kaisersose

Well...most people do not believe it even now - in case you were not aware of it. Cheers

That system did not happen until 500 years later. It was created to compute dates of Christian festivals. Jesus's existence depends on the credbility attached to Bibilical stories. if they are sondiered credible, then he existed. If not, then he either did not exist or else not as protrayed in the Bible. Cheers

That is not true. Check your facts. Unlike the Buddha, Jesus is not a historical character and no evidence is available to corroborate his story as found in the Bible. The Bible is the sole source for his existence and that is not history. Cheers

If you mean, such a comparison is an insult to Sai Baba & his millions of devotees, I agree it is possible. But as none of them are in this forum, no one will take offense. Thanks for pointing it out, though. That was very considerate of you. Cheers

Just finished reading them all. Interesting perspective...and refreshing! Cheers

Sonic Yogi, What is your opinion on Prabhupada teaching western Hare Krishnas about a Christ-Loka, classifying Jesus as an avatar and some of your colleagues here strongly advocating the Jesus = Vaishnava identity? Cheers

Did Madhvas quote these missing verses to non-Madhvas at anytime without verse numbers and expect them to be accepted on the basis of faith? Show me one instance. This whole "references not found" criticism of Madhva is taken out of context. On the other hand., there are several instances where the Gauidyas have tried it and are still trying to push bogus verses (without verse numbers) about the avatarhood of Chaitanya on the basis of faith to non-Gaudiyas. Until now, you believed these verses were genuine, yourself. Now you may argue that these verse were lost after some dude made that list. That is not good enough. These verses should have existed before the time of Chaitanya, and therefore the coming of an avatar of Vishnu would have been noticed and recorded by other Vaishnava Gurus who lived long before Chaitanya. But that is not the case. These unidentified verses were not existing before the time of Chaitanya, briefly popped up during the time when someone compiled that list and promptly disappeared soon after. Is that your position now? Because there is no other position in favor of this theory. Cheers

Good question. I cannot think of any proof beyond historical trends, but there is something I am trying to recall. I will post it, if I can remember it. If not, then I cannot prove it. Cheers

None of them are considered authentic except perhaps by some small sections. Sruti is considered a closed canon in Kali-yuga - or more accurately, after the time of Vyasa. No self-realized Rishi of our times can add to it and no one has. Except, he did not. The story I heard was he found a written copy ( in Bengali, I believe) somewhere in or around Bengal. If this is corrrect - then regardless of his ability to travel in space - the discovery of this Upanishad was a very earthly process. If you mean space travel, then I agree. You left out his ability for time travel, which is even more cooler. His travel back in time to the 13th century AD to see Chaitanya (16th century) who had also traveled back in time - at the exact same instant - to the 13th century to appear in Madhva's dreams and make him cry, is simply unbeatable. I mean, what are the odds of a 16th century guy and a 19th century guy, both traveling back to the dreams of a 13th century guy, at the same time? There have been many tales in the past and there will be many in future, but hardly any that can match up to these incidents of Bhakti Vinoda's time travel. If people can believe in these stories, then they should have no trouble believing in just any story. Cheers

How does offering evidence to support our claims become Vithanda Vada? Anyone can say anything then, without evidence. A varna system not based on birth is not practically viable - because there exists no satisfactory system to identify individual varnas. No such method has been written about in the past either. Arbitrary selection is the only way out and we know how that went in the case of Prabhupada. I do not know which Veda you are referring to, but Upanishads, Puranas, Mahabharata, Ramayana, etc., always talk about birth based Varna. Cheers

Leaving your thought half-said is bad as people will not understand what you are saying. By your own admission, theist left his thoguhts half-said and then due to Raghu, he wrote his full thoughts. This would never have happened without Raghu...isnt that a good thing? You should actually be happy about it! Cheers

There are avatars and non-avatars. Now if we introduce the concept of main avatars and non-main avatars, then anyone can be an avatar by this logic. When questioned, simply throw up your arms and say "not a main avatar". By this logic, Swami Narayan, Sai Baba, all of them are avatars too, just not main avatars. Cheers

That is interesting. Do you have a link to this thread? I searched and found a thread on Vali, but I did not see any explanations to justify his actions. Or is this evidence not in the thread, but in the Ramayana? If yes, then I have not read those portions in a long, long time. I am fine with being wrong, I just need to see some evidence. I am not gonna turn around and add people to my ignore lists, if something I posted was inconsistent. Cheers

It is funny that you are challenging Raghu instead of checking up on something that you simply assumed to be true. Someone gives you a bunch of verses with no verse numbers and you have no problems with it, but you are offended when this is questioned. In any event, you have cunningly avoided the questions I posed twice. Even if some spurious verse was inserted into some Purana about some new age avatar like Chaitanya or SwamiNarayan, it does not prove a thing. The clear absence of these names in standard avatar lists is sufficient to prove that they are bogus. I cannot think of any evidence that can possibly override this. Cheers

To further clarify, "demi-gods" are Gods of Indian origin. They are demi-Gods even if they are worshipped as the Supreme being by their followers. However, foreign Gods like Yahweh, Allah, Ahura Mazda, etc., are not demi-Gods. This is the transcendental nature of the soul - to define the quality of Gods by geography! If you disagree, you are a rabid Hindu and will go on the ignore list. Cheers

In other words, you have not examined these sources for yourself, so you have no idea if they are genuine or bogus. You did not answer my earlier questions, 1) If Chaitanya was so clearly mentioned in these many sources, why is he not in the main list of avatars? 2) Why didn't any Guru foretell his coming? Vishnu coming down as an avatar is a big deal and should have garnered a lot of attention. 3) Why was the compiler of this list compelled to not mention verse numbers for any of these sources? 4) There are similar quotes from the Rig-veda on the web predicting the arrival of Mohamed. Do you also accept these predictions without questions, just as you accepted these quotes on Chaitanya without ever doubting them? If not, why? Cheers

Can you please post your evidence for #3? Thanks

Purely from a practical viewpoint. There are people in this world, who are pretty much happy through their lives, though they may not have been happy all the time. This category appears to be completely ignored by religionists - for obvious reasons. Now you said one should not focus on the happiness one gets during this lifetime, because one should worry about what happens after death. Why? This is my time to be happy here. I will worry about death and afterlives later. Of course, If I am not happy now, if my material life is screwed up, then perhaps I will start thinking of an afterlife right now. Otherwise not. If you are living in society with a family, you have to conform to the social model. This includes a means of livelihood which in turn requirs you to perform well in your job, which in turn requires a certain amount of passion towards the work you do and so on. If you brand this passion as Maya and call it a bad thing, then you will mess up your career - all because you are scared of the quality of your afterlife. But in truth, you would have made a mess of your present life! Your education was not intended to conquer Maya. It was a foundation, preparing you to function effectively in society. This will include passion for your work and dedication to excel at whatever you do. This is what you should focus on. Do not get confused with religious ideals of detachment, etc., which are not really meant for people playing an active role in society. Indian religion has had the unqiue concept of Sanyasa for thousands of years, just to address this afterlife concern. Trying to merge a sanyasi lifestyle with a Grhasta lifestyle will only cause confusion and problems. Cheers

That is interesting. Can point me to this evidence from the Rig Vedic period? There is evidence from the Upanishads of a Brahmana Gotra being a prerequisite for eligibility to learn. Unless, you are maintaining that these Upanishads came later too. I would also like to know when you think the system changed to a birth based system. Thanks

What is your source for this theory? Unless Shankara or Madhvacharya made such an admission that they were hiding part of the truth, then it is simply not true. And I am not aware of either gentleman making such an admission. No, I do not know that. Again, such a statement has no value unless it came from either of them. They have always maintained that their teachings are complete in themselves and require no other additional "sub-truths" to become complete. Black, white, gray - the color is irrelevant. Back to my question. How do you know the absolute truth or that Dvaita is not the absolute truth - which Madhva himself did not know? What gives you this additional knowledge that Madhva lacked? Cheers

Madhva => Advaita is false, Dvaita is correct, Advaita != Dvaita You => Advaita is correct, Dvaita is correct, Advaita = Dvaita If you right, then Madhva is wrong and vice-versa. Hence, my question. Cheers

If they are the same, then why did Ananda Thirtha spend so much time and ink pointing out the flaws of the Advaita system? Unlike other founders, he wrote 4 different commentaries on the Sutras, and a good portion of his works are about proving Advaita wrong. It is clear from his writings, that he did not consider them to the same with no contradictions. To simplify things, you can perhaps explain why you think Madhva was wrong and you are right? Cheers

I am sorry...but if you are not affected by the happiness and sufferings of the world, then you are in a some kind of a zombie/robot state. Why is that a good thing? Its greatness appears to be simply because it is hard to reach. Suppose the individual is happy with the world. Say things are going well for him. Do you agree that such a person would have no incentive in moving to such a vegetative state?

Thanks Kulapavana. There is the problem right there. An isolated quote is taken completely out of context to create a confused ideaology. Vaishnava has been redefined. But this redefinition, to make sense has to be able to redefine Shaivism, Shaktism and everything else or else it has no meaning. Avoiding these questions and resurfacing later with the same old mumbo-jumbo to brand people who challenge these inconsistencies as "rabid" is juvenile. Cheers

It all depends on what one defines as education. What are you expecting to happen if/when you come to the conclusion that you are the spirit and not the body - when you still have a body? Is that how it is supposed to work? It is natural for someone living a worldly life to desire one or more of name, fame, recognition, wealth, power, etc. To give up all of these and yet live a wordly life is meaningless. One has to be a sanyasi to give up all of these. Should the entire world's population work towards Sanyasa? Cheers