raghu

Theist, You may recall that in the past, you often addressed me with very harsh words when I politely questioned many of your views. Rather than answering my questions, you often chose instead to label me as a "mental speculator,a nuisance... just wants to argue," a "Christ hater," an "impersonalist," and a "Hindu" (which you used and continue to use in a very derisive way). As time went by it became your default way of dealing with me even when I was not writing to you, making it quite obvious that you harbor a deep resentment against me. Question: does your obvious resentment of me cut yourself off from experiencing the fullness of God's grace? Or is this just something you only consider to be theoretically true, and make an exception for people like me who know how to think for themselves and whom you cannot convince to accept your thinking?

Ranjeet, If you can show me where in the rAmAyaNa this is stated, I will eat my sandals. Care to indulge me?

If you mean chronologic age, then I must disagree. If you are referring to apparent age, then that is a different matter. The last sentence does not logically follow from the premise established by the first two. Brahman can have an original form and still appear in different forms in different times and to different people. To use a crude analogy, if I wear dhoti to the temple, a business suit to work, and blue jeans while at home, this does not change the fact that on any given day my body has an original form of sorts that always exists regardless of how I appear before my fellow human beings. Excepting the Gaudiyas, I do not think most Vaishnavas will take issue with the above statement. The key phrase is "as we know them." Senses *as we know them* are limited in their capacities. But if we are discussing a subject matter that is beyond the immediate purview of the senses, we must logically consider the possibility that it may follow different laws that do not apply to our immediate universe. Even in ordinary science, we find that old paradigms governing how we think the universe operates get thrown out or revised in light of new evidence. There was a time when rational human beings confidently asserted that flight was not possible. Then when that was disproven, they used to think that one could not break the sound barrier. And so on, and so on. The point here being only that we don't know as much as we think we do, and if we are ready to start talking about something that is beyond our present conception, then we should be prepared to invoke new principles describing its reality. Otherwise, no point in even talking about it if we just assume that everything we know currently represents the limit of reality. I don't know why the omnipotent Brahman has eyelids and a nose. But then again, I don't know why humans have an appendix or pubic hair. These things serve no useful recognizable function, but they don't change the fact that we have them. If ordinary creatures have parts that we cannot readily identify the function of, it is surely not beyond the realm of reason to accept that Brahman can have form and attributes which we cannot readily explain. We think of eyelids as protection for our eyes, and a respiratory system as a means to acquire oxygen for metabolism. Naturally the tendency is to assume that these things would serve a similar function in Brahman and then wonder why based on our own, reductionist mode of thinking. It all gets back to getting away from the myopic thinking that is based on our limited experience of existence. If one cannot even dare to do it, then it is pointless to even talk about such abstract, supra-mundane concepts. Possible, but not logical based on the premise that human beings invented God in their own image. By this theory, one would expect a man-made God to look more like man. Or at least like some other creature within mankind's experience. Or a combination of man and some other known creature. But "blueness" and having four arms are themselves outside of man's experience when it comes to human form. That does not necessarily make them real, mind you. Just that it is less likely to invoke such features when one is starting with one's own body as a template to design a deity. I wouldn't say that Krishna's form is that of a "South Asian" human male. What specifically, is "South Asian" about Krishna's form as we customarily know it? Are South Asians blue in complexion? The same logic can apply to creating a formless God as well. After all, if one is convinced based on his own experience that form is limiting and God is unlimited, then one will naturally assume that God is formless and create a fictional God without form. Formlessness by itself does not imply unauthoredness by man. Several major religions such as Judaism and Islam conceive of God as either formless or having inconceivable form, which supports the point of view that one can make up a formless god just as easily as a god with human form.

By all means, let the religion of Shaivism overtake Vaishnavism in popularity, just as the watered-down, politically-correct, neo-Advaita of Vivekananda/Sai Baba Hinduism has overtaken genuine Vedanta in popularity. No one ever said that "authentic" and "popular" were the same thing. Right knowledge presupposes the existence of misleading forms of "knowledge," and if some religions are "true" then others must logically be "false." If some individuals humbly listen in a sattvic way to right sources of knowledge and worship one Deity, then there must be others given to lower modes of behavior who will go to misleading sources and worship someone else. In this sense these other religions certainly have an important role to play. Why would we want all these noisy and uncultured pseudo-Vedantists to pollute our spiritual practices? It's like giving a toy to a child so he will leave you alone while you do productive work on your computer.

Ranjeet, If not me, then I am sure that someone else has pointed out to you the obvious problem in quoting these so-called "Upanishads" as a basis for your views. There are a lot of spurious smriti texts written in relatively recent years that are passed off as "Upanishads." If it is not shruti, it cannot be accorded the same level of authority as shruti. These are not shruti, but rather are obscure smritis acceptable only to Gaudiyas, which sort of defeats the point of quoting them to non-Gaudiyas.

1. Why does it need to be any of those? Could the form of Brahman not be unique to Brahman? Why must the form of Brahman conform to a specific, known, racial type? 2. Brahman is ageless. As far as what age Brahman *appears* to be, I'm not aware of any source specifically quantifying this. 3. Why not? Why should a personal God be devoid of senses? Why should the experience of senses and sense objects be absent in the spiritual realm? 4. Perhaps, but how many blue, four-armed people do you see walking around in India? Or anywhere else, for that matter? If the form of Brahman was invented by human imagination, wouldn't it be logical to presuppose that Brahman was given the form of a two-armed, brown-skinned, Indian male (i.e. the form of the people who supposedly invented Brahman's form)?

I don't know what any of the above has to do with anything that was stated in this thread. The point I have made time and again is that one should be honest when putting forth one's views. It is dishonest to make a claim to the effect that "X Idea is found in Y Scripture" when one has not actually taken the trouble to review "Y Scripture" and see if this is truly the case. Whatever else you are imagining that I said is entirely in your imagination.

Then my conversation is obviously not with you. It's with people who insist on making bald claims to the effect that the Vedas support ideas like "Krishna is the source of Vishnu" etc as if these are objectively verifiable facts. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, just as I think everyone is entitled to scrutinize each other's beliefs. And it is noticeably the case that, once again, when one scrutinizes the Hare Krishna beliefs, one is made to feel that this is somehow inappropriate. But it is perfectly appropriate to state that such beliefs are true even when one cannot substantiate them with facts, i.e. quotes from the Vedas when Vedas are specifically named. But then again, what is new?

I believe he is referring to the fact that Sri Vaishnavas do not accept the idea that "Krishna is the source of all avatars [of Vishnu]" While we're on that subject, neither do the followers of Madhva, of whom gaudiyas claim to be related in parampara. If you don't want to start a fuss, then don't make unsubstantiated claims that you cannot defend. This is just a humble suggestion. After all, there are people who actually come to forums like this to learn spiritual truths. Don't you think that one is obligated to substantiate his views with evidence before stating them as if they are undisputed facts? To Bija and others: There may indeed be evidence in the brahma-vaivarta to back this claim (making a grand total of 2 smriti references and no shruti references to back up the "various vedic sastras" comment). However, it is well known that the viShnu purAna treats Krishna as an avatAra of Vishnu. So, what of that? Why accept the brahma-vaivarta and reject the viShNu purAna? Especially as the latter is in the sAttvic class and the former is not? Aren't you really just picking and choosing what appears to support your view and just arbitrarily rejecting the rest?

Kyros, can you please prove your claim in the first sentence by citing the writings of even *one* non-gauDIya Vaishnava vedantin in which he quotes from the Brahma Samhita and Garga Samhita? Assuming of course, that you do not consider it impertinent of me to doubt your claim in the first place. I am eagerly awaiting your response. But the point under contention is that Krishna is allegedly the source of other forms of Vishnu. When asked to substantiate that view, the gItA is offered up, but as you pointed out this only says that Krishna is the source of all other dependent entities like devatas, etc - and that the best of everything represents Him. Not that Krishna is the source of Vishnu as was originally claimed. We do not know that. All we know for a fact is that the text is corrupted. We do not know what other corruptions might have taken place in that text, but evidence of one corruption certainly raises the question of other corruptions. Then too is the fact that the text is not a traditional Upanishad. The Upanishads enjoy authority because they are passed down as shruti in multiple different traditions - the same is not true for the Kali Santarana which appears relatively recently in Indian history. As mentioned previously, Vaishnava vedantins like those following Ramanuja and Madhva do not draw on the text, but ironically mayavadis do accept it. Does it not strike you as ironic that the gaudiyas and mayavadis both accept this as an "Upanishad?" Even if the text is genuine and there are no corruptions beyond the Hare Krishna/Hare Rama mantra, it is illogical to cite this as an authority on the Hare Krishna mantra when that is the mantra whose legitimacy is disputed. Even going beyond all this, this Upanishad has nothing to do with the question of Krishna being the "source" of all avatAra-s. Then why do gaudiyas make this claim? Why did gokulkr make this claim in the very first posting of this thread? Why do iskcon people make claims like this publicly, and then when questioned, retreat behind the excuse of "oh it does not really matter, it's a matter of the heart," etc etc? A very tricky preaching strategy this. Say whatever you want because the uneducated masses will swallow it without question. But the moment someone scrutinizes your claims, the excuses begin. Nonsense. A devotee of Vishnu will not hesitate to worship Him in any form in which He presents Himself.

Bija, Gokulkr claimed that Krishna is the source of all avataras and then also claimed that this idea is based on "various Vedic sastras." But this is misleading. The idea that Krishna is the "source" of Vishnu and other Vishnu-avatAras is specific to gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine and in fact is NOT found in the Vedas. It is very disturbing the way people in iskcon make unfounded claims as if they are facts, and then rationalize their inability to substantiate their claims by appealing to "matters of the heart." If gokulkr wanted to append a disclaimer to his posting that his ideas represented his own opinion/feeling/etc then he could have done that. But to the best of my knowledge he did not.

Well, it was gokulkr who originally made the claim that: So, why claim that "Krishna is the source of all avatars" to be a fact that is based on "various vedic sastras" if in reality it is just a matter of the heart and not based on "vedic sastras?"

1. Brahma Samhita and Garga Samhita are obscure smritis acceptable only to gauDIyas. 2. gItA does say that Krishna is the source of everything in the same sense that multiple shrutis and smritis say that Vishnu or some form of Vishnu is the source of everything. However, the gItA does NOT say that Krishna is the source of Vishnu or other Vishnu-avatAra-s. 3. If the text is corrupted as you claim, then it is ipso facto unreliable as an independent authority for obvious reasons.

Ahh, now the cat is finally out of the bag. And here I thought you claimed to be a believer in Advaita. Being a Vivekananda follower, you must surely agree with his view that "you will get closer to heaven by football than by the Gita," right? So why all this talk of scripture and philosophy? Just go tone up your biceps and feed the Gods in the street!

And Vishnu is that supreme Brahman. What does it mean to you when the Rig Veda 1.2.22.20 refers to the "paramam padam" of Vishnu? It does not get much clearer than that. What does it mean to you when the Katha Upanishad describes the path of attaining Brahman and then in that same context speaks of the "end of the journey, the Highest place of Vishnu" (Katha 3.9)? Are you telling me that Vishnu is supreme, and yet there is some Brahman that is more supreme? Or that Brahman is not supreme? There is no evidence in the shruti to suggest that Vishnu is different from Brahman and every reason to believe otherwise. Except of course, from a few obscure and inconsistent smritis like the ones you quoted. Even the shvetAshvatara can easily be interpreted from a Vishnu angle for the sake of consistency, while assuming a Shaivite interpretation makes it contradict other pramAna-s like the Katha, the Rig Veda, etc. It shows nothing of the sort. This is an example of the sort of intellectual dishonesty I have come to expect from the modern-day, neo-advaitins who throw words around like "veda,upanishad,atman," and "brahman" with no idea as to what they are talking about. There is nothing in the Sanskrit of the Kena Up. that equates Uma with Brahman. On the contrary, it was Uma who had to appear and explain Brahman's position to Indra and the rest. Uma is obviously different from Brahman. Otherwise, the idea that Indra would have to ask her about Him is nonsensical. Nowhere in the text does Uma identify herself as Brahman. Nowhere in the text does it say that Brahman "got changed into Uma." There is nothing in the Sanskrit that can even be remotely interpreted that way. Have you even read the Kena Upanishad? Apparently not. Can you people not at least trouble yourself to check your sources before you start throwing them around as supposed "proof" of your views? Accepting that Krishna and Vishnu are the same Deity (no reason to believe otherwise for most Hindus as far as I know), then you are grossly incorrect. For me to accept your statement as correct, you will have to explain away the multiple statements in the Vedas and Upanishads (some of which I just quoted above) which speak of Vishnu's supreme position. Several points: 1) People like you are mostly attracted to what you think advaita is on the premise that it is "non-sectarian" (i.e. bland, formless, impersonal, etc). But factually, the basics of advaita philosophy are not sound. For example, if brahman alone exists, then what about mAyA? Does it exist, or does it not exist? How can brahman be supreme and yet come under the influence of mAyA? If world is unreal then how can anything we do lead to mokSha? If brahman is without attributes then why do advaitins ascribe attributes to it like sat, cit, Ananda? And the doubts go on and on. 2) I don't know where you get your information about "Vaishnavism," but it is obvious that you do not understand the basics of Vaishnava vedanta. 3) Same goes for your concept of "gyan mishra bhakti." I am sure you think you are following something, but I see no evidence from your postings that you even understand what bhakti or "gyan" is. No. Now I woud like to ask you a question. Do you believe leaving the caps lock key on makes up for the lack of substance in your posting?

It's a little difficult to translate something when it hasn't even been transliterated properly. Having said that... Anyone can see that the above is a gross MISTRANSLATION. The words "Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna..." are nowhere in the Sanskrit. Perhaps there might be something in context that leads one to interpret this way, but definitely nothing in the Sanskrit as given to lead one to infer the Hare Krishna mantra. Several points here: 1) the KU as quoted here gives the Sanskrit as hare rAma hare rAma... hare kR^iShNa hare kR^iShNa... the translation, which reverses the order of the names, is therefore incorrect. One cannot simply change the mantras at whim and still call them vedic mantras. 2) the KU's authenticity is not beyond dispute; it belongs to a group of upaniShad-s that are considered later in origin compared to the shrutis. Most Vaishnavas do not quote from them. Ironically, mayavadis do accept this upanishad, which gives them something in common with the gauDIyas. 3) My original request was for gokul to substantiate his view that Krishna "is the source of all the avatArs." Nothing you quoted has actually supported that in any way.

That is precisely my point. Whether "demigoddess" or "goddess," any translation betrays some inaccuracy and possibly some bias on the part of the translator. Where in the shruti-s is Durga equated to Brahman? All jIva-s are eternal, without birth or death. But the positions of the devata-s are less than that of Brahman. Durga's position is also less than that of Brahman. In the Kena Upanishad 3.1-11 and 4.1-2 explain how the devas like Indra, Agni, etc were confronted by the fact that their victory was due to Brahman and that they were all powerless before Him. The same Upanishad also explains that Uma reveals this fact about Brahman to the devas. Uma is not Brahman, and this is very obvious from context. non-sequiturs For example, the veda-s, the principal upaniShad-s, and vedAnta-sUtra which are the sources for the philosphies of Vaishnava vedAnta schools like those of madhva and rAmAnuja.

The Matsya does accept a classification of puranas into sattva, rajas, and tamas. What you are likely referring to is the fact that it does not list which ones go where. But it does accept a three-fold classification scheme which is what I was referring to earlier.

No, it has the word 'devi' in it. "Goddess" is an English word. I think you are being rather obtuse, whether deliberately so or not I am not really sure. There is certainly more than adequate evidence in the pramAna-s that they accept which supports the idea of deva-tAratamya with Vishnu at the top. Do I really need to quote them for you? Let me just assume that you have picked up the gItA and read it for now, which is probably more than I can say for most critics of Vaishnavism. Based on these pramAna-s, one who wants to translate these sources into English must necessarily translate "deva" in such a way as to differentiate the referent from paramAtmA. Since "god" refers to a supreme Being in English (English being a language that is influenced by Christian monotheism), it would not be accurate to translate anya-devatas as "gods" as that would not be keeping with the spirit of the text. Otherwise, what does it mean to you when Sri Krishna says antavat tu phalaM teShAM tad bhavatyalpamedhasAm / devAn devayajo yAnti madbhaktA yAnti mAm api //" If other worshippers of other devas go to one destination and worshippers of Krishna go to another, it follows that they are not the same, right? And if "God" refers to a supreme being (standard English usage), and Krishna is declared to be supreme, then other devas cannot also be referred to as "Gods," right? My main problem with the translation of "demigod" is that the term literally refers to beings that are the offspring of a human and a god, like some characters from Greek mythology. Thus, I don't think the iskcon translation is exactly in keeping with the historical use of the word "demigod." Devas like Shiva, Ganesha, etc are not half human - they are in a class of their own, but still not on the same level as paramAtmA. But if the iskcon people are just using the term to differentiate anya-devatas from paramAtmA then there should be no problem with it. It's a translation after all. No translation will be 100% perfect. Like any translation, it's important to understand the basis for the translation rather than quibbling over hair-splitting analyses. If they are not to use the term "demigod," and "god" is inaccurate for reasons that were already mentioned, then what English translation would you have them use?

Which brings to mind what you mean by "goddess." Webster's dictionary gives the first definition of "God" as –noun <TABLE class=luna-Ent><TBODY><TR><TD class=dnindex>1.</TD><TD>the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> I am sure you would agree that English dictionaries are a standard authority on the English language. From the above, it is obvious why any Vaishnava would be reluctant to translate terms like "deva" as "God/Goddess" when describing subordinate devas like Indra, Surya, Durga, Shiva, etc. as this is not accurate as per their worldview. This is not to say that I entirely agree with the terms "demigod" or "demigoddess" either, since those are not technically accurate as per strict definition in English dictionaries. However, if the point is to get across the idea that they are not God then I don't think that is inaccurate. Thank you for proving my point. Shaktaism and other later religious systems can only stand by taking very out of the way smritis and unheard of "shrutis" as evidence while ignoring more mainstream sources that contradict them. Hence my initial point that neither your nor Deathless have given adequate reasoning that would be acceptable to a strict Vedantist as to why one should place Durga on the same level as Vishnu. This is grossly incorrect. The Matsya Purana also has the same classification of puranas into sattva, rajas, and tamas. And by the way, Matsya Purana happens to be in the latter category. So no help for you there.

Really? Where did he declare that? Please quote your sources.

Is Durga specifically called a "goddess" or "Hindu goddess" in any scripture? What are these terms that are used by the Hindu laity based on? Where is she explicitly described as a "Hindu goddess?" Since the scriptures are written in Sanskrit, you can quibble all you want with any translation of words like "deva." Or you can use the original words and understand the concept behind them. I think the less-than-ideal iskcon translation as "demigod" is just trying to get across the point that they are elevated beings but not on the same level as God/Brahman. If you think they mean something else by it, you are welcome to explain yourself. It's not my translation. Every so often we get another round of Shaivite/Shaktaite postings by authors who think they can convince those silly little Hare Krishna people to give up their Vishnu-centric beliefs by quoting from some esoteric section of a virtually unknown smriti that extols the virtues of some other devata. I thought this was where you were coming from. If not, then we have nothing here to disagree about as far as I can tell.

And why should "some Vaishnavas" reconsider that position? After all, your view is based on a few paurusheya granthas of relatively recent origin, and I am sure you are aware that shrutis and prasthana-trayi constitute more mainstream sources of right knowledge among both Vaishnava and non-Vaishnava schools of Vedanta.

In response to: No takers? Is this yet another of those factoids we are supposed to just accept because the iskcon people say so?

It is called panchopasana, and refers to the practice of worshipping five different deities as different facets of Brahman. It is widely believed to have been introduced by Sri Sankaracharya although where precisely he writes about is not known (at least not by me). Needless to say, the idea is repulsive to orthodox followers of many Vaishnava Vedanta systems since it amounts to equating subordinate, anya-devatas with Vishnu who alone is Brahman. Now, the above is certainly an entertaining if not overtly hypocritical series of remarks, and one has to hand it to Theist for trying desperately to get in a dig against "Hinduism" in an answer to a simple question about Sankaracharya. The fact is that "Advaita" does not equal "Hinduism," and the practices of Advaita do not represent Hinduism as any minimally honest scholar on the subject can tell you. It makes little sense to level criticisms against "Hinduism" by criticizing Advaita. And now for the hypocrisy: the fact is that it is Theist who s to a religious tradition (iskcon/gaudiya) which equates Shiva with Vishnu, an idea that is not upheld by shruti and not accepted by any other Vaishnava school of thought. Strange that he objects to panchopasana, but has nothing against ideas like "Shiva is a transformation of Vishnu as milk is transformed into yogurt," don't you think? While we're on that subject, Theist also has no objection to worship of the Christian god, the Muslim god, and the Jewish god as different aspects of Vishnu. Modern-day panchopasana, anyone? Needless to say, many of us do not regard this as real bhakti. We know that real bhakti begins when one surrenders all these misconceptions and just accepts what Sri Krishna has to say in the Gita.