raghu

Not to those who are honest and have a genuine interest in understanding the truth. Then again, there are those like theist who think they already know the truth and then shut their eyes and ears when any contradictory evidence presents itself. Anyway, it was the posting by Theist which made the baseless claim about the Vedas. I merely asked where such a claim was found in the Vedas. And his answer was some rabble about what is bona fide, what is achintya bedha abedha, etc. Really now, how does one spread philosophy when the answer to any reasonable question is "nyah nyah nyah, I'm bona fide and you are not!"

Once again the quote cross-posted by Theist: To which I asked in response the perfectly reasonable question: Where in the Vedas is it said that "the son is non-different from the father?" To which Theist had only this to say: Did anyone see in this an answer to the question posed?

Then it's a LIE. Vedas means Vedas. Vedas does not mean "iskcon literature" or "gaudiya literature." Period.

I'm calling your bluff. Where in the Vedas is it said that "the son is non-different from the father?" Where in the Vedas is there any statement that can even remotely be translated like that? The iskcon christian propaganda has gone from fabricating bald assertions based on half truths to outright lies. Have these people no shame?

from http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1820685,00.html?cnn=yes A 3-ft.-high tablet romantically dubbed "Gabriel's Revelation" could challenge the uniqueness of the idea of the Christian Resurrection. The tablet appears to date authentically to the years just before the birth of Jesus and yet — at least according to one Israeli scholar — it announces the raising of a messiah after three days in the grave. If true, this could mean that Jesus' followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day — and it might even hint that they they could have applied it in their grief after their master was crucified. However, such a contentious reading of the 87-line tablet depends on creative interpretation of a smudged passage, making it the latest entry in the woulda/coulda/shoulda category of possible New Testament artifacts; they are useful to prove less-spectacular points and to stir discussion on the big ones, but probably not to settle them nor shake anyone's faith. <!-- Begin Article Side Bar --><!-- Begin Article Side Bar Copy --> The ink-on-stone document, which is owned by a Swiss-Israeli antiques collector and reportedly came to light about a decade ago, has been dated by manuscript and chemical experts to a period just before Jesus' birth. Some scholars think it may originally have been part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a trove of religious texts found in caves on the West Bank that were possibly associated with John the Baptist. The tablet is written in the form of an end-of-the-world prediction in the voice of the angel Gabriel; one line, for instance, predicts that "in three days you will know evil will be defeated by justice." Such "apocalypses," often featuring a triumphant military figure called a messiah (literally, anointed one), were not uncommon in the religious and politically tumultuous Jewish world of 1st century B.C. Palestine. But what may make the Gabriel tablet unique is its 80th line, which begins with the words "In three days" and includes some form of the verb "to live." Israel Knohl, an expert in Talmudic and biblical language at Jerusalem's Hebrew University who was not involved in the first research on the artifact, claims that it refers to a historic 1st-century Jewish rebel named Simon who was killed by the Romans in 4 B.C., and should read "In three days, you shall live. I Gabriel command you." If so, Jesus-era Judaism had begun to explore the idea of a three-day resurrection before Jesus was born. This, in turn, undermines one of the strongest literary arguments employed by Christians over centuries to support the historicity of the Resurrection (in which they believe on faith): the specificity and novelty of the idea that the Messiah would die on a Friday and rise on a Sunday. Who could make such stuff up? But, as Knohl told TIME, maybe the Christians had a model to work from. The idea of a "dying and rising messiah appears in some Jewish texts, but until now, everyone thought that was the impact of Christianity on Judaism," he says. "But for the first time, we have proof that it was the other way around. The concept was there before Jesus." If so, he goes on, "this should shake our basic view of Christianity. ... What happens in the New Testament [could have been] adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story." Not so fast, say some Christian academics. "It is certainly not perfectly clear that the tablet is talking about a crucified and risen savior figure called Simon," says Ben Witherington, an early-Christianity expert at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Ky. The verb that Knohl translates as "rise!," Witherington says, could also mean "there arose," and so one can ask "does it mean 'he comes to life,' i.e., a resurrection, or that he just 'shows up?' " Witherington also points out that gospel texts are far less reliant on the observed fact of the Resurrection (there is no angelic command in them like the line in the Gabriel stone) than on the testimony of eyewitnesses to Jesus' post-Resurrection self. Finally, Witherington notes that if he is wrong and Knohl's reading is right, it at least sets to rest the notion that the various gospel quotes attributed to Christ foreshadowing his death and Resurrection were textual retrojections put in his mouth by later believers — Jesus the Messianic Jew, as Knohl sees him, would have been familiar with the vocabulary for his own fate. Knohl stands by his reading. "The spelling and the phrasing is unique," he told TIME, "but it is similar to to other texts found around the Dead Sea." Yet for now, at least, Gabriel's Revelation must take its place among a slew of recently discovered or rediscovered objects from around the time of Jesus that are claimed to either support or undermine Scripture but are themselves sufficiently, logically or archaeologically compromised to prevent their being definitive. In 2002, a bone-storage box with the legend "James Son of Joseph Brother of Jesus" bobbed up that seemed to buttress Jesus' historicity while at the same time suggest that the Catholic teaching that he had no true brothers was false — but the Israeli Antiquities Authority declared the inscription as a forgery (although various experts continue to disagree). In 2007 the Discovery Channel aired a documentary (funded by Titanic director James Cameron) that purported to have located the "Jesus Family Tomb" in the Israeli suburb of Talpiot, with bone boxes with the names "Jesus Son of Joseph,Mary" and one of the names of Mary Magdalene. If the ossuaries were for the gospel Jesus, his mother and Mary Magdalene, then the implications for Christianity would be dire; but despite considerable initial hoopla, the idea is regarded by many as speculation. It remains to be seen whether Gabriel's Revelation, and especially Knohl's interpretation, will weather the hot lights of fame. Even the authors of its initial research seem a little dubious about his claims that it is a dry run for the Easter story. But, as often happens in such cases, they seem better disposed to a slightly toned-down assertion: in this case, that the Gabriel tablet does indicate a very rare instance of the idea that a messiah might suffer — a notion introduced in Judaic thought centuries before by the prophet Isaiah but which supposedly went out of style by Jesus' time. If that more modest theory gains traction, it will forge a link between a trend in first-century Judaism and one of Christianity's galvanizing thoughts — that God might throw in his lot with a suffering or even murdered man — that could contribute to a growing mutual understanding.

Kimfelix, the idea of "fall from Vaikuntha" is not a problem in Vaishnava philosophy. Simply put, there is no "fall from Vaikuntha" as the vedAnta-sUtras state that the living entity's karmas are beginningless. It is important not to confuse certain iskcon ideas with mainstream vedantic Vaishnavaism. The inability of Advaitins to explain the reality of avidya, mAyA, etc is a major problem for them. If Brahman alone exists, then what is mAyA? Never mind that, they say. Nothing can be said about it. It neither exists nor does not exist, etc.

Obviously he is referring to Gita vs the rest of the Mahabharata. Your claim that there are "umpteen" versions of the Gita is unfounded. But there are certainly numerous versions of the Mahabharata (excluding the Gita). And as far as your iskcon-logic to the effect that it requires "guru and sadhu to settle which version," that simply makes no sense. If a guru is needed to arbitrarily pick the right version among many wrong ones of a given scripture, then why go to scripture at all? Just go to the guru and believe whatever he says.

OK, so now you are contradicting yourself. But back to the original point, is Prabhupada a Hindu or not? cbrahma wrote the following prejudiced remarks: “I was thinking like that when I first came here,” he says. “I was hoping that my countrymen in America would be the first interested in a Krishna consciousness society. But no. Generally, they are like new crows, new materialists, delighting in unclean things, in stool and nasty places. Because in India there is much poverty, for economic success many Indians come here to work and study. They generally imitate Westerners buy new cars and drink liquors, eat meat, go to night clubs, and keep women. So there is a saying, ‘Crows eat stool, but new crows eat more stool.’ No. Do not expect any help from them.” In response to this, I would say that when I first walked into an iskcon community, I was thinking that these devotees as they called themselves would be genuinely interested in Vishnu-bhakti, renunciation of materialism, and sincere study of scriptures. But no. Generally, they are unsatisfied with the spiritual way of life and imitate the very Western materialists that they criticize. They go to movies, eat outside food, buy television sets, and maintain so many non-spiritual habits. They use pseudo-logical arguments to justify attachment to vices like illicit sex. They demand complete obedience from their followers but don't feel compelled to speak truthfully or even to base their arguments on scripture. They promote gurus who speak on nonsense topics like "gay monogamy" and UFO conspiracies, etc, gurus who take psychiatric medications and gurus who visit female psychotherapists. So genuine Vaishnavas cannot really expect any help from them.

Oh, and anyone who believes that it is "nit-picking" to call into question the obvious misinformation that some people dishonestly propagate in order to prop up their religious beliefs is a party to the same dishonesty.

I also forgot to mention that cbrahma's claim that Prabhupada "is the empowered avatar in the Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya" is an outright falsehood. There is no such claim in the Gaudiya Vaishnava literature prior to iskcon.

I really don't know what this has to do with anything. My question was in regards to why, after cbrahma et. al. spent so much time distancing their version of "Vaishnavism" (and thus by extension their guru Prabhupada) from Hinduism, does cbrahma now claim that Prabhupada was responsible for paving the way for "Hinduism" in the United States? This makes no sense. Either Prabhupada (and thus his teachings) are "Hinduism" or they are not. Either he spread Hinduism or he did not. He can't be a non-Hindu and yet spread Hinduism. By the way, that claim of cbrahma is prima facie absurd. It is well known that other strands of Hinduism had entered the United States prior to Prabhupada's arrival.

Huh? So Prabhupada is Hindu now?

That's because there are no iskcon followers in Buddhist temples, obviously.

here we go again....

Shvu, on what basis do you allege that rAma would have failed to win in head-on combat with vAli? As far as the vAlmIki rAmAyaNa is concerned, rAma's killing of vAli was a punishment for his transgression of usurping his brother's wife. The context makes all of this clear.

sAttvik purANa-s are said to differ from the rAjasic and tAmasic purANa-s by virtue of they way they begin. All purANa-s begin with a question to a learned source and the answers to the question form the basis of the purANa. The sAttvik purANa-s are said to begin with a relatively non-sectarian question or in other words a relatively open-ended question, i.e. "what is the highest goalwhat is the means to liberation?who is to be worshipped to secure the greatest reward?" In contrast, non-sAttvik purANa-s are said to begin with a question of rather narrow scope - "Tell me about the glories of Shiva," tell me about this or that devata, etc. This is something I have read about in the commentaries of Vishnu-bhaktas in various traditions. From what I have read of the purAna-s it appears to be correct. Note that merely being in the sAttvik class does not guarantee that everything within will necessarily constitute pramANa. As someone noted earlier, any smRti is only valid to the extent that it is consistent with shruti, and not valid otherwise.

The clincher is that the British never declared war. They like most European colonialists justified their presence on the grounds of "benevolent rule." Which of course was just another conceit aka the white man's burden, etc. Now thanks to their legacy we have an educational system that is brazenly hostile to Hindus and Hinduism. The things Indian intellectuals are habituated to say about Hinduism will often not be repeated in the West for fear of being accused of bigotry.

In that case, let us call the birth-based varna position the traditional Vedic way so as to acknowledge that it is authenticated by sAstra and not a modern-day, Hindoo mental concoction as iskcon revisionists are apt to think. Any system of classifying people into different categories is inherently subject to abuse, and by that logic "flawed." But the reality remains that a classless society does not exist. Communism does not officially accept the existence of social classes within a communist society, but history has shown that social classes exist in their countries all the same. Christians and Muslims spread propaganda that they do not accept any caste distinctions, but the reality in India is that Indian Christians and Indian Muslims still break up according to caste lines. In Western society, everyone is considered equal and class mobility is thought to be available for all when inequality exists. The reality however, is that people in Western countries form "castes" according to income and social standing, and many groups constantly complain that they face discrimination along racial or cultural lines. I can personally attest to both of these, having observed them first-hand in the West. gItA chapter 18 has nothing to do with refuting birth-based varNa. All these slokas (I assume you mean 18:41-44) do is reiterate the duties that fall upon each varna, which then serves as Lord Krishna's segue to emphasize why Arjuna must do his varNAshrama duties. There is no call in the gItA to abandon one's birth-based varNa and take up the varNa of another. Arjuna was not allowed to take up the brAhmaNa profession despite demonstrating an attitude of renunciation and compassion that was uncharacteristic of a kShatriya. Does the gItA advocate that we do our duties, or that we fulfill our ambitions for upward class/caste mobility? I think you know the answer as well as I. The Lord wants our *surrender,* not our social ambitions. Mistaken? Perhaps, perhaps not. If someone can show the pa~ncharAtric pramANa upon which his dIkSha system was supposedly based, then I will concede that it may have been an alternative in some contexts. However, I will caution you by stating that based on what I have read of hari-bhakti vilAs, which is their main authority on ritualistic matters, the birth-based varNa system appears to be upheld by sanAtana gosvAmI. This would make Bhaktisiddhanta/Prabhupada's approach at least ungrounded in the rituals of their own sampradAya from what I can see. Certainly a devotee of Hari is very great, and should be given special respect independent of his ordinary social standing. However, the reality remains that people are not all equal, and despite trying to embrace a paradigm of absolute equality, they will become differentiated by their different intrinsic abilities. In iskcon everyone is a "pure devotee" and is considered above the "mundane rules and regulations" of the Vedas, dharma-sAstras, etc. But not everyone is equally capable of discussing philosophy, managing institutions, etc. Does their officially classless society seem a practical approach to the very real problems of living in this world? The point I am trying to make is that such ideas are about as practical as Karl Marx's view that a communist society would lead to an undoing of all inequalities and class distinctions. All of which supports the idea that being raised *properly* from birth into a specific varna is necessary for that person to successfully stick with his varNAsrama duties. Which in turn gets back to a birth-based varNa system where the parents don't have to wonder how to raise their child; they just raise him or her according to the standards of their varNa. Many things in India are admittedly not based on spiritual realization, including Swami Vivekananda and his quasi-Advaitic teachings. That is the politically correct thing to say, of course. And to be fair, any social system, even a genuine Vedic one, can be abused by people who are corrupted by materialistic values. But really now, how many can say scientifically that the system is "more about preserving wealth and status?" I don't think there is much unbiased scholarship on the subject. Most of academia is inherently hostile to India and Indian culture, yet their views of India continue to color everyone's perceptions of Indian values, including those of many Indian sympathizers and self-professed Hindu revivalists. The reality is that many brahmins are also habituated to downplay (at least officially) birth and its significance. It just isn't politically correct for them to say they are brahmins anymore, even in India. If they identify themselves as brahmins, they will be scorned as opportunistic exploiters of the agrarian Hindu masses. For this reason, some "traditionally-minded" brahmins will officially downplay birth, but in practice they still prefer to associate with other brahmins, marry their children to other brahmins, etc. I would say that varNa has a lot of meaning, especially in modern religious life. Brahmins who perform their sandhya-vandana do so because this was the brahminical duty that was inculcated in them. Brahmins who still go to temple and support devotional projects do so because they were habituated to think of themselves as responsible for such things. And what of brahmins who remain vegetarian despite mounting secular pressure to do otherwise? It is only because of that instinctive feeling that being a brahmin means having certain values, even if they cannot speak the spiritual language that is required to articulate the basis of such values. Try though you might, you cannot eliminate caste from the human diet. Whether you call it classes or something else, "caste" will always exist. I once read an article by an Indian feminist who described her days as a Delhi college student, rubbing elbows with other women of a "progressive" social disposition. These women were above all such things like varna, puja, etc. But they very much admired fair skin, the ability to speak English, and the knowledge of how to obtain reliable birth control. In their society, Indian women who could perfectly speak English, converse competently about the latest Hollywood films, and wore jeans on a daily basis were regarded as part of the upper crust. But those women who preferred to speak in Hindi or some regional dialect, were not accustomed to taking birth control pills, or did not know all the nuances of American culture were treated with derision. Women of the latter group found it difficult to enjoy all the perks of membership in the college sorority or whatever it was. They were regularly discriminated against in many subtle and overt ways. I think the reality is that human beings, no matter their background, will always break up into classes. They will either do this on the basis of religious values taught from birth or on the basis of impermanent things that have no relevance to spiritual life.

I forgot to mention this. You might be laboring under the misconception (as theist and cbrahma certainly are), that I am personally rooting for a birth-based varna system, and/or that I am motivated by some perks that such a system supposedly offers me. I am not in either case. My point has always been simply that a birth-based varna system is the Vedic standard that has been followed for thousands of years and is authenticated in scripture. If birth-independent, behavior-depedent, dynamic varna classification is what Lord Krishna wanted us to follow, then I would certainly follow that. We cannot on one hand say that we follow Vedic culture and then on the other hand abandon the Vedic cultural position on varna.

However, angels don't receive worship in those traditions, and that is the crucial difference. Assuming you are using standard English definitions of the words "polytheism" and "monotheism."

To correctly emphasize that birth is not *sufficient* i.e. - arthavAda. If one is born into a varna he has also got to take up the duties enjoined upon that varna. Nevertheless, he will be known by the varna of his birth regardless of what he does. When Ajamila ran off with a prostitute, did the smRti-s stop calling him a brAhmana and instead refer to him as a sUdra? You did not understand the argument. The argument was not just that iskcon brahmanas fell down, but that an otherwise qualified and saintly guru could not correctly assign them their varna. Remember: the iskcon view is that you belong to whatever varna that you decide you belong to and/or whatever varna is given to you by the guru (there being at least 2 different views expressed by the inconsistent iskcon theologians). Whereas in Vedic culture one is known by the varna of his birth. The former is quite subjective while the latter is not. So the point is - if even Prabupada could not correctly figure out someone's varna, then what are the ramifications for this in a system that make varna based on external assignment instead of objective criteria?

Where have you been? Yes, the English-educated, crypto-socialist, liberal intelligentsia of India habitually attacks Hindu culture up to and including Lord Vishnu and His devotees. They have been like this for decades. And no, they don't make a special case for iskcon devotees. They hate you just as much as they hate the rest of us. Like nice little subjects of the British crown, they learned their lessons well. Now they teach the very derogatory theories that they themselves were taught. This is the tragedy of imperialism - when a culture becomes enslaved to the ideas of a foreign power who have guns and muscle but no civilization or sophistication.

It looks like we've gone back to using non-standard meanings of words.

I think the point Tackleberry was trying to make is that Lord Shiva was affected by lust and bewildered. Brahman does not fall under such influences; therefore Shiva cannot be Brahman, but rather must be a jIvAtman (at least according to that section of srI bhAgavata purANa). I have seen references in the smRti-s that try to equate Shiva and Vishnu. However, I have also seen references which place Vishnu in an inferior position to Shiva and some that place Vishnu in the superior position. All of these references cannot be correct, becuse they are all logically irreconciable. Of the three views, the third one (in which Vishnu is considered superior to Shiva) has the support of sruti. I quoted Rig Veda to establish this previously. I do not understand why on one hand some are willing to consider that Vishnu and Rudra are the same being, but on the other hand will reject the view that Vishnu is also known as Rudra and that there is a different Rudra who prays to Him. The latter is clearly supported by shruti and at least by some smRti-s. The first is contradicted by most smRiti texts in which Vishnu and Shiva are seen as separate beings. Recall that neo-advaitins, in an attempt to downplay the "polytheistic" character of Vedic cosmology, will often claim that the different devatas are just different forms of the same God. But this just opens them up to the charge of selective interpretation - they are, after all, ignoring the massive evidence that treats these different devatas as different, individual beings. WHen one reads a story that speaks of two persons A and B who interact with each other, one is not ordinarily given to think that A and B are actually the same person.

Here is a logical question that arises from this discussion. The iskcon mental speculators say that one's varna is based on one's intrinsic mental disposition and as such is a dynamic rather than fixed thing, unrelated to one's birth. If one does brahminical duty and has a brahminical disposition, then he is a brahmin. But if he falls from the standard than he was never really a brahmin. And so on. It is a well known fact that Swami Prabhupada initiated thousands of disciples, and of those many took to the brahminical profession (by accepting sacred thread, doing worship, and becoming gurus). And it is also well known that the vast majority of these fell away from the standard and many became responsible for some of the most egregious human rights violations ever seen in a religious movement. Prabhupada either (A) initiated these people knowing that they would fall down and abuse so many children, or he (B) initiated them because he had faith in his idea that they could become brahmanas and that they would stay true. Either (A) or (B) must be true. They cannot both be true. Nor can they both be false. If (A) is true, then Prabhupada is responsible for the iskcon gurukula abuse and so many social evils in iskcon. But if (B) is true, then it demonstrates that he was wrong about the character of these devotees. I assume most people would prefer (B) over (A). So, if such an elevated devotee as Prabhupada can be wrong about the character of a devotee whom he has turned into a brahmin, then how can *anyone* in iskcon assign a specific varna on the basis of his perception of that person's varna? If Prabhupada was wrong about people he "assigned" to brahmin varna, and you people worship him so much, then why do you think you could assert what varna someone belongs to? Thus the whole theory that your varna is what you make of it falls apart.