raghu

I am certainly not going to disagree wih the above. But in all fairness I find that the same is true of fanatical Advaitins, of which there appear to many who frequent forums such as these. I especially find entertaining the pronouncements of these secular armchair Advaitins who decry practices and beliefs of orthodox Vaishnavas as irrational even when these same practices are upheld by orthodox Advaitins. Bottom line: there are way too many people on this forum who are just clueless about the religious traditions they claim to represent.

There is only one shloka in the bhagavata which appears at face value to say that - the ete chamsha kalAH pumsaH verse 1.3.28. What other "various vedic sastras" unambiguously support the assertion that Krishna "is actually the source of all avatars?"

Does anyone other than me find these two quotes of Ranjeet rather striking when placed in apposition?

Pranams to you. One does not need to be a jagad guru to know the entire Padma Purana. Merely having the entire manuscript in the original Sanskrit will suffice to say that the sloka you attributed to it does not exist. If you wish to claim otherwise, then you could simply provide the verse number, which would help your audience verify your claim. Unless of course you don't want them to verify that verse, since it does not exist. By all means, prove me wrong, and I shall retract my statement. I notice also that you did not respond to my questions about your knowledge of the Veda and the Vedanta. Since you started out posting about the conclusions of both, it implicitly follows that you should have studied both. But you have not, have you? Not that I disagree with your conclusions (I don't, actually), but don't you think you should know what you are talking about before presuming to pontificate on such lofty subjects?

I am not an iskconite. I am also not an Advaitin. However, I have studied Sanskrit, and I frankly don't see how this mantra is, as per sambya's words, "the most authentic description of advaita." Being able to put an Advaitic slant on the mantra does not make it an obviously Advaitic mantra. Actually, there is nothing in the mantra that is specific to Advaita, contrary to sambya's claims.

There is no such statement in the padma purANa.

Ranjeet, Tell me if I am completely off my mark here. You have never actually read the vedAnta-sUtra. You have never studied the Vedas. Let me know if I have said anything in the above that is factually incorrect.

So... no comment, eh?

Radha_das, I did not say that "caste brahmin are right." I'm not sure what that means. What I said is that there is evidence in the Gaudiya writings that proper birth in a brahmin family is a prerequisite to becoming a brahmin or even a guru. There are such statements in Hari-Bhakti Vilas which is the writing of Sanatana Gosvami, the foremost disciple of Chaithanya. I can get the quotes when I return home... but the point is, when I post them, will it still be considered "dog-dung philosophy" or "mundane Hinduism" by the quasi-Vaishnava community here? Because frankly, as I have pointed out many times in the past, the so-called Vaishnavas of this forum like ghari, theist, cbrahma, et. al. have many wrong ideas about "Vedic culture" and "Vaishnavism" that are not even supported by their own acharyas.

A quick reality check if you please... 1) Prabhupada's concept of "Vedic Culture" is based on the rituals and practices propagated by Bengali Vaishnavas following Chaithanya, which are themselves inspired by the Bhagavata Purana, not the Vedas. 2) Not that there is anything wrong with that, mind you, but the idea that, "It does not match Prabhupada's views, therefore it is not Vedic" is just plain wrong. 3) The culture that Prabhupada created is itself suffering from the stagnation of corrupt disciples who are totally clueless about the basic premise of Vedic culture. The fact that there are "senior devotees" who think that recognition of homosexual matings is a good thing is proof positive that iskcon has lost its way. The fact that there are "senior devotees" who speak all praise about Jesus Christ and Mohammed is ample evidence that they have diluted their conclusions with the ideas of mlecchas. And what to speak of the child abusers and money embezzlers.... 4) The idea that Hindu culture is synonymous with "mundane" corruption etc is a grossly oversimplified generalization based on prejudice. While there are many corrupt leaders, the fact remains that there are many genuine devotees also. Of course, they don't have web pages, air-conditioned temples, or rich Bollywood stars patronizing them, so naturally they won't come to the attention of hallucinogen-using junkies in the West. 5) While we're on the subject of "corruption," may I ask why you preach about the corruption of Hindus, yet continue to live in a country where animals including cows are slaughtered? Is that the behavior of a Vaishnava situated in sattva, or a show-bottle pseudo-spiritualist who can't practice what he preaches? Failure and success is hard to define when discussing the application of genuine spirituality to the unqualified masses. Most people don't want the truth, and there is nothing to say that genuine spirituality will necessarily appeal to everyone. On the contrary, the fact that iskcon devotees have to dilute their philosophy with so many Christian and Muslim concoctions in order to make it acceptable to the masses is ample proof of this point. This web site is primarily a forum for part-time Vaishnavas who preach one thing and practice another. I rarely meet people here who can display any serious depth of knowledge about our scriptures, or even the ability to think logically. But they seem to always know about the latest TV shows and movies. I guess my "corrupt" and "mundane" Hindu mind just cannot fathom this at all. Unless those Hindus are Vaishnavas following in the Chaithanya line, then they most certainly are not being shown "their religion." Anyway, if those Hindus are all ignorant and corrupt as you claim, then why is their praise of you worthy of note? It's precisely because they are ignorant that they think iskcon is something genuine. And it is because of that same ignorance that they can be lead astray by any number of the pseudo Vaishnava wannabe gurus who frequent forums like these.

If it's any consolation, there are worse charges that theist wasn't creative enough to think of. After all, you could be the patch of grass that the dog dung falls upon.... To be very frank, many social views advocated by modern Hare Krishnas are inconsistent and self-contradictory. On one hand people should be raised as brahmanas. Yet on the other hand you can make brahmanas out of shudras or worse. Then again being a Vaishnava is better than being a brahmana. Then again you can be in any station of life and still be a Vaishnava. And the list goes on and on... Why all these social ambitions? Just accept the birth you have and perform bhakti according to the scriptural rules. Trying to be something you are not is never recommended by scripture. Arjuna did not have to become a brahmana to please Lord Krishna, did he? While I do occasionally meet a Hare Krishna convert who comes across as saintly, one must objectively acknowledge that the social experiment of creating brahmanas out of non-brahmanas is an unmitigated disaster. Look how many lives have been destroyed by false iskcon gurus wearing saffron robes.

Apparently unlike you, I don't measure a religion's authenticity by the number of newspapers writing about it, the amount of money its followers make, the number of Hollywood (or Bollywood) film stars it attracts, or any other materialistic thing. Genuine Vaishnavism has nothing to do with these things. A genuine Vaishnava guru does not have to have 10,000 followers, hundreds of temples all over the world, web pages, or any of the other things hare krishna followers like yourself take as a gauge of success.

Eh.... Unlike iskcon devotees? Most Hare Krishnas that I know happily watch television and cinema in their spare time, including many of the rabid fanatics who post on this forum. And since you obviously didn't grap what I was saying, let me simplify it. IF Hindus are ignorant, then so what if they respect you? It makes no sense to criticize them for their ignorance and then praise them because they like you. Have you not yet grasped the simple, elementary point, that it is only the IGNORANT Hindus who think that hare krishnas represent Vedic culture? THe intelligent ones that know how to think for themselves never stay associated with hare krishnas for long -they look for authentic Vaishnavism elsewhere. At least, this has been my observation for the past 15 years. Of course, there are some ignorant people who leave Hare Krishnas too, probably because they can't stand the hypocrisy, double-standards, etc.

Naturally. With all those child abuse scandals perpetrated by your experts in "vedic culture," the media moguls know that they can sell more newspapers, news programs, etc. to a starving public. What does this have to do with the tendency of Hare Krishnas like yourself to claim to know something they do not, and then assert their supremacy over all on that basis? In contrast to iskcon/hare krishna society where everyone is treated equally? One need only read the hare krishna online newspapers to see how hare krishnas break up into different social groups and condescend to each other because of their differing religious views. In fact, you can observe the same trend here. Just watch how thiest, cbrahma, and ghari start arguing with each other like dogs pulling at the same bone, usually over some stupid thing. It's just casteism all over again. Except that this time you have your hippie caste, your vegan caste, your homosexual case, your pro-feminist-lesbian caste, etc. And they all hate each other. Yes, very progressive, these practitioners of "Vedic culture."

Dog-dung philosophy alert! You should be ashamed of yourself. The mere fact that you said birth has some bearing on varna implies your elitist, casteist, racist, and every other -ist in existence belief that birth makes varna and excuses one from performing any duties. This means you are a Hindu supremacist, an Indian religionst, blah blah blah, and you don't know the real "essence" of spirituality, which of course can only be given to you by former hallucinogen-using (but non-initiated) Vaishnavas (who are not really Vaisnavas, just people who claim they want to be Vaishnavas - hence, their qualification to speak and override anything you say)!

Wow, here is brilliant Hare Krishna "logic" at its finest. On one hand, the Hindus are ignorant of Vedic culture. Yet on the other hand, these insecure Hare Krishna converts find vindicating that the ignorant Hindus praise them for their "knowledge." I am just speechless.

Wow, that's a bold claim. My experience with Hare Krishnas is that they are pretty ignorant of Vedic culture, up to and including the very scriptures (Gita, Bhagavata) they claim to follow. I also have observed that they often make claims like this about their knowledge base, yet are totally oblivious to logical discussion. They seem to think they know a lot about "Vedic" culture, but their perception of Vedic culture has nothing to do with the Vedas or even with traditional Vedic culture. Arrogance is bad enough, but arrogance combined with ignorance is just intolerable.

Wow, that's a bold claim. My experience with Hare Krishnas is that they are pretty ignorant of Vedic culture, up to and including the very scriptures (Gita, Bhagavata) they claim to follow. I also have observed that they often make claims like this about their knowledge base, yet are totally oblivious to logical discussion. They seem to think they know a lot about "Vedic" culture, but their perception of Vedic culture has nothing to do with the Vedas or even with traditional Vedic culture. Arrogance is bad enough, but arrogance combined with ignorance is just intolerable.

This is all getting off on a tangent. The point is that some self-proclaimed, wannabe Vaishnavas think that birth has no bearing on one's varna. They even went so far as to call it - "dog dung" philosophy. I can prove that this is wrong with reference to the very texts authored by Vaishnava gurus whom those wannabes claim to be following. Question: is it still "dog dung philosophy" if Sanatana Gosvami says it? Sensible and on-topic answer would be appreciated.

Vague? Oh, I humbly apologize. I labored under the misconception that you could understand plain English. Let me see if I can break it down more for you: 1) Hare Krishnas strongly insist that they are not Hindu. 2) Nevertheless when they get into trouble and need help from others, they identify themselves as "Hindu,Hindu minority group," etc (see Hare Krishna posting previously linked). 3) Preaching one thing and practicing another is known as hypocrisy. Was any of that unclear to you?

"Dog-dung philosophy?" Hmmm. Would theist like me to provide quotes by the Six Gosvamis (aka Rupa, Sanatana, Gopala-Bhatta) of the chaitanya sampradAya stating very explicitly that one must be born into the right family as a prerequisite for becoming a guru? Oh no, we can't have that. They are respectable gurus when they agree with us, but when they disagree with us, then they are just "Indian religionists" and we should feel sorry for them....

Uh-huh. Except when they need rich donations from Hindu congregational members, or when they need to appeal for help from the world community when they are being persecuted. from http://www.dandavats.com/?p=3723 (a Hare Krishna website regarding persecution of a Hare Krishna temple and its community): If Hare Krishnas are so insistent that they not be identified as Hindu, then why do they keep flocking to the term whenever they need help? Maybe because, like the rest of Hindus, the word "Hindu" is a term of significance to denote people who practice a tradition that belongs to a shared cultural group. It is a term of convenience, nothing more. But for most iskconites it becomes a rallying point to establish why they are different from everyone else. Except of course, that they aren't different. Like other religious groups, they too have their share of hypocrisies, scandals, power-hungry leaders, brain-dead fanatical followers, etc. Someone made the point as to why Hindus would care that Hare Krishnas don't want to be associated with them. I echo this sentiment. If most Hindus knew what went on in the Hare Krishna's upper echelons, or even observed some of the postings here by Hare Krishna followers like theist, cbrahma et. al., they would exercise good judgement and run away. It's small wonder that the more intelligent Hindus do eventually get scared away from the Hare Krishnas, usually after a brief period of mistaken belief that this represents an "authentic, bona fide, Vedic tradition" (which they quickly realize it is not, if they are able to pick up a book, read, an exert just a modicum of semi-intelligent thinking).

By all means feel free to recant your belief in Vaishnavism if you wish. I was referring to those individuals who professed to be Vaishnavas and yet also claimed to believe in the authenticity of Christianity, even though the historic Christianity appears to be a man-made conglomeration of ideas that are not even universal across the entire Christian spectrum. Kinda dumb, don't you think, for iskcon devotees to nod with great zeal about how they agree with the Jesus as son of God stuff, even though there are Christians who don't accept that? Hmm, come to think of it I'm beginning to think that you aren't even grasping the point of this. Never mind...

Well he didn't answer the question about the Vedas, but at least he didn't spout more of the "christianity is another version of vaishnavism" nonsense...

There is abundant evidence to suggest that much of the Jesus myth is a fiction synthesized by people living after the time of jesus, and which bears little resemblance to the historic Jesus. Yet many of these ideas are cherished Christian ideas, i.e. the idea of Jesus being born of a virgin, the idea that he is the son of God, the idea that he was resurrected after 3 days, etc. Iskcon devotees, who tend to fall all over themselves in their efforts to praise Christianity and Christian ideas, tend to be rather clueless about to fact that Christianity is not at all what they think it to be. What do iskcon devotees say when the "messiah" whom they think is a "shaktyavesh avatar" is not even regarded as a messiah by many Jewish sects? What do they say when they try to explain away "Jesus as son of God" references only to find that there are even Christian sects that do not accept this idea? By and large it seems the only think they can do is to start using ad hominem attacks against the person who brings these uncomfortable truths up.