raghu

Exactly! By respecting the the Supreme all the little nature spirit gods are respected also. No need to try to water the leaves of the tree one by one. Just water the root and the whole tree is nourished.

An implicit part of respecting the Supreme Lord is respecting His empowered servants. They may be "little nature spirit gods" to you, but they can certainly ruin your day if they chose. And the Lord does not like it when His devotees are disrespected...

Respected Members,

 

I do not know whether this is the right channel to convey thoughts on the matter pertaining superiority of gods.

 

I think there are many more substantial issues regarding Hinduism that can be discussed here. Bickering, arguments, so-called discussions and proof making-proof debating posts, to me, appears as an eyesore. It just reflects how disunited we Hindus are.

 

I am not bothered much about people from other faiths attacking verbally on Hinduism. I believe, their lack of understanding about our culture, norms and religion makes them behave in that manner.What saddens me is Hindus, as we are all part of the same religion, a creation of the absolute truth, why can't we just focus on strenghtening our unity instead of dividing ourselves?

 

I wish the moderators would promptly identify and delete any thread that is a potential never ending chain of futile arguments. We Hindus should set an example to followers of other faiths, that we can lead a life full of unity, tolerance and positivity even whilst being among followers various faiths that are avail in the world.

"Futile" is in the eye of the beholder. Certain individuals believe that anyone who disagrees with them is needlessly argumentative, while certain others have a tendency to argue and argue ad nauseum even when they have little substance to their argument. To me, two people disagreeing politely is quite illuminating since it gives me a chance to evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of their individual positions. When someone resorts to ad hominem attacks, fatwas, papal bull (or their modern-day, internet equivalents) to silence an opponent, it tells me rather quickly that his is a philosophical position that I should not bother making my own.

Your idea that discussing hierarchy/supremacy of different deities is not important says more about your own views than of the legitimacy of the question. After all, a person who genuinely wants to know what is the best path to liberation is not going to accept an answer steeped in moral relativism (i.e. "this path is ok, that path is ok, whatever you like is ok...").

There is no getting around the fact that throughout the Puranas we have questions pertaining to what is the highest good for man, and the answer often comes in the form of directing one to a specific deity. Are all of those Puranas to be swept off the table because of their politically incorrect position of elevating one deity over another? Or could it be, perhaps, that it is our attachment to political correctness that handicaps our search after truth? It is kind of pointless, don't you think, to want to seek after truth but then provide so many conditions first (i.e. don't tell me one path is better than another, don't tell me one deity is superior to another, etc). If we do not know truth, should we not acknowledge that point humbly and take help from sources of right knowledge, instead of filtering said sources through our own preconceived biases?

Hindus will never be philosophically united because Hinduism has never been philosphically united. Throughout Hindu history there have always been Vaishnavas, Shaivites, Shaktas, Vedantins, Non-Vedantins, etc. We do not need to dismiss our philosphical differences for the sake of political unity. Political unity and philosophical unity have nothing to do with each other.

The Personal God concept comes from Semitic religions - where the Creator God goes through varied emotions of anger and love. It is not clear what they mean by an impersonal God - or even if the concept is acknowledged by them.

 

For Vaishnavas, it is should farily clear that Krishna (as he has declared in BG 9.29) that he - unlike the Semitic God - does not go through bouts of anger to throw down lightning, rain, fire, etc.

 

Recently, the concept of a Personal God has been applied to Hindu Gods too - though the exact relevance is not clear to me and hence the question - What does personal god mean in a Hindu context? Do we mean an anthromorphic God who looks Human/Indian with a shape and size? If not, then what?

 

I ask because it appears most people who make such claims do not understand it themselves. They simply seem to be repeating what they heard, without thinking it through.

 

Thanks

"Personal God" - meaning that it is in the Lord's inherent nature to have personality, display emotions, have activity, interactions with devotees, etc.

"Impersonal God" - meaning an abstract idea of something being supreme without reference to eternal personality, attributes, activities, etc.

However, this terminology is not hard and fast. Some Vaishnavas believe that Brahman is "personal" but is at the same time beyond all forms, qualities, etc. Sri Vaishnavas in particular seem to take this view, although they are quick to say that the Lord's forms are still eternal and divine.

Some might argue that "personal" and "impersonal" refer to "approachability" rather than "personality." Thus, for example, the Judeo-Christian "God" is wrathful and demands unquestioning submission. Some have argued that this is an "impersonal" diety not in the sense of lacking personality but rather in the sense of demanding unquestioning submission that precludes genuine devotion.

I guess it depends on who is doing the talking. As far as Hare Krishnas are concerned, I believe they use the first set of definitions.

the ideal life would be to eat to survive without causing harm to any creature. this is imposible, for us to live something has to be eaten, that's where plants come in .

Just FYI, Swami Vivekananda whose quote appears in your sig file, was a meat-eater.

The thing that I cannot grasp it that some highly intelligent people have fallen into this trap and actually believe that eating said vegetables is the same as eating meat. It's just bizarre.

 

Some years back on this very forum some disciples of a prominent GV guru were here saying those of us who ate carrots were meat eaters. All of these superstitions like an eclipse being some demon swallowing the Sun, really cloud the sublime teaching of transcendental Krishna consciousness.

Eating carrots is not equivalent to eating meat.

Neither is eating garlic and onion equivalent to eating meat, as you have stated earlier.

However, orthodox Hindus (including Vaishnavas) do not eat garlic and onion because of their rajasic qualities.

I don't see how quoting Vishnu sahasranama is a valid answer to what I said. If you find a Vishnu temple chanting Rudram, please let me know, then I can consider whether my statement is false or not.

 

As is, you highlighting that there are Vishnu temples that chant Vishnu Sahasranama does not make my statement false.

I was making the point that the VSN contains names like Rudra which can refer to other devatas in some contexts. Which in turn means that there are some standard prayers which even Vaishnavas chant in temples that invoke anya-devata names but which in fact are not. I assumed by "Rudram" you were referring to prayers with the name "Rudra" in them. If you were referring to a specific prayer like Sri Rudram Chamakam then that is a different story. I do agree with the general point that orthodox Vaishnavas usually avoid even the appearance of anya-devata worship for propriety's sake.

Madhva's view is that in the Vedas, in the beginning, middle and end only Hari is glorified. That's his interpretation.

It is also stated in in the Skanda Purana. It also follows from Gita 15.15 and numerous other statements which presumably you would accept.

To him, when the Vedas say Rudra, it means Vishnu. When the Vedas say Indra, it means Vishnu. When the Vedas say anything, it means Vishnu.

 

It may be true, but using such logic, of redefining every single word to mean Vishnu, then the point of "proving" who the Vedas glorify is meaningless, because every single word has been redefined to mean Vishnu.

You are obviously not familiar with the Vedanta-sutra, because this approach to interpretation is the very foundation of Vaishnava Vedanta and even your own Baladeva Vidyabhushana follows it.

The principle is very simple and logical - whenever a seemingly dependent entity is invoked and described by attributes that are solely those of Brahman alone, then that reference should be interpreted to be Brahman and not the dependent entity one might superficially consider it to mean. THis is the only logical approach to scripture, assuming you truly consider it to be "scripture," as opposed to an inconsistent hodgepodge of contradictory ideas authored by different sages over time. Thus, when "Indra" is invoked and his supremacy is discussed, then "Indra" in this context means Vishnu. Same with "Rudra,Shiva," etc.

Saying that other deities are glorified as supreme even when they are not is saying in effect that the Vedas teach falsehoods. This in turn undercuts your entire siddhanta, because even the texts that you do emphasize (Gita, Bhagavatam) base their authority on the Vedas. Not only this, but your own Jiva Gosvami accepts the authority of the Vedas and bases his discussion of pramanas on the unquestioned authority of the Vedas. So there is no way around it - you have to interpret the Vedas to draw out a consistent siddhanta.

But oddly, we don't see Vaishnavas worshipping Vishnu in temples by chanting Rudram or some other prayer apparently glorifying a devata. So it is more of an intellectual philosophical view, but not one actually applied in practice.

This is false. The Vishnu-sahasranama stotra is popularly chanted by Vaishnavas and it contains names that are normally attributed to other devatas.

It is probably true, however, that Vaishnavas do not customarily invoke anya-devata-namas when worshipping Vishnu. The reasons why should be obvious. If we lived in an ideal world then no one would have any misunderstanding when the Lord is referred to as "Indra,Rudra,Shiva," etc. But we don't live in that ideal world, and the reality is that other people will misunderstand such an approach as indicating that all these deities are the same.

Why haven't you Cut and Pasted here?

If not "fruitive activity" then what do the Vedas "promote"?

 

Your elementary illogic is laughable!

 

Activities are the basis of existance.

 

Let me bestow some mercy on you --To see that your arguement is irrefutably way off the mark, Understand the description of the Banyan Tree --AS KRISHNA DESCRIBES IT & and then respond.

Several points:

1) I am not aware of an online version of a translation of Madhva's commentary. Anyone with even a modicum of intelligence should have no problem finding the book in a decent library. Sadly, Tattvavadi siddhanta will not appeal to those whose only means of learning is to google, copy, cut, and paste.

2) Your have demonstrated very little grasp of logic, making any criticism made by you of someone else's straightforward logic rather humorous to read.

3) That activities are the basis of existence is not in question or even relevant. That you are bringing it up suggests that you do not understand what is being discussed. At this point, one might wonder if it wouldn't be smarter for you to try and understand the gist of the conversation before presuming to argue.

4) There is no need for unwarranted digressions, unless of course you are trying to throw us off from the fact that you do not know what you are talking about.

Krishna says "trai-gunya-visaya veda". Whatever interpretation you want to give to it, the fact is the direct meaning is "The subject matter of the vedas is the three Gunas." This is not a concept made up by anyone in this thread, this is the direct statement of Krishna, which you say is the wrong view. Madhva may disagree with this, but that's his opinion and interpretation. If the topic is what did Krishna say (not what did He really mean to say), the answer is, "The subject matter of the vedas is the three Gunas."

 

You may debate what the correct understanding of that statement is, but you cannot claim that Krishna did not say this.

Krishna says in BG 15.15 that He is the subject matter of the Vedas. Based on this, there is every reason to disagree with your reading of "trai-guNya-viShayA veda." Surely you agree that the Gita should be interpreted in a consistent fashion. Or maybe we should reinterpret Gita 15.15?

The position of the Hare Krishnas in this regard seems more consistent with that of secular academic indologists than with the position of the "Brahma-Madhva" sampradaya.

 

And if there was a perfect world, where people never picked up disease, never died in accidents or were never murdered, never suffered any pain in life, then wouldn’t thing be much better? There is a difference between fantasy and reality. Your creator God along with the singing birds and flowing brooks, also created the concept of disease and carnivores – deal with it. It is nature’s order that one form of life lives off another. It does not make make any sense to say that thousands of species can follow nature and only man should not.

Is it man's nature to be a carnivore? Now that is truly an unsubstantiated allegation. It is not a biologically sound position to take.

Respected members and readers,

 

With due respect to all sentiments, thoughts and reasonings from all sides ....

 

Srila Prabhupad traveled to the US on ship surviving nausea , sea-sickness and heart attack. On order of his Guru he spread the Vedic knowledge of the Supreme, Krshna, in the western world. He knew he had very little time left in this body to do this herculean task. He was about 70. "Krshna, where have You brought me ? I am a puppet in your hands. Please make me dance make me dance make me dance".

 

He had to

- give core knowledge to young Americans,

- get his books published

- establish dieties, temples, and regular temple programs,

- establish a book distribution channel to be kept running

- give starting impetus for Cow Protection farms , first convey its importance ...

 

in such a short time. His disciples in the west and India did very well, overall, coming up to speed on all this.

 

If his goal was that temples get milk supply from these farms, waiting for the farms to start first would be like putting the cart before the horse.

He would get caught up in a perpetual chicken-and-egg problem , and ISKCON may not have been all that it is today.

 

He had to forgo some temporary creases like commercial milk, refined bone-processed sugar, to get the big chariot running.

 

We can say it was his mercy that he left these creases , just like Canto 11 and 12 of the Bhagvat, to his descendants.

Once a disciple said "But Bhaktivinod Thakur did not finish his book."

To which SP said "We are descendants of Bhaktivinod Thakur. It is his mercy that he left some work for us. Do you think he could not have finished it ? He is Vaishnav. All-powerful."

 

 

Now, decades later, these things can be addressed slowly with more cow protection especially for temples - not that temples should turn vegan. no !

 

What the vegan devotees are saying is that if we do nothing and simply accept commercial milk, we are not moving forward towards the goal that the Guru set.

 

Please forgive and correct any misconceptions i may have had about this.

 

Radhe Radhe

Hare Krshna

Jai Sri Krshna

Smaranam,

I'm sorry, but the above logic seems basically intended to justify Prabhupada's milk use, which in turn raises the question about standards and morality. It is illogical to compare milk drinkers with murders, just as it would be illogical if Prabhupada to allowed his disciples to eat meat just to grow his movement, and then preached vegetarianism.

Theist has a lot to answer for, since as usually he proposes totally absurd ideas which ultimately bite him in the back. His own guru (shiksha, not diksha, since he was never initiated) supports cow torture, according to Theist.

Neither you nor anyone else should have to shoulder the burden of rationalizing Theist's bizarre ideas.

 

 

I believe what Krishna says:

 

yam imam puspitam vacam

pravadanty avipascitah

veda-vada-ratah partha

nanyad astiti vadinah

kamatmanah svarga-para

janma-karma-phala-pradam

kriya-visesa-bahulam

bhogaisvarya-gatim prati

 

TRANSLATION

Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this.

 

Men of small knowledge think that there is nothing more to attainment of material comforts via sacrifice because they do not understand the higher, esoteric sense of the Vedas, which is that Lord Vishnu is the actual master of all sacrifices. See also BG 3.15 in this regard.

Also, the phrase "which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth" which is central to your "Vedas are materialistic" thesis is not actually found in those verses as quoted above.

It seems like we hit a dead end on this point. I believe:

trai-gunya-visaya veda

nistrai-gunyo bhavarjuna

nirdvandvo nitya-sattva-stho

niryoga-ksema atmavan

Translation

The Vedas deal mainly with the subject of the three modes of material nature. O Arjuna, become transcendental to these three modes. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the self.

 

 

 

This is again based on our different perspectives. I would quote you the same verses I already quated to defend the same points I have already tried to defend for the same point you have already made.

 

And your interpretation would remain inconsistent with the verses quoted earlier from chapters 15, 17, etc which describe the Vishnu-centric viewpoint of the Vedas.

Goal of Bhakti is to serve the Supreme Lord. How can that be compared to mayavad philosophy?

 

Those who treat bhakti as a ladder that can be kicked away once one has achieved liberation are basically mayavadis. Do you agree or disagree?

If you agree, then you can surely see how the same logic applies to the Vedas and attainment of Sri Krishna. You cannot, on one hand, argue that bhakti continues after liberation, and then on the other hand treat the Vedas as merely a disposable means to an end. This is shastra-ninda.

The Vedas are the basis of bhakti to Lord Vishnu. That is the sense of numerous Gita verses and it also happens to be the view of Sri Madhva. The idea that Vedas are actually promoting acquisition of various opulences is a misunderstanding according to Sri Krishna as well as Sri Madhva.

India "mainly" contains Indians. That means there are also others that are there. What's the difficulty in understanding that?

 

Your analogy is flawed on the count of its irrelevance and dissimilarity to the subject matter. A better analogy would be a doctoral thesis that attempts to prove a point. Whatever is said in the thesis leads to the main idea which the doctoral candidate is trying to prove. Taking something out of context and arguing that it is not relevant to the thesis is both unwarranted and disingenuous. Similarly, extracting specific mantras or information about specific sacrifices out of the global context of the Vedas, and then arguing that they really promote acquisition of material goods, is despicable.

Since we have a disagreement on the following verse, your statement above can not be applicable in this situation. It is like saying exactly what Krishna says:

trai-gunya-visaya veda

nistrai-gunyo bhavarjuna

nirdvandvo nitya-sattva-stho

niryoga-ksema atmavan

 

The above is what Sri Krishna says.

The following...

Translation

The Vedas deal mainly with the subject of the three modes of material nature. O Arjuna, become transcendental to these three modes. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the self.

 

... is not what Sri Krishna says.

As far as my little brain allows me to understand, I have read the verse quoted above and accepted its translation as it is.

What difference does it make whether you "accept" the translation or not, given that you do not have sufficient understanding of the language to make an objective decision about the translation's fidelity?

Kindly quote refrences from Sri Madvacharyas point of view since you have understood his point of view.

You can look up Sri Madhva's view in his Bhagavad-Gita commentary on chapters 2 verses 45-53. An English translation by BNK Sharma is widely available which also has the original Sanskrit of his commentary wherein he explicit disagrees with the idea that the Vedas promote fruitive activity.

I was attempting to summarize the story of Jada Bharata and how despite all the attempts of his family members to transform him into the perfect vedic expert and brahmana he artfully dodged them and was continuously executing devotional service by thinking of Krsna. I do not know if he was chanting Hare Krishna mantra or not so I apologize if you think I was advocating some sort of Hare Krishna sectarianism that offends you as that was not my intent.

AM, you specifically claimed that he was chanting Hare Krishna although the text does not say that. I am merely requesting that you be truthful in your representation of the scripture. I am sorry if advocating for true and accurate representation of scripture offends you in any way.

In response to my statement that the Gita verse says nothing about becoming "indifferent to the Vedas" you wrote:

I don't know, but the purport says there are good examples in the lives of the great devotees of the Lord who became indifferent to the rituals of the Vedas simply by devotional service to the Lord.

But the purport is not the Gita and my original objection stands.

Namaskar. Again your response is somewhat verbose and full of digressions. I will respond to just those parts that are relevant here.

The conclusion and the entire contents are not always 100% the same.

 

If you truly believe, as most Hare Krishnas do, that the Lord is non-different from His glories, then you must accept the conclusion that the above statement by you is incorrect and unpalatable.

If Vedas glorify the Lord, then there is no question of distinguishing the Vedas from the Lord. If you claim that Vedas glorify goals other than Vishnu, then you are falling into the trap of the veda-vAda-rataH.

Vedas knowing Krishna and the reader of the Vedas understanding Krishna are 2 different things.

And similarly, actually conclusion of Vedas and misunderstood conclusion of Vedas are two different things.

Right View: The goal of Vedas is knowing Sri Vishnu

Wrong View: Vedas are mainly concerned with the three modes of material nature/fruitive activity.

These two views are inconsistent and incompatible.

Vedas certainly contain plenty of pages on activities in different modes. It would be sastra-ninda if anyone is denying the authority of Vedas.

Then perhaps you did not read the first posting of this thread. It is entitled, "Becoming indifferent to the vedas."

Certainly that is sastra-ninda. If one posted an article on "becoming indifferent to the Bhagavatam" would you accept such a conclusion as valid?

The point is simple. Once you achieve Krishna, then you become indifferent to the Vedas because you have reached the goal. If you reach your destination, the address you scribbled down would be of no use or harm to you.

This is classic, mayavadi, utilitarian logic. Just as the mayavadis argue that bhakti is merely a means to an end (liberation) and can be dispensed with once the goal of liberation is attained, so too you argue that one can become "indifferent" to the Vedas once one has attained Sri Krishna. If you disagree with the former, then you cannot possibly disagree with the latter. That would be a double standard.

The Vedas deal "MAINLY" with the 3 modes. Yes they contain plenty of mantras to worship Vishnu.

This is self-contradictory.

The conclusion and the entire contents of Vedas are not 100% the same.

And this is like saying that the glorification of the Lord and the Lord Himself are not the same.

Gaudiya Vaishnavas believe that the Bhagavata Purana is the Lord Himself. That this is so is written in Jiva Gosvami's Tattva-Sandarbha. Do you accept it? Because by your logic, I can also say that there is material in the Bhagavata that does not directly concern the Lord, such as descriptions of varnashrama dharma, dynasties of great kings, etc and thus (based on your logic) conclude that the essence of the Bhagavatam is different from the contents of the Bhagavatam. Do you accept it? Why or why not?

As you have smartly pointed out:"Because in the Vedas it is often misunderstood that attainment of heavenly pleasures is the goal, people are often not aware of the actual, hidden, or esoteric meaning which deals with Vishnu."

And therefore, the subject matter of the Vedas is *not* the three modes of material nature or fruitive activity. Rather it is Vishnu only which is the subject, and people only misunderstand the Vedas to be concerned with something else.

This also happens to be the view of Sri Madhvacharya who writes this in his Gita commentary. Sri Madhva does not accept the idea of "karma-kanda" or "fruitive activity" as the main gist of the Vedas. And why should he? Since that position is not supported by the Bhagavad-gita at all.

You know it is 2009 now and these books were written a long ago. Just like we dress differently from people of those times, wear our hair differently, eat differently and live a completely different lifestyle, it is also natural to not want to replicate the role of women from a bygone era.

 

A better question would be, what are the qualities one can look for in a spouse, in our times? "Serving the husband" is not relevant to our times, when women can and do have their own careers, match upto men in all areas and are no longer playing second fiddle. The master-slave model has given way to a peer model. Some people (bigots?) may argue in favor of the older model, but we would obviously be better off analyzing the current model than wasting time brooding over an obsolete model.

 

Cheers

In the spirit of analyzing things, the current model is associated with a high rate of documented marital dysfunction. If there is still a concern over broken families, bitter divorce proceedings, and general social dysfunctionality, then it seems only reasonable to look into other paradigms of marriage above and beyond the current "meet, have sex, and get married if its good for you" approach. On the other hand, if no one really cares anymore about the integrity of the family unit and the ephemeral nature of modern, romantic liasons, then it goes without saying that you will have nothing but contempt for other ways of doing things.

I asked a very simple question, and the answer is also very simple. Let me therefore ask it a different way.

Since Sri Prabhupada's approach to things is generally taken by Hare Krishnas to be valid, and since Theist argues that people who drink milk are enabling the torture and slaughter of cows, and since Sri Prabhupada did consume milk in the United States and allowed its use in his temples....

Are all milk drinkers including Sri Prabhupada guilty of enabling cow torture, or are none of them guilty by the very fact of consuming milk?

You can't have it both ways, i.e. milk drinking is wrong for most people but not for Prabhupada. That is hypocrisy.

The second statement does not naturally follow from the first.

Let me restate it another way. If the conclusion of the Gita is Vishnu (or Krishna), and the Gita represents the essence of the Vedas, then the conclusion of the Vedas is also Vishnu. Do you agree with this?

I believe the points they are trying to make (they may correct me if I am wrong) are:

 

1) The Vedas deal mainly with the three modes of material nature, and the karma kanda rituals for fruitive results.

Yet it is by the Vedas that Sri Krishna is known (Gita 15.15). Thus, I would have to disagree with your wording of the above. Can Sri Krishna be known by the modes of material nature? Can Sri Krishna be known by rituals whose purpose is the acquisition of material comforts?

You may feel that this is splitting hairs. But since Theist is advocating "being indifferent to the Vedas," it seems only reasonable to examine the underlying basis for this view, viz the idea that Vedas "deal primarily with karma kanda/modes of material nature." Is it wise to be teaching people with unregulated habits to become indifferent to the very scriptures by which they can understand the main goal of life - Vishnu? Is that not what you would call... sastra-ninda?

As I have indicated, using sources that both you and I accept, the conclusion of the Vedas is not the fruitive activity. On the contrary, the Vedas contain mantras that are used to worship Vishnu (also stated in ACBSP's commentary). This is not consistent with the position that Vedas "deal mainly with the modes of material nature."

Rituals whose goal is the acquisition of material goods cannot teach one about the ultimate goal of life which is beyond such mundane pursuits. The Vedas do not deal with fruitive activity but rather with rituals for the worship of Vishnu which are wrongly interpreted to be for the acquisition of fruitive results. Arjuna was not being advised to be "indifferent to the Vedas." He was being advised to be indifferent to the idea of rituals for the purpose of fruitive activity. This is in keeping with the context of his objections to fighting which were also based on materialistic grounds. This is also in keeping with the ideas presented in the Gita 15th and 17th chapters which indicate that Vishnu is really the essence of the Vedas and is known by and worshipped by the mantras of the Vedas.

Raghuji, HOW can you even pose a question like this!

Because it logically follows from Theist's implied statement that those who purchase milk support the torture and enslavement of cows.

If the conclusion of the statement is unacceptable, then the statement should be retracted.

How can you say this about Prabhupada! With His mercy, many people accepted vegetarianism in the west. He was AGAINST slaughter of ANY animals, what to speak of our mother Cows. In fact, He was the one who single handedly propagated to STOP all these killings in western world. How Kripaalu(merciful) of Him!

 

Drinking milk is NOT equal to slaughter.

It is quite the contrary.

I agree. So tell that to Theist. His exact words earlier in this thread were, "I am so tired of this phony talk of the cow as our 'Blessed Mother' etc. etc. by people who support the enslavement and ultimate slaughter of said "Mothers"."

 

He goes on talking on this topic and on verses 42-43 he says "Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this."

 

On verse 45 and 46 he says "The Vedas mainly deal with the subject of the three modes of material nature. Rise above these modes, O Arjuna. Be transcendental to all of them. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the Self. All purposes that are served by the small pond can at once be served by the great reservoirs of water. Similarly, all the purposes of the Vedas can be served to one who knows the purpose behind them."

 

On verse 49 he says "O Dhananjaya, rid yourself of all fruitive activities by devotional service, and surrender fully to that consciousness. Those who want to enjoy the fruits of their work are misers."

 

Then on verse 52, the verse on current discussion he says "When your intelligence has passed out of the dense forest of delusion, you shall become indifferent to all that has been heard and all that is to be heard."

 

It seems obvious that this verse is referring to being indifferent to the vedas that deal mainly with 3 modes of material nature by knowing who is to be known by them. It's like saying, Tom is a good person. He is also very short. Now if someone simply quotes the sentence saying he is short, then yes, there's no Tom in that sentence. But if one looks at the sentence before that, its very obvious who its referring to.

Your conclusions are less than obvious. If you would indulge me, let me address the core misunderstanding upon which your entire argument is based. Your assumption is that Vedas "deal mainly with the three modes of material nature." Using even translations from your own A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, I can prove to you that this assertion is false.

First, Bhaktivedanta Swami repeatedly used the term "Vedic" culture NOT in regards to "three modes of material nature" but rather in the sense of the spiritual culture of Krishna worship that he was propagating. For example, in the introduction to Bhagavad-Gita As It Is, he writes about the Gita that it is "the essence of Vedic knowledge." If Vedas deal mainly with the "three modes of material nature," then are you going to say that Gita does also? If the conclusion of the Gita is Krishna worship, and the Gita is the essence of Vedas as Prabhupada claims, then what makes more sense to you - saying that the Vedas deal mainly with the modes of material nature or saying that the Vedas deal mainly with the subject of Vishnu/Krishna?

Second, in Gita 15.15 Bhaktivedanta Swami translates Krishna's statement as follows, "I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedānta, and I am the knower of the Vedas." If you agree that Sri Krishna is above the three modes of material nature, and you agree with Sri Krishna that He is known by the Vedas, then how do you reconcile these positions with your idea that the Vedas "deal mainly with the three modes of material nature?" You can surely appreciate that this is inconsistent.

Third, please look at Gita 17.23 again with the translation and purport of your very own A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. The translated verse reads, "From the beginning of creation, the three words oḿtat sat were used to indicate the Supreme Absolute Truth. These three symbolic representations were used by brāhmaṇas while chanting the hymns of the Vedas and during sacrifices for the satisfaction of the Supreme." Here is a fairly clear reference to the idea that Veda mantras were chanted for the specific purpose of pleasing the Supreme Lord. Is this dealing with the three modes of material nature? Clearly it is not. If you have any doubt, just read Prabhupada's commentary - "The three words oḿtat sat are uttered in conjunction with the holy name of the Supreme Lord, e.g., oḿtadviṣṇoḥ. Whenever a Vedic hymn or the holy name of the Supreme Lord is uttered, oḿ is added. This is the indication of Vedic literature. These three words are taken from Vedic hymns." Again, this is a clear reference to the idea of the Veda mantras being directly related to worship of Vishnu in Prabhupada's view.

Taken together, this is not consistent with the point of view that the Vedas "deal mainly with the three modes of material nature." The essence of the Vedas is not the "three modes of material nature," and consequently verse 2.52 is not talking about becoming "indifferent to the Vedas."

The real sense of the words "traiguNyaviShayA vedAH" in verse 2.45 is that one should not be misled by the apparent meaning of Veda mantras. Because in the Vedas it is often misunderstood that attainment of heavenly pleasures is the goal, people are often not aware of the actual, hidden, or esoteric meaning which deals with Vishnu. That the Vedas have an apparent or superficial meaning and a deeper, esoteric meaning is revealed in the Aitareya Aaranyaka 2.4.3 which states that the devas take delight in the hidden sense of the Vedas.

Thus, there is no need to become indifferent to the Vedas, as the Vedas really deal with the subject of Vishnu, assuming you believe what the Gita has to say about this.

Which is more important to you? Drinking milk from enslaved, mistreated and ultimately slaughtered cows or foregoing the drinking of such milk until it can be obtained from protected cows?

 

 

I am so tired of this phony talk of the cow as our 'Blessed Mother' etc. etc. by people who support the enslavement and ultimate slaughter of said "Mothers".

 

 

Stop supporting and promoting cow slaughter Kurma das (not the chef).

If drinking milk is equal to supporting the "enslavement and ultimate slaughter" of cows then....

Was Prabhupada a supporter of enslavement and ultimate slaughter of cows?

My calcs per Bhagavatam, is Jada Bharata lived during the 1st Manu's lifetime 2 Billion 160 Million years ago [2,160,000,000 BC ---SB 8.1.4] His great-great Grand-father was Priyavrata, who was son of Svayambhuva Manu [1st Manu of the current Day-of-Brahma (the current kalpa) ~we are now in the 7th Manu's lifetime] . . .

 

so, Now . . . after so much time has past since Jada Bharata's time ---we are so sure that an unrevealed, hidden mantra, specifically, the HARE KRISHNA MAHA MANTRA, as "recorded" in the Kali-santarana Upanishad ---was not known to any one anywhere at any time other than sudras, mudhas and dinanaradhamas 5,000 years into our precious gestation years of Kali-yuga???

 

I admit that Srila Prabhupada used the term "Chanted Hare Krishna" when translating an ancient event where Vedic Sages or even Vedic Demigods prayed Hymns & Mantras . . . he did the same, interchangably with terms like, "preformed devotional Service" or "preformed bhakti-yoga" or "prayed to the Supreme Lord" or "chanted Vedic mantras" or "preformed jagyas" or "recited pastimes of the ancients" . . .

 

So, Raghu, [allow me to throw a curve ball at you here]:

 

Why do you (though I know it's easily acceptable by most people) dismiss the notion that the Hare Krishna Mahamantra was once known and was bestowed to us after the disciplic succession was lost?

 

Why do you dismiss that Srila Prabhupada's tranlation is only what appears on the surface? There SHOULD BE hidden depths in his commentaries & especially in his choice words in his sanskrit translations.

 

So, the dhatus (sanskrit word-roots) in the words: HA RE KRISH NA & RA MA should be of ernest interest ---not the professorial choice of noumenclature ---except by other scholars' works-in-progress, maybe.

I really do not understand the need for this excessively verbose and basically irrelevant digression. Nor do I understand your need to put words in my mouth.

There are only three points that I have made on this thread:

1) The gita verse quoted from chapter 2 does NOT, as Theist has falsely claimed, imply that one should become indifferent to the Vedas.

2) Someone claimed that Jada Bharata wanted to chant Hare Krishna instead of studying the Vedas. This is false - there is no evidence that Jada Bharata was specifically chanting Hare Krishna or wanting to chant Hare Krishna. Perhaps he did, but the Bhagavatam does not say so one way or another.

3) One must represent the scriptures honestly.

Some fanatics will always point out some tiny dark spot on the radiant full Moon but the wise will simply treat them like an annoying mosquito buzzing in their ear while trying to listen to some Krishna Katha.

It is unfortunate that some individuals are so infected with the "wannabe guru" sickness that they cannot even acknowledge simple mistakes for fear that it will tarnish public perception of their knowledge base. When all else fails, just bring up the warm soft blanket of Krishna Katha. When you speak of Krishna Katha (even though you have no real attraction to it), the foolish will certainly believe that the other guy must be against it in some way. Never mind that he was simply pointing out the errors in your discussion of scripture. But, it's ok! You like Krishna Katha, so this means you can say anything about scripture that you want, and right or wrong, it must be accepted as truth.

Everyone has to base their views on scriptures, without which their views should not be accepted as true. The only exception are the Hare Krishnas, who are free to say whatever they want.

 

Just learn from REAL WELLWISHING YOGIS.

The real yogis are the ones who speak in accord with scripture.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The Hare Krishna Mantra is called the MAHA-MANTRA for a good reason.

 

Talk about "Becoming indifferent to the vedas"

 

You have become indifferent to "MahaMantras" according to your calculations?

Now you see, this is the sort of dishonest, strawman argument I have come to expect from Hare Krishnas. When you are caught making false claims, the honest thing to do would be to recant them. Falsifying scripture and then attacking me for pointing it out only makes you and your religion look bad. Are your religious beliefs so tenuous, sir, that you can only defend them by indulging in mud-slinging? Apparently so.

Chanting "Hare Krishna Mahamantra" and/or "always thinking of the lotus feet of the Lord and chanting the Lord's glories" ---seems to be the 'same-difference' to me.

 

But I am just a dumb jackass . . . not smart enough nor good enough to chant the Vedas.

I can't comment on your intelligence. What I can say is that you are obfuscating the issue.

If you wanted to claim that Jada Bharata was "thinking of the lotus feet of the Lord," then that would be fine, as it is consistent with the text. But when you claim that Jada Bharata was "chanting Hare Krishna," then that is a specific claim, and specific evidence must be there to substantiate such a claim. Otherwise it is dishonest.

Chanting Hare Krishna may be nondifferent from thinking of the Lord's glories. But the bottom line is that the text does NOT say that he was chanting Hare Krishna. There are other ways to think about the Lord's glories, beyond chanting Hare Krishna. If one wanted to know how *specifically* Jada Bharata was thinking of the Lord's glories, one should consult the text to see. If the specific means by which he was thinking of the Lord is not spelled out, then it is dishonest to claim that he was doing it by one specific method.

There needs to be a semblance of intellectual honesty when approaching the scripture. Of course, the whole point of this is honesty and properly representing the scriptures. But the HK's will probably try to claim I am somehow against their mantra. It has nothing to do with what mantra you chant. It has everything to do with being honest when you make claims about what is found in scripture.

I don't think that honesty is a lot to ask for.

Sitting on the shore of a tropical isle with blue ocean and white sand, one no longer finds inspiration staring at a picture of the white sands and blue water of a tropical island.

That is an interesting analogy which illustrates the point that you are trying to make. I have no difficulty understanding the point you are trying to make, so I did not require an analogy to understand it.

All I have stated is that the point you are trying to make does NOT follow from the Gita verse quoted. The Gita does NOT talk about becoming "indifferent to the Vedas." Why would it, since its own authority is based on the Vedas? That does not even make sense.

Also, someone made a brazen claim to the effect that Jada Bharata wanted to chant Hare Krishna instead of study the Vedas. While I recall the latter being mentioned in the Bhagavatam, I checked and found *no evidence* that could even remotely be interpreted to mean that Jada Bharata wanted to chant "Hare Krishna." For those of you who make this claim, I realize that you have not actually read the Bhagavatam. The story is in 5.9.1-20 which you may wish to consult in order to correct your misconceptions.

I am sure we can all agree that we must represent the scriptures honestly. Surely that is not a lot to ask for.