kaisersose

Nothing about a formless Shiva. Nothing about a formless Shiva here either. And nothing to indicate that Shaivism = Advaita. Once again, an Advaitin can worship Vishnu, Rama, Shiva, etc. And I sure you are not taking the position that an Advaitin is a Shaiva even if he is worshipping Krishna! Cheers

If that was true, with 800 years of Muslim rule, why was over 80% of the country still Hindu?? They should all have converted over, under the alleged opression. Anyway the point is moot. The exact line I posted was "Indians were actually OK with Muslims ruling the country than the British". Now if you are incapable of grasping simple english, that means, of the two options (British and Muslim kings), Indians chose the latter. Evidence? Sepoy Mutiny where Hindus and Muslims fought together to oust British rule and one of the firsr things they did was to put Bahadur Shah back on the throne. In short, before you go off on yet another of your jingoistic rants, read the post your are responding to & save yourself some embarassment. Now I know you are a Hare Krishna/desi jingoist who finds it easier to forgive the atrocities of a foreign white guy than with giving a fair deal to an Indian muslim, but there is always hope that one can turn around and see common sense. Cheers

This is what happens when you draw your information from the wrong sources. Learning about Shaivism from Vaishnavas is a good example. Shaiva -> one who worships Shiva. There are several flavors of Shaivism, and I am not aware of any of them worshipping a formless Shiva. Advaita, with its concept of a Nirguna Brahman, is a doctrine. It can be adopted by Vishnu worshippers and Shiva worshippers alike, after which they view Shiva or Krishna as a symbol of Brahman. It is completely false that Shaivas are Advaitins. Most Shaivas have never even heard of Advaita. Ranjeet's post was absolute and pure nonsense, of course. It reaffirms (yet again) that he does not know fundamentals. If you disagree, please post some evidence. Cheers

There is absolutely no evidence of such love. If you have some, we would love to see it. Contrary to what you believe, Indians were actually OK with Muslims ruling the country than the British. You see, the Muslim rulers made India their home and aside from stray incidents, had no problems with Hindus practising their religion. The British on the other hand were foreigners for whom India was a colony and the "proceeds" were sent to the Queen, back home. India was never their home and was simply a source of extra income for the Queen. When Indians (Hindus and Muslims together) revolted for the first time during the 19th century, the plan was to reinstate Bahadur Shah, the last Mughal emperor (and a Muslim) to become the ruler again after kicking out the foreigners. The choice between Indian Muslim vs. British was clear. Cheers

. 1) Why do you think Indians are not united? Can you post your defiinition of unity and also show how other countries do not have this problem? 2) if they are not united, why do you believe diffferent religious beliefs is the reason? 3) Before the British, there was no India & obviously there was no concept of a "united India". Indians did display unprecedented unity during the Sepoy Mutiny and later, once the concept of an India was set in place. 4) Given our cultural diversity, whatever unity you see in India is by itself a great accomplishment. It does not have a parallel anywhere in the world. 5) Keep Religion & socio-politics apart. Your complains about national unity, etc., are out of context in a spiritual forum. Cheers

Don't hold your breath waiting for Ranjeet to post anything knowledgeable. That is not going to happen. On another thread, he just posted that Shaivas state Shiva does not have a form! Do you really want to waste your time debating an ignoramus who does not know the difference between Advaita & Shaivism? Cheers

The 5000 year old date is unsubstantiated. You may just want to say - "at the start of Kali yuga" - whenever that was. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> 1) Why did he use the pen name Badarayana in the Sutras and nowhere else? 2) Evidently he was not satisified after writing the Bhagavatam too, as much later, he appeared before Shankara and told him to explain the principle of of the Vedas clearly, which was Advaita. Then again, he appeared before Madhva and told him to write a Dvaita commentary on the Sutras. We canmot rule out the possiblity of him reappearing again to someone else and instructing him to start a brand new interpretation. In short, Vyaya appears to be a fickle, "hard to please" character who is in need of therapy. We can accept that or else, we can accept the below. a) The Sutras were written by a different individual than the Bhagavatam. b) The story of the Sutra-author "not being pleased" as found in the Bhagavatam is just a fabrication. c) The story of Shankara meeting Vyasa was a fabrication of the biographer d) The story of madhva meeting Vyasa is a similar fabrication. The choice is ours. Cheers

That is a story circulated among Hindus. No Buddhist source says this and Buddhist texts have all shown that their interest in the Vedic religion was very minimal. That is pure sentiment and nothing else. It is not part of the four Vedas and is a highly sectarian text which can only be acceptable to people of that sect. There are other books which are held in similar high regard among other sects, sentiment being the sole factor in all cases. I see many people (especially Hare Krishnas) believe the "Vedic" tag is very important in Hinduism. The fact is, it has little or nothing to do with Hinduism. The majority of Hindus have absolutely no exposure to any of the Vedas and that does not make them any lesser as Hindus. I have a problem with labeling anything and everything we like as Vedic. I grew up in India and I am not aware of that history. Do you have any legitimate sources illustrating this for a fact? If you mean untouchability, then you should know it was practised by all classes. Non-Brahmanas (higher in numbers than Brahmanas) were/are also highly caste-conscious and practised untouchability. There is no evidence to show that this concept was introduced by Brahmanas. Other than this, I fail to see how a Brahmana could have oppressed anyone. He had his own problems in life and he had no power to oppress as some appear to believe. Cheers

No. I do not have absolute proof. I can only weigh all the facts available to me and make a decision. That is all anyone can do. In testing a work of dubious authorship, the most obvious thing to look for is alignment with other texts by the author and his message in general. If there is a conflict, then the chances are it is written by a different person with a different set of beliefs. Cheers

When religion was about performing Yajnas (fire-sacrifice), sacrificing ghee and animals to the Gods of the Rig-Veda for a better life and/or heaven. Those were the good ol' Vedic times. No Rama or Krishna back then. It was Indra, Vishnu, Agni. Varuna etc., who ranked foremost. Then Upanishad style contemplation came in, which was still Vedic, but it was no longer as fashionable. And then there was a fusion of local beliefs (Pancharatas, Bhagavatas, Pashupathas, Ganapathi worshippers, Krishna worshippers, Rama worshippers, etc) with Brahmanical Vedic religion and Hinduism - as we know it - was formed with its idol worship, reincarnation and Bhakti concepts. Non-Vedic Rama and Krishna were mapped to Vedic Vishnu, Non-Vedic Shiva was mapped to Rudra, etc. Some even attempted to map Buddha to Vishnu with limited success. If you visit local villages in India, many of them have their own Gods, but they are generally mapped to one of the more popular Gods and there will be a local story of how Vishnu or Shiva appeared in that form to solve a certain problem. I am with Kali-Upasaka on this one. Cheers

Thanks for posting your list. And NO, you do not have to buy anything I say. Instead of buying internet posts, it would be more beneficial to examine facts. My list comes from authentic sources. But do not take my word for it. Check with Shankaracharya.org and Advaita-Vedanta.org and you will see what I mean. Back in 1930 or so, the Sringeri Mutt published a complete list of Shankara's works. That is the main source for the list I posted. At some point in time, Shankara became a title - similar to Vyasa - resulting in numerous works attributed to Shankara. But we are only interested in the Shankara who was the main proponent of the Advaita system. How do we identify this Shankara? He is identified as the author of the Brahma sutra Bhashya of the tradition. The Tapani Upanishads - oft used by Gaudiyas - were not even around during the time of Shankara, which is the final nail on your list. Major Vaishnava Gurus like Madhva and Ramanuja have nothing to say about the Tapanis. About Upanishad Bhashyas by Shankara - the Shvetashwatara ( a main Upanishad) Bhashya is not by the original, as it has a very diferent literary style and quotes a number of Puranas, which is a clear departure as Shankara quoted only the Vishnu Purana and that too infrequently. Some scholars doubt the authorship of the popular Viveka Chudamani too. Here is something on the Tapanis for those who are interested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopala_Tapani_Upanishad I've no idea where you got the weird "Krshna cannot be Saguna Brahman" idea from. Saguna Brahman is a symbol of the Nirguna Brahman. It can be Shiva, Ganapathi, Sharada, Krishna, Ambaal...your choice. They are all equal in a Smartha world. Cheers

Outside the Brahmana fold, hardly any Hindus have any ties to the Vedas. Even among Brahmanas, most of their present day practices are not Vedic. Hindus primarily worship Gods like Ganapathi, Krishna, Shiva, Rama and Hanuman who are not from the Vedas. The mode of worship is always idol worship combined with Bhajans and the like, which is also not Vedic. Renaming Hinduism as Vedism is completely inappropriate. Some people renamed Hinduism as Sanatana Dharma during the 18th century and that has caught the vote of a section of Hindus. But most of them, including some popular Gurus of the 20th century, have been misled into believing that Sanatana Dharma is an ancient and original name. Cheers

We interpret the Vedas to justify Jnana as the endpoint, which makes you the idiot. Since you have absolutely no exposure to Advaita sans one bogus work of Shankara, we don't really expect anything better out of you. Cheers

Some jokers have been traipsing around this forum claiming that Shankara authored a worked named Prabhoda Sudhakara. Here is the official list of Shankara's works and guess what? No Prabhoda Sudhakara! Hopefully, these "scholars" will desist misquoting Shankara hereafter? Treatises Vivekachudamani Upadhesha Sahasri Satasloki Dasasloki Ekasloki Pancikarara Atma bodha Aparokshanubhuti Sadhana Pañcaka Nirvana Sataka Manisha Pancaka Yati Pancaka Vakyasudha Tattva bodha Vakya vrtti Siddhanta Tattva Vindu Nirguna Manasa Puja Devotional Poetry Bhaja Govindaa Sivanandalahari Saundaryalahari Śri LakshniNarasimha Karavalamba Stotra Sharada Bhujanga Kanakadhara Stotra Bhavani Ashtaka Siva Manasa Puja Pandurangashtakam Commentaries Sutra Bhashya Aitareya Upanishad (Rigveda) Brhadaranyaka Upanishad (Yajurveda) Isa Upanishad (Yajurveda) Taittiriya Upanishad (Yajurveda) Katha Upanishad (Yajurveda) Chandogya Upanishad (samaveda) Mandukya Upanishad (Atharvaveda) and Gaudapada Karika Mundaka Upanishad (Atharvaveda) Prashna Upanishad (Atharvaveda) Bhagavadgīta (Mahabharata) Vishnu Sahasranama (Mahabharata) Gayatri Mantra Cheers

If you choose not to believe in Brahmins, then you should be consistent and reject the 4 vedas, puranas and itihasas, for all of them are from Brahmins. Your argument does not amount to much if you selectively pick and choose what you like and reject everything else as fabrication. Western hare Krishnas think they know Christianity better then Christians. They selectively pick Bible material which favor their way of thinking and reject everything else as "man made". Such an approach is useless. Cheers

An infant stealing butter (if it can be called stealing) is hardly comparable to a God who sits back, doing nothing about the pain of suffering innocents in the world. You need to get your perspective right. Cheers

The sequence is {Karma <=> Bhakti} => Jnana Cheers

No..those features perfectly match up with Shiva. Krishna is only an avatar of Vishnu - like several others. Educate yourself beyond Iskcon material. Cheers

Who? It is the God of the Christians. There is no need to try and find an equivalent for the Christian God in other religions. Christianity rejects all the other Gods including Krishna, as false. People who follow these false Gods are doomed to eternal Hell. So if you try your unsubstantiated "Krishna = Christian God", no Christian will accept it because, 1) Christianity rejects Krishna as a false God 2) You say the Christian God = Krishna 3) By 1) and 2) the Christian should reject his own God as false, which is a paradox as he is not a Christian then. Cheers

He may mean Shiva too..or Shakti, or Ganapathi, etc. Cheers

Same thing, my friend. Belief => Faith => Belief Your earlier statement "Dont deny things just because you dont believe in them" is contradicted by yourself. Cheers

1) Only Sruti requires Diksha as it requires certain qualifications as prerequisites. Smriti like the Gita, does not require Diksha. 2) Know the difference betwen printing and pre-printing eras. Today anyone can get the Rig-veda and read it in full. This was not the case before printing was invented. You had to go to specific sources and procedures were in place. If "Sampradaya" authors of today want to stick on to the old way of doing things, they should not be printing books. They cannot have it both ways. 3) If today, I can read the work of a 2000 year old author, then obviously it means there is an unbroken chain between him and me or else I would not have access to his work. That is all there is to it. Cheers

For the record, an "inferior" Saguna Brahman is not part of Advaita. The concept of inferior and superior exist only in doctrines which posit a hierarchy of Gods. Cheers

Everyone of those quotes is bogus. There is no standard avatar list of Vishnu that shows Sai Baba, Chaitanya, Swami Narayan, Prabhupada, Osho Rajneesh etc., as avatars. You should be familiar with the concept as you were quoting bogus texts of Shankara here sometime ago. Cheers

Accepting the Sampradaya means, accepting the beliefs of that Sampradaya. Since Chaitanya created brand new beliefs which contradict Madhva Sampradaya tenets, it is is obvious that he was not of the Madhva Sampradaya. In short, if accepting a sampradaya was the custom, then Gauranga broke the custom. Cheers