raghu

Are you joking, or are you really this obtuse?

No, you basically ignored all my questions and continued to spew your strawman white-wash about sectarianism. But that is fine. I was not expecting anything particularly honest or thought-provoking from you. I just wanted it to be clear where you stood when your beliefs are being questioned.

If you are trying to fly to Mumbai, what difference does it make whether you buy a ticket for Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai, or some other destination? The mere fact that you are flying means you will eventually end up in Mumbai, right? And if someone dares to suggest that your ticket to Chennai will not take you to Mumbai, then ask him to put aside his hatred of your path and just accept that we are all going to the same place despite our different plane tickets.

I do not believe I have postulated any theory. I merely pointed out the flawed premise upon which yours is based. Again, your assumption about singular consciousness runs contrary to common experience, and is prima facie absurd. By ordinary experience we can appreciate that (1) we are each conscious living entities, and that (2) we are not the same conscious living entity. You do not know what I am thinking or what I will do or write, for example. We can logically infer that we are two different entities. To say that we are somehow connected in any way is itself an assumption not based on any evidence obtained via sensory perception or logical inference. It requires additional evidence to substantiate, which you do not have. Furthermore, your theory which holds that "illusion" is another aspect of this singular conscious living entity begs the question. From whence does this illusion come? Brahman. And who is put into illusion? Brahman. So it is in Brahman's nature to be both the source of illusion and that which is deluded by it? A singular, self-deluding entity does not follow from direct observation nor from logical inference. Such a thing again requires more assumptions to accept. And once again, if it is all illusion anyway, then nothing within it is real including this very conversation regarding spirituality and metaphysics. Which then begs the question of why even talk about it in the first place. If a self-deluding Brahman is easy for you to accept, why not just accept the possibility that you are merely deluding yourself?

The idea that there is a "moksha" that is devoid of bhakti is, as far as I can tell, a belief that is peculiar to Gaudiya Vaishnavas and mayavadis. This is not a belief of most other Vaishnava traditions of which I am aware, and certainly not the mainstream ones. In any case, the point I was making is that he is supposedly initiated into a Vaishnava lineage but is making a fairly broad pitch that really does not address Vishnu-sarvottamatva. This might make one logically question the legitimacy of his position as an "acharya." What exactly, is he an "acharya" of? What is his sampradaya? Who does he represent? Which Vedanta commentary does he follow? Of course, in all fairness I have also met "initiated" Gaudiya Vaishnavas who disagree with Baladeva Vidyabhushana about anAdi-karma, initiated Gaudiya Vaishnvas who think that kama-sutra is sacred scripture, initiated Gaudiya Vaishnavas who want gay marriage, initiated Gaudiya Vaishnavas who think that Jesus is a Vaishnava, etc etc. So, let there be no suspicion that I am against this particular individual in any way. On the contrary, I hold everyone to the same standard of honesty.

Again, you are mistaken. Possibly you may not have a true scientific background which is why you misunderstood the Wikipedia entry. The "plurality" referred to her is not "plurality of entities" (as is often the concern of Advaitins trying to explain away the reality of the world we live in), but rather plurality of unfounded assumptions. Advaita makes more assumptions about reality, and thus does not satisfy the criteria of simplicity when explaining existence. Examples: 1) The world around us is not real. This runs contrary to our experience. A simpler point of view would be to accept the reality of the world in which we live, and by extension, the reality of our perceptions. If we assume that this is all false, then even our conjecturing that it is all false is itself false, which leads to an infinite regress. 2) We are all the same Brahman. Again, this runs contrary to our experience as we have different life experiences. We do not all get damnation or salvation at the same time, for example. 3) Brahman alone exists. 4) Maya neither exists nor does not exist. Maya has to exist in order to explain how this Brahman supposedly fell under illusion. If the illusory world is not real, then some agent must be postulated to explain the illusion. If that agent (maya) itself is not real, then from whence the illusion? An entity that neither exists nor does not exist is illogical. 5) Vedas can provide knowledge about Brahman, although Vedas do not exist. In fact there are so many assumptions that Advaitins have to make due to their accepting the doctrine of maya that it is not possible to get to every one of them here. Tattvavadis by contrast accept only one assumption - that the Vedas are apaurusheya (which Advaitins also except). Everything else in Tattvavada follows from that.

I think the real question is, would they have appointed him an acharya of the temple if he had actually started teaching about Vishnu-bhakti as the ultimate path to moksha. I can't help but notice that despite his supposedly Vaishnava background, the subject of Vishnu rarely, if ever, comes up in his sermons. But, I welcome correction as always.

I'm not really sure I understand what the above means. At best it sounds inconsistent. If he is a follower of Ramanuja then he is a Sri Vaishnava by definition. Are you saying that he is not formally initiated in the sampradaya of Ramanuja? Or are you saying that he only accepts some teachings and principles of Ramanuja's sampradaya but not all? Yes, I have noticed this. Feeling is one thing but knowing is quite another. Where is his evidence that women were given brahmana thread? Isn't it just possible that he is making this statement because it will appeal to the egalitarian sentiments of people in the West? I get a bit suspicious when I am directed to an online sales website when asking for evidence for something. Needless to say, I'd be a bit more encouraged to purchase a book and read it if I was convinced that the teachings within were more likely to be grounded in shastra and not merely "feeling." regards, Raghu

Sanatan, I remember reading somewhere once that a passing stranger once fed you some dog meat when you were alone once as a very young child. However, i cannot remember where I read that... can you provide me with some evidence to rebut this? Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Again, since you evaded the original question, let me ask it again. Where is your evidence that the "karma" in the anAdi-karma sutras refers to "prescribed duties of varnashrama?" Which guru taught you that? In which commentary is it written? So far you have not quoted any commentary on the Vedanta-sutra. You claim that the Bhagavatam is a commentary on the Vedanta-sutra. But you have not actually quoted the Bhagavatam. Instead, you only alluded to a commentary on the Bhagavatam. Where in the Srimad Bhagavatam is it written that the anAdi-karma refers to beginningless prescribed duties? Where is that written? I'm calling your bluff. Please quote the Sanskrit, chapter and verse. Baladeva Vidyabhushana accepts that karma is literally beginningless. This is obvious from his commentary. You argue that the Bhagavatam teaches you to contradict Baladeva. But so far you have not quoted any statement in the Bhagavatam which supports your view. Again, why is it you disagree with Vyasa? Why do you disagree with your own sampradaya's Vedanta commentator Baladeva Vidyabhushana? How can you claim to be a Gaudiya Vaishnava when you disagree with your own acharyas?

That would be more of a sankhya-like argument. The problem is that it is not correct to say that everything is "one" merely because everything can be broken down into atoms. If he wanted, he could have said that everything is made of the same "stuff," but that is not what he said. Diamond and graphite are different, although both are ultimately made of atoms, the end products have different properties. The mere fact that they are made of atoms does not make their reality as diamond and graphite any less. Furthermore, if the atoms are real, then anything made of atoms must also be real. You can not make illusions out of real components. And if the end products (i.e. diamond and graphite) are real, then their differences are also logically real. Ultimately what this boils down to is whether we are all individual beings with distinct consciousness, or if we are all really the same Brahman as is postulated by Advaita. Our everyday experience leads us to believe that we are individual beings - we live distinct lives, we have different life experiences at any given time, we do not all get liberation at the same time, etc. It requires fewer assumptions to conclude that we are different, while it takes more assumptions to assume that we are all ultimately the same. Which is one of the many logical flaws in his view. I say "one" because I do not think it possible to fully bring out all the fallacies in his philosophy in just one short posting without sacrificing brevity.

You are confused about Ockham's Razor. It is not merely simplicity that is favored by Ockham's Razor, but rather the simplest explanation (i.e. making the fewest assumptions) of the available evidence. Therein lies the problem with your hypothesis, since evidence gathered by the senses and by our direct experience supports the view that everything is different, while you merely ignore that and assume that it is all one. This would certainly not be a valid applicaton of the Ockham principle. But, I agree that your theorizing *sounds* just scientific enough to appeal to people of a quasi-intellectual bent.

The evidence that supports the view that Madhva was influenced by Christian missionaries is about as substantive as the evidence that supports the view that Madhva was influenced by three-legged aliens from outer space. Some people are still failing to grasp the simple point that you don't need evidence to disprove stupid and baseless ideas. The burden of proof falls on the one with the challenge to conventional history. It is not the responsibility of the mAdhva community to recant every baseless idea that comes out of the fertile imagination of pseudo-vaishnava mental speculators. And one does not need to be born in India to have an opinion that one should stick to the truth.

And where did you get this idea from? Which guru taught you that? Where in the sutras do you see evidence to support that view? In which commentary do you see evidence to support that view? Please quote explicitly the evidence to back your views. I find it ironic that you demand to know the basis of my views when I quote directly from Vyasa, yet you have no problem superimposing your own bogus interpretations on the very same. You haven't even read the sutras (which I have now quoted multiple times) or understood the sense of them. If you had, you would realize that "anAdi karma" does NOT refer to "prescribed duties of the Varnashrama system." Such an interpretation *makes* *no* *sense* in that context. Once again, you are disagreeing with Vyasa, disagreeing with Baladeva Vidyabhushana, and disagreeing with all other Vedanta commentators in the various Vaishnava traditions. What makes you think you know more than them? "Many references?" I'm calling your bluff. Quote one such reference from "Vedic shastra" above and beyond the Jaya/Vijaya fall, which we all know is an exceptional case that had the Lord's sanction.

What difference does it make? Are you ever going to answer the questions I put to you which exposed the fallacies in your thinking? Or, like Primate, are you another one of those armchair Vedantins who claims to have a more logical understanding of religion but has to fold when his bluff is called?

What a very non-concise way of stating something concisely! If we assume that the sun and the moon are one, that might make stargazing simpler and more palatable for simple minded persons who cannot conceive of multiple heavenly objects in the sky. However, merely assuming they are the same does not make it so, and simplicity does not prove correctness. Which just gets back to the point that there is nothing that is inherently "intuitive" or "scientific" about Advaita - these are nothing more than pompous claims by armchair Vedantins who cannot have a discussion that is based on evidence and logic.

Many of these dating methods are largely based on conjecture and are being constantly revised. They are interesting from an academic point of view but lack sufficient consistency to be used as a basis for making any sweeping statements. I studied linguistics in university and I was struck by how subjective it was. I frankly feel sorry for people who make a career out of it and even more for those who desperately want this to be accorded the status of hard science. Physics is a science. Chemistry is a science. Linguistics and philology - not true science. Sorry, but that is just the way it is. I am not trying to prove anything. Certainly there can be interpolations, and doubtless many texts have been contaminated such as in the instances you raised here. But really now, let us take a hard look at the evidence before casually repeating unproven and inconsistent hypotheses as if they are fact. For me to accept that "Krishna the cow-herd" references a different Krishna than the Krishna of the Mahabharata, I would have to ignore the multiple, multiple Mahabharata references that mention the cow-herd past. Now, does that seem like good science to you? Darwin's original theory of evolution which predicted gradual change over millions of years is not supported by the fossil record to date, which instead seems to show relatively abrupt changes of species in shorter bursts of time. To me this is contradictory. But then some tried to reconcile the two points of view by introducing the concept of "punctuated equilibrium." How convincing is it to you? In my observation, the attempts to reconcile seemingly contradictory facts is more believable when the person is already favorably disposed to the idea in the first place. So, if you are an atheist and feel better thinking that you know how life began, you will accept evolution and praise Darwin even though Darwin was technically wrong. Western academics have a problem accepting the idea that the Vedic tradition can be multi-faceted by nature. Since they operate according to reductionist modes of thinking, they are always trying to break complex ideas down into apparently simpler components. This really isn't a problem until you start dealing with a religious tradition that is not merely an amalgamation of different parts.

Fine. But you still have not proven that. And while you claim to believe that "all religions are equally valid," you obviously have a problem with the belief that "all religions are not equally valid" which is implicitly understood in many of the religions whose validity you claim to believe in. Thus, you contradict yourself. Unless you are going to now claim that all religions are valid to the extent that these individual religions don't disagree that all are valid. Now that would be truly funny to see you do. Excuse me dear, but you wrote, "its true that at the end they are all searching out that one same god ." Now you are again modifying your view. You have no idea what you are talking about. You are merely spouting politically-correct Vivekananda propaganda without actually thinking about what you are saying. Only a third standard student would swallow this bunk. Let us take Islam for example. Muslims do not have any doubts about consciousness, death, birth, existence, etc. The whole premise of their religion is complete submission to Allah and to spread this religion by force if necessary to the infidels who do not already believe in it. Christians consider themselves to be sinners by nature and believe that they can only be redeemed by accepting Jesus as their saviour. There is hardly any question of soul-searching metaphysics in their religion, which was born out of the fires of Roman persecution and likely influenced by several pre-Hebrew polytheistic belief systems. So other religions are primitive. Don't you find it amazing that in your effort to be tolerant and accepting, you still manage to insult them? And just of curiosity, what do you think you know about "vedic religion?" Have you ever even studied the Vedas? Not true. Buddhists don't search for God. They conceive of the highest end as the total cessation of desire. A personal God does not even figure into it. Thanks for letting me know that I am free to disagree with you. I feel better already knowing that the soldiers of religious political correctness will not be bashing down my door and forcing this "all religions are equally valid" idea down my throat. Really. And yes, I do think that many will continue to disagree with you because they have that annoying ability to think for themselves, and they recognize inconsistency when they see it. I can see how that might be an obstacle to spreading your beliefs.

I don't see how "oneness" is a solution to anything, but as I had indicated previously, many proponents of Advaita pass it off as the obviously intelligent answer to anything and everything, while those who do not accept Advaita are considered by them as being provincial-minded. Never mind that these same self-styled Advaitins cannot even speak basic Sanskrit or ever picked up a treatise on Vedanta. I'm not going to argue this, because iskcon has plenty of its own vocal proponents here. Besides which, many of them like theist, ghari, ranjeet, and sonic yogi are highly influenced by mayavada. So maybe you and they have a lot in common.

But His cowherd past is referenced at several points in the Mahabharata such as in 3.186-187, His killing of Kamsa in 2.13.33, and Sishupala's spiteful comments about His cowherd past in 2.38.4-9. It is highly unlikely that the Mahabharata would include such references if the multi-faceted Krishna as cow-herd, king, etc were not already a reality at the time of its compilation. Well, let's see now. At one point in my life I was a humble village boy without a television set or an internet connection. Then I studied in university at a different time and in a completely different location. Then I later did graduate work in yet a third time and place. And later I entered professional life. All records of me during each of those time periods contain little to no information pertaining to my previous or future life experiences. So if I ever become famous, perhaps an enterprising historian will conclude that Raghu the villager is not the same as Raghu the graduate student and that this person is still different from Raghu the post-doc, Raghu the husband, Raghu the father, etc etc. Convincing? No. But maybe it will work long enough for him to publish his thesis...

Aside from the fact that you totally evaded Kaiser's questions along with mine, you are now just speculating wildly with no idea what you are saying. I think the root of this problem, like that of many others on this forum, is your desire to preach without having made the necessary sacrifice of time to commit yourself to learning the subject matter properly under a qualified guru. A true student will admit when he does not know rather than concocting more fluff to conceal his ignorance. But in your behavior I do not see this sort of humility; rather, you seem desperate to prove that you are right even when it has been proven that you are incorrect. Suffice it to say that the Vedanta-sutra clearly teaches the concept of beginningless karma. Baladeva Vidyabhushana, the Vedanta commentary for the Gaudiya sampradaya, also accepts beginningless karma (not beginningless "spiritual" karma or other concoctions of your fertile imagination). Nothing in the Bhagavata contradicts the concept of beginningless karma. As you have indicated, you disagree with all of the above, which makes any claim you could make of representing Gaudiya Vaishnavism tenuous at best.

Huh? The burden of proof is on you to provide the historical evidence substantiating your view. As far as Madhva's biographies are concerned, there is no record of a meeting with Christian missionaries. What, am I supposed to quote the entire Sri Madhva Vijaya here just to show you there is reference to a Christian meeting? Or were you looking for a quote in the biographies to the effect of "Madhva never met any Christian missionaries."??

I'm curious about something. I was under the impression (given to me by many learned Sri Vaishnavas with whom I have interacted with), that things like brahmana-threads for women and non-brahmanas becoming gurus were not features of Sri Vaishnava culture. In fact, I often hear them criticizing these things about iskcon since they are not really Vedic practices. So, I wonder why he is doing them?

I here this same pompous claim being repeated over and over, the idea that accepting Advaita somehow makes your understanding "higher" or "more advanced." The fact of the matter is that most "Advaitins" on forums like this are just crass sentimentalists who want to appear learned and intelligent. Rather not unlike the iskcon preachers they often clash with.

This is incorrect. Madhva never met Christian missionaries and most certainly did not incorporate their ideas into his philosophy, which is based on the shrutis and prasthana-trayi only.