sambya

although this is going out of context , its definately better than the topic of the original post . i agree here . although muslims created lot of disturbances in this country with their autocratic rule and fanatical measures , most of them ( with the exceptions like mahmud of ghazni or nadir shah ) ultimately made india their home . therefore the taxes and the revenue that were collected ultimately went back in indian people . although famines and poverty were still their it was not so serious as in british era . the sole intention of british was to extract as much as possible from india to decorate their homeland . therefore all the taxes and revenue collected on indian soil , out of indian people was used to improve the condition of british citizens . this ruined the countries economy and brought about unprecedented distress and suffering out of which india is yet to recover fully . and this was just one of the innumerable vices of british colonialism !!!

this concept of thanking god is way too christian . and till date i have not yet come across any significance associated with abhishek artcles . its merely a form of personal devotion to god . god being a person is cared , fed , clothed and loved by the devotee . devadasis see to their recreation and chariot festivals are their holidaying . similarly abhishekam is nothing but his bath . just a way of expressing the love we have towards him . we like to believe that he is dependent on us and he has the same needs as us .

original gaudiya acharyas clearly showed the krishna-tattwa and its relation with other gods with utmost respect and care . they glorified krishna without demeaning anyone directly . prabhupada coined these terms such as 'demigod' to make the novice westerners get accustomed to vaishnav philosophy and in order to help them stick to their ishta instead of falling back to the other gods and ruining the essence of this movement . but in lon run this has ruined the very charcter of gaudiya philosophy . for these westerners have understood of the other dieties as menial servants of their 'dictator' krishna and go on abusing and devaluing them . the result is spontaneous . not only has it become a seperate 'religion' very different from both mainstream hinduism and vaishnavism , but also is riddled with numeous internal deficiencies and problems that is growing in size day by day !

the form that comes up in front o your eyes , in times of worst troubles is your ishtadevata . the form after praying onto whom you feel most relieved is your ishta . and if there is no such one form then time has not yet arrived for ishtadevata . better not hurry and mess things up !

no , ishtadevata doesnt come from charts !! adhipati and ishta are not the same thing . your ishta is determined through your acquaired samskaras

i think there is a small mistake there . kama that distracts us and kama of krishna are not the same terms . kama associated with us is the result of sense gratification . kama associated with krishna is the highest form of love , the perfectional stage of wordly love . kama towrds krishna as exhibited by the gopis results from the perfectional stage of madhura rasa -- the parakiya . and this madhura bhava in the culimination of all other precceding rasas like santa , dasya etc . by this we can understand the position of this kama . it is the condensed form of ideal love and not love as seen in material world . material kama results out from false identification with the body and desire to satisfy the senses .

ha ha ha !! nice one .

raghu , as you are evading the questions when it is so contextual and relevent to the topic , i assume that you lack answers to the same and also admit that this theory of neo-hinduism has certain imperfections that you dare not confront .

every organisation has deficiencies and orthodoxy . infact they are the characteristical elements that help it to exist . when vivekananda was thinking of establisheing the order he said " to do or not to do " . he was fully aware of the limitations that bind true spirituality in any organisation and at the same time was also aware of the necessity to have an organisation to keep the teachings and philosophy intact . after so many years , there is a wide scope of speculation that how much RKM has adhered to its original philosophy inspite of its wide success . actually the problem that you are speaking of is already there in our psychology . we love to speak and preach about the charcters we love . and what to say if they become 'god' in our belief . the more you follow or love any ideal or his philosophy , the more you shall be inclined to shout his glories . this is precisely what has happened before in all such cases of these avatara and also what is happening with ramakrishna mission now . just the way krishna was glorified , or still better chaitanya was glorified , shakkaracharya was glorified . history didnt show us any organization or any group of followers that didnt preach their respective cherished ideals or beliefs . therefore it is absolutely incorrect to accuse RKM individually of intentional propagation of new god . here gaudiya vaishnavas are also equally to blame . they did what RKM is doing now ! ramakrishna and chaitanya both denied their divinity and yet they are propagated as god . its strange that you are not being able to see the similarities between gaudiya and ramakrishna movement in this matter and proceeding to accuse RKM only . if you are not concerned with defending gaudiyas then bring them down to discussion instead to focussing only on the 'latter group' . you state that these ' latter groups ' are in ' developement and application stage ' . but that means that they are less influential than the former groups which are already sound established and hence more 'dangerous' to society . i think you should concentrate on these old grups which already have its roots deep inside our society than some small groups in infancy . and from the qoute that you gave the monk began the words with -- " in our veiw ................" . now obviously these words implies that it is their own ideology and belief and has nothing to do with people's veiw . its not an attempt to convert people to their veiw . its a summary describing their own veiw . the entire quote was not atall preachy or meant for eduacting people . it was a mere stating what their belief system is . why should that bother anyone unless he/she doesnt want the believers of that faith to stop practising their beliefs ?!!!!! things do make sense hpwever if we assume the person to dislike the very concept of ramakrishna as god and disbelieve in freedom of faith !! you said: but nowhere in that qoute was anything negetive being said towards any other beliefs or faiths . sectarian means adhering to dogmatic limits of a faith . although RKM guys have formed a sect but they did not become dogmatic to the least . infact it is gaudiya sampradaya who is dogamtic and sectarian in their famous exclusion of all other contemporary hindu leaders and even other vaishnava sub-faiths . infact devotion to krishna and krishna alone is considered the best . how can you miss that sectarianism unless you have intentional aprroach to demean RK and RKM ? outside india RKM centres are usually called vedanta centres (the term is purely hindu one) . and if you are aware of the recent changes there , those institutions are slowly accquiring a more colourfull 'hindu' ambience than the previously serious meditative atmoshphere , in wake of the recent boom in number of indians living abroad who use these places like temples for socio religious gatherings . from whatever you have written in the last few posts its evident that your dislike is not for so much for neo-hinduism as for ramakrishna philosophy and his subsequent deification . thats okay and your opinion , but why not be a bit more direct in approach ? by the way , what do think of mahaprabhu's case and why do you think it is different from that of RK ?

raghu , my answers ??

just because they entered earlier doesnt make them valid . and there might not have been any backing of religous institutions of modern type , but surely there was extensive backing by his followers , mutts , sanghas , emperors , kings and preachers . the backing was always there . the source of this backing have changed . take chaintanya for example . in charitamrita , krishnadas repeatedly warns the dangers of not believing in avatarhood of mahaprabhu . this is clear backing by followers ( although i believe in mahaprabhu's avatarhood). to this i agree...... does that mean you dont support this claim of gaudiya's of chaitanya being god ? gaudiya vaishnavas are in fact less vedantic than ramakrishna mission . though im not saying this to defend any organisation . because an organisation has nothing to do with spirituality or its upkeep . but im just showing you the misconceptions . inspite of using sweet terms like bhaktivedanta and stuff gaudiya vaishnva is more puranic than vedantic . at least i have never heard of brahmasutra being teached or preached anywhere in gaudiya world or mayapur till date . all over their preachings they use the word vaishnvas to decribe themselves . they would never ever use the word hindu . in fact there is clear doubt and unwillingness to use the second word! ramakrishnamission on other hand lays stress on this monistic explanation of vedanta of sankaracharya and identify themselves as hindu as well . obviously they do have a greater attraction for advaitic version of hinduism . they celebrate shivaratri , durgapuja ,kalipuja, holi , jannashtami , ramnavami etc . every ekadsi day is observed with elaborate ramnaam sankirtan . only at one point of time they did try to break away from the hindu tag and get themselves a minority status tag from court of law . this was when the newly formed communist government in bengal tried to transfer all the existing schools and properties of this institution in its name . a minority status would protect them from this danger . however the court rejected their plea and ruled them pure hindu and this property grab was rejected for the fear of public resentment . and they always use the word hindu while preaching or describing about themseves !! "phalena parichiyate "- you know me by the fruits i shall bear , said the tree when asked what tree it was ! its been more than 100 years and ramakrishna mission is still intact without scandals , gossips , falldowns , bla bla bla ( the list is long) and stuff like that . what about chaitanya mahaprabhu . he expressedly said that he is an ordinary jiva and yet his followers deified him even during his lifetime and preache his glories ? what do you think of that ? does gaudiyas face a danger ? dont come up with puranic 'proofs' to proove his avatarhood , they were additions of course ! there is lot of problem in determining avatar . if puranas are the only source then what about the later day interpolations ? im not saying that every guru out there is an avatar . but can you say that such and such person is the last avatar ? that would be denial of the famous gita verse . does glani of dharma not exist today ? or can it not exist in future ?

he had a confidential dream last night where vishnu came as a prominent VHP leader and instructed him to behead all the muslims and establish two specific avataars--swaminarayan and chanitanya ! shhhh......... !

rush for a patent and design a trademark......................

krishnaleela you have not yet answered what is your defination of avataar . what are the key determining points of avataar ? [url="http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/450204-study-concept-avatar.html"]

ha thats not logic ! just beacause they are 'regarded' as incarnation of krishna is no logic to establish their avatarhood beyond doubt . just because some are abstract gods doesnt take away their avatarhood. say , what about anandamayi ma who was regarded as an incarnation of devi . there is no abstraction here . was she an avatara ? just because the later 'avatars' are from post muslim christian period and are more succeptible to abrahamic thoughts doesnt make them invalid !( im not promoting them either , im talikng about the logic) by this logic avatars of pre muslim period like sankaracharya may have been influenced by buddhism and hence may be incorporating buddhism . ramanuja and madhavcharya dating from muslim period may be influenced by islam and have incorporated muslim influence !! wierd logic . secondly what is an avatar ? can you define that for better understanding ?

i didnt say it would be bogus . saying bogus would mean that any text of later period is misleading and it is antiquity that determines the genunity of the scripture . thats not true . however one cannot use it as a means to refute standard accepted upanishads or vedas or claim that they are authentic 'vedic' . it might be called veda-dharmi meaning that which accepts and follows the authority of the vedas , but not vedic itself . you cannot conclusively determine the character of shankaracharya from texts which are of doubius origins . since shakharacharya used the same praises for other dieties like devi or shiva tell me what do you think of that ??? and sankaracharya showing symptoms of bhakti doesnt prove he was a krishna-bhakta . firstly because what are accepted as symptoms of bhakti today was broadly symptoms of any sadhana at his time when bhakti rules were not codified . secondly if we go by common logic he showed more monistic traits then dualistic traits . so should a prudent man go with the majority or the insignificant minority ??

NO , in a strict sense ...... vamachar deals with madya mamsha matsya mudra and maithuna . he didnt drink madya( wine) and fell into bhava just uttering the name karana(meaning wine and cause) . he entered into samdhai merely on seeing aprostitute seeing devi in her and thus coudnt get into maithuna . his merely touched the mamshah while sadhana . this is certainly not vamachara where you have to eat mamsha drink madya indulge in maithuna etc etc. correct !! if he failed at all( as you say) it shows his intrinsic purity which prevented him from tredding on vamamarga . i can go for such a guru . i wouyldnt presurrise any one though !!!!

you did not define classical hinduism . you defined the identification point of neo hinduism and differentiated between the two concentrating mainly on neo-hinduism. and whats the harm in elaborating it just once more with more emhasis on classical part for better understanding of all here( as you can see none understood it) in this you are merely clarifying to the readers the scope and expanse of the word 'hinduism' in your essay and making the discussion convenient by using a shorter comprehensive term . that does nothing to define classical hinduism and its time period or its scriptures . no no no !! once more this is the rsult of your fertile imagination and hypothetical assumtions. i dont believe or support this theory of neo hinduism and see places where this theory falls short of logic . that is the only reason i am arguing with you . why should i get upset over someone not believeing in my guru or ideal ? everyone has his own freedom of choice( yes N-H again) . but when you intend to downplay other beliefs you must carry some basic logic which is lacking in quite a few places in your posts , unless ofcourse you agree to clarify them . and you refuse to do that.... ha ha ! that was not my intention . i promise that i wouldnt point out the level of intolerence in your sampradaya if you tell me the name . by the way , how can you say that i shall acuuse someone of intolerence unless you yourself have noticed that intorence in them . hee hee !! see how confused you are ? nevertheless , i'll keep my promise !

wrong again as most of the time !!! he practised dakshinaachar as found in the principle 64 types of tantra prevalent in kalikula under the guidance of bhairavi brahmani( who was a tantrik vaishnavi , her ishta being a salagram shila ) in the panchavati of dakshineswar temple premises. he did not go to vamaachar out of his own will !!

things are not at all getting out of topic . its just that you are evading the questions that you dont wish to answer . DEFINE classical hinduism for once .

yes they are absolutely relevant to this thread and it is your accute lack of intelligence thats making you think otherwise ! anyways , i think i already have one answer . that YOU DO NOT HAVE A GURU AND DO NOT BELONG TO ANY SAMPRADAYA ! Then what is the autority of your words when you yourself do not belong to any sampradaya which is so essential to be a classical hindu .( I have asked this question atleast five times)) secondly by what idiotic reason can you say that questions like : 1-which time period in history can be conclusively said as the time of classical hinduism . 2-what are the main scriptures of 'classical hinduism ' ? examples please.... .................................................................do not hold any relevance to the thread ? they are directly reffering to the central theme-neo hinduism !!!! and the other two questions like: 3-which is the supreme god in hinduism according to you and what is the process of determining this supremacy ? 4- why was this thread started ? i mean what should a man do after reading this ? ............................................................................ .............................are highly useful to anyone wishing to have a deep knowledge about neo-hinduism and what it stands for . they are also not out of topic . WHY DONT YOU PROVIDE CLEAR ANSWERS INSTEAD OF DODGING THEM CONTINUOSLY ???????????? .

acknowledging it and promoting it are not the same terms . learn to quote properly . just after saying that it was a valid path he said that it is like entering the house through the toilet door(remember in his times city dweller had crude toilets on the first floor and the dirt and shit used to be collected by sweepers from a ground floor room just below the bathroom .sometimes burglers used this passage as a means to enter the house ) when you have the front door open . i never said its not tantra . its a deformed and corrupted version of tantra ! just like sahajiya is a corrpted version of vaisnavism . tantra proper . focusses on yogic disciplines and bhakti to reach to the supreme tattwa of shakti

this is why i say , have some elementary knowledge . hmmm !! show me where ramakrishna has praised vamamarga . its a challenge !! instead he advised people to stay out of it froget about promoting it ! and even if he did practise it , how would that legitimise vamamarga ? yes sahajiya's are not vedic just like vaishnavism and tantra .

being attributed and being conclusively accepted are not the same thing ! hope you can understand that . if someone attributes chaintanya upanishad to early vedic age it is evidently not accceptable(from historical prespective and not religious sentiments) . it has to be accepted by a majority of researchers and scholars .

'always' ? what does it mean ? do you mean to say that hindus are slavish since eternity ? the slavishness that you are speaking of was there in the colonial period only . muslim rule harmed the hindu structure but did nothing to create inferirity complex . and present day hindus hardly care for islam(crippled with terrorism) and christianity ! although i dont know whether you have a complex or not ! could'nt you be a bit more respectfull ? i thought this is a spiritual forum and learning to give respect(even to enimies) is one of the basic teachings of spirituality . didnt you know that ? what books of vivekananda have you read ? i mean show me which scripture he willfully twisted into a complete new meaning !! yes show me ! i request !!