anyone on this forum. Cheers

And I suppose you have evidence to support your allegation that Advaitins claim to be god-like? If not, kindly refrain from posting nonsense. Your Hare Krishna colleagues have already put their feet into their mouths several times over by posting ridiculous assertions about Advaita with no evidence, on this forum. You do not want to be part of that group. Cheers

If I may, here is a suggestion. Audarya Fellowship <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: navbar_link -->> User Control Panel <!-- END TEMPLATE: navbar_link -->> <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: navbar_link -->Buddy / Ignore Lists <!-- END TEMPLATE: navbar_link --> Initially, my thoughts were this is a childish/immature thing to do. But now I see its merits. It feels wonderful to be able to filter out trashy posts. Cheers

You did. As you have effectively (with no evidence, whatsoever) proven to everyone that Advaita is a grand hoax, this leaves the Advaitins with no religious beliefs. Since you are responsible for them to give up their beliefs, it follows they will adopt yours.In effect, you converted Shankara's followers to His Highness, Jagadguru Sri Kripaluji Maharaj's followers. A noble intention ideed, but why are you not doing this on the Advaita forum? There, you will be able to interact with Advaitins, and debates there follow a logical approach - that is a critic should provide valid quotes from valid sources to be taken seriously. "Advaitins say you are me and I am you" kind of nonsense conjured up by theist and co., will not fly (It does not fly here either). There are hardly any Advaitins on this forum to benefit by your magnanimity - or in other words, you are wasting your time here. The world is waiting for you to finally get rid of Advaita - something that Ramanuja, Madhva and a dozen other failed to do - in spite of their best efforts. It is your time, dude...go forth and conquer! Go sign up on the Advaita forum and start posting your wisdom. Cheers

Sanskrit was one of main literary languages of ancient India - especially the North. However, spoken languages in the North/NorthWest region belonged to the family of Prakrit languages. These vernaculars were widely spoken by Kshatriyas and other non- Brahmana classes. A form of Proto-Dravidian language was spoken too, but mostly in East, Central and South India. These Prakrit languages evoled into ApaBrahmsha dialects which eventually formed the modern day North Indian languages - Hindi, Urdu, Gujarathi, etc. And as is the case now, many people would have been familiar with more than one language. Cheers

I don't think he is gonna answer your question. As far as I see, his position on this is similar to the Prabhupada position. Muslims and Christians are also Krishna worshippers and so no complaints about them. Also no complaints about Bahai's, Chinese religions, native African religions, Inuit beliefs - no complaints about anything international. The problem is only with desi beliefs - specifically with Shaivas, Shaktas, Advaitins. Once this level of difference is cleared, then there are the numerous differences between the various different branches of Gaudiya Vaishnavism - all of which have come to the limelight solely due to ISKCON's original popularity. That is the next step - to demonstrate how one's own camp is better than every other camp. Cheers

But first show that the sattvic purana concept is accepted outside sattvic/vaishnava puranas. Do you see what I am saying? Quote at least 1 verse from a non-sattvic/non-vaishnava purana, which acknowledges the concept of sattvic puranas. Just ONE. Then you can demand quotes from sattvic puranas. Until then...it makes no sense and I am sure you see what I mean. Cheers

Save your breath. I think the point has been driven home. Ad hominic attacks are always a sign that the person has no more arguments to make, but is unwilling to accept the fact. He was unable to backup his "well done", his claim of majority of India assigning Sruti status to the Bhagavatam and a couple more of these. Hence, now the escapist route - calling the opponents liars and cheats and shameless people. That is his exit plan. In any event, like I said earlier, the point has been made for everyone to see. So there is nothing more to say on this topic. Cheers

We cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is always on the one who make the claim. You made the claim that Bhagavatam is Sruti -so back it up with evidence. Show me where I compared Islam and Vaishnavism. If you cannot grasp simple analogies, then there is little point in discussing anything in depth with you. Go back and read my posts again and try to understand the point I am making. Cheers

The above quote (from an unnamed source?) says nothing about SB accepted as Sruti. Popular does not equate to Sruti, in case that is your argument. Vyasa's good intentions are completely irrelevant in classifying a text as Sruti/Smriti. They did not disown the Bible, the Quran and Jeffrey Richter's novels either. What is the point? Sruti - un-authored Smirit - authored. Since you make the claim - that Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva - bucked the common trend and classified SB (an authored text) as Sruti, the burden of proof is on you to show some evidence. To repeat myself, Shankara and Ramnuja never mention the text, Madhva classified it as Smriti and clearly favored the Mahabharata over the Bhagavatam, among his sources. So aside from Hare Krishnas, no one else holds the Bhagavatam as the best. If they are assigning Sruti status to authored texts, then they are going against common ground rules too. To Vaishnavas, Yes. To the rest of the world, No. There are multiple different interpretations, accepted by different groups. And hence the contradiction. He is part of the same group you criticized - for his post and quotes (that you appreciated) were to relegate Shiva to demigod status. Really? HKs jump at the slightest opportunity to quote their English translations marking Shiva as a demigod. But if we point out the flaw in the logic, then we are making much ado about nothing. If it is really nothing, then why the persistent enthusiasm among HKs to thump out their "Krishna > Shiva" hypothesis? You completely missed the point. Anyway, replace Muslim/Quran with Buddhist/Sutras and it should be clear. Surely, I do not have to write a detailed commentary to explain something that simple. Cheers

If you want to remain in a state of bliss, you are certainly entitled to that. Evidently, Krishna's plan seriously backfired because there is no Advaitin on the planet who has forgotten Krishna. You would expect better from the Gods - to plan better and execute their plans better than this. On the topic, I would also not expect them to engage in ridiculous/shameful activities like sending avatars down to intentionally misguide people. But that is just the way I see it. Since you say there are vaishnava acharyas chuckling over the idea of people being intentionally misled, not all is lost, I guess. Cheers

Dude, I am sure I told you this earlier. There is no work named "Parbodha Sudhakara" authored by Shankara. He wrote Bhashyas, Prakarana Granthas and Stotras, and this name does not appear in any of the 3 lists. When I said you should be quoting Shankara, I meant you should be quoting from one of his real works. If you do not support your allegations with evidence, then obviously, people will not take your arguments seriously. Tip: Try Shankara's Bhashyas on the sutras and the main upanishads. Or some of his more popular prakaranas such as upadesha sahasri and viveka chudamani. If you can produce quotes from one of these texts to support your position, then you will be having a strong case. Cheers

If you could actually produce a quote from Shankara as evidence, that would help your case. I say this, because if you have not noticed, all the distinguished Advaita critics on this forum [theist, et al.,], have not read a single line of Advaita and have failed to produce a single quote in support of their allegations till date. You do you want to be part of that silliness. Cheers

I did not ask for Upanishads. If you see such a request from me somewhere on this thread, please correct me. Wrong. Shankara and Rananuja never quoted from the Bhagavatam. They only quoted the Vishnu Purana. Madhva wrote a summary on the Bhagavatam, but it is common knowledge that he we was ver clear about the distinction between Shruti and Smriti - and a work authored by Vyasa does not pass as Shruti in his doctrine. If you do not believe me, I can produce Madhva's exact quotes on this distinction. That rules out the Big 3 & leaves only the Hare Krishnas to believe the Bhagavatam as Shruti. You may also want to get some basics on what Shruti means both literally and in common parlance as well. Hardly. Any text that ranks Gods and singles one out as the highest is sectarian. All Puranas are sectarian. So is the Mahabharata. Again, these are simple basics. And yet, you patted Mahanila for the same post with a "well said". So you vehemently object to and appreciate this - both at the same time. Cheers

In which case, people should really be quoting the Bhagavatam, do you agree? If the Tapani's sole claim to validity is conformance with the Bhagavatam, the Bhagavatam being alive and well, considerably more popular and much more easily accessible, there is no reason to be quoting a 14th century Tapani Upanishad instead. And so now, the question is, do all Hindus consider/use the Bhagavatam as an authority? The answer is no for the majority as is the case with any scripture. And as that is the case, does it make sense to be quoting sectarian texts like the Gita and the SB to prove Vaishnava supremacy to all Hindus in general? No. Scripture quotes are meaningful only when both parties accept the authority of the scripture. Specifically to the point, this is precisely why people object when a Hare Krishna quotes Vaishnava texts to a Shaiva to prove his own superiority and/or to label Shiva as a demiGod. Really no different than a muslim quoting the Quran to a Vaishnava to prove Allah's supremacy over Vishnu/Krishna. Perhaps now you see the point. Cheers

Here are the ABCs of Upanishads for your education. There are 11 Upanishads whose antiquity is undisputed*. In other words, their claim to being associated with a Veda is accepted as legitimate. For your convenience, here they are, Aitareya Brihadaranyaka Taittiriya Chandogya Kena Ishavasya Shwetashvatara Katha Mundaka Mandukya Prasna No Upanishad outside this set of eleven, has universal acceptance. They are usually accepted as authentic by small communities or in most cases, they are defunct and not in use. The Tapani Upanishads are dated as 14th Century AD or later. Their names never appear anywhere before that time. If people want to believe that 14th century upanishads can be part of the Atharvana Veda and 19th century Bengali Upanishads are part of the Rig-Veda, they are welcome to. It is a democratic world we live in after all, with freedom of thought, however ridiculous the thoughts may be. *undisputed by whom, one may ask. The answer is, by traditional schools of Vedic thought (those who take the Upanishads seriously, i.e., Advaita, Dvaita and V-Dvaita) and modern scholarship as well. Obviously, opinions of people outside this group matter little, as they usually come with no evidence. Cheers

The same fundamental problem persists... The Gopala Tapani Upanishad is not considered an authentic Upanishad. It falls in the same category as Ganapathi Upanishad or even Allah Upanishad. You may just as well argue for the merits of the Chaitanya Upanishad or a Sai Baba Upanishad! The Brahma Samhita is a Gaudiya Vaishnava Text. If it were not for the internet, non-Gaudiya Vaishnavas would never even have heard of the text. Just FYI, Krishna and Rama are not mentioned in any Veda. And more important - the Veda is not a common scripture for all Hindus. And finally the most important piece of info of all of this - There exists *no* single common scripture or Bible for all Hindus. If anyone disagrees, bring it on. Cheers

Yes. A soul is a soul is a soul. The size of the physical body cannot possibly be a factor. If yes, then we also have to say killing a bigger cow is a bigger sin than killing a medium sized cow. But is killing really a sin? What about the carnivore killing for food? A lion has to eat meat or else it will die. It cannot live on grass or curds rice and pickle. Nature has been designed that way - either randomly or by a God. One form lives off another form. Besides, it is impossible to live in this world without constantly killing countless bacteria (yes, Hindus believe Bacteria have souls too) and trampling on countless insects. It is just not possible, period. The homo sapiens species is omnivorous - that is man can eat & digest meat. If the creator God disliked the concept of killing, then man, the lion and the tiger would be herbivores just like cows and deer. But they are not! It follows, killing for food is not condemned by the creator God for he is the one who created the concept in the first place. QED, thus.

I have not seen anyone converted here, so far. I have seen the reverse happen, though. Ironically, it was their attempts to proselytize that resulted in a change in themselves. A very common misconception is to see the Bhagavad Gita as some kind of a Bible equivalent. Many Westerners tend to see Hinduism as another religion which has a single "true" book and a single "true" God. Some Hindus are guilty of this too, for adopting the Christian/Islam view that polytheism is baaaaad and then trying to pass Hinduism off as a monotheistic religion. The fact is, the Bhagavad Gita is not an authority for the majority of Hindus (including Vaishnavas) and Krishna is not THE God, but a God among several Gods. I guess it is hard for foreigners who have not spent time in India to understand this. They have to rely on what they are told by the people around them and hence the misconceptions. Cheers

Here's how, 1) Knapp - a Hare Krishna - is motivated by ideology than anything else, and as is usual in such cases, his work does not pass the scrutiny of real professionals. His book about evidence for a gobal vedic culture has been criticized by scholars like Mark Newbrook, etc., for its inferior quality and Knapp's poor grasp of linguistics (connecting a sankrit word astralaya to australia, etc). 2) His work on the Taj is a rehash of Oak's theory. 3) Oak's petiton was quashed by the Supreme court in 2000 Enough said.