raghu

Nice quote theist. That reminds me of Jada Bharata whose father wanted to train him to become perfect brahmana and an expert in the Vedas but he was only interested in chanting Hare Krishna and thinking of Krishna so he acted like a deaf, dumb, madman so his father would stop trying to train him to become perfect brahmana and expert in the Vedas.

I know I am going to get in trouble for asking this but....

where in the Bhagavata is it stated that Jada Bharata was "only interested in chanting Hare Krishna?"

The title of this posting is "Becoming indifferent to the vedas."

Yet, the Gita verse quoted above says nothing about becoming "indifferent to the vedas."

If someone feels I am in error, may they please point out where in the Sanskrit anything about being "indifferent to the Vedas" is mentioned.

Please, ladies and gentlemen, and I sincerely hope you will take my advice on this seriously...

I am glad that you are concerned enough to write to people who obviously tolerated bigoted representations of our culture. However, it is extremely important that you should come across as knowledgeable and coherent. Please do not write messages that are full of grammatical mistakes. If you cannot write in English properly, then you will be perceived as a fundamentalist. Your views will be treated as those of a fanatic, regardless of their merits.

A major problem facing Hinduism today is that those who try to defend Hinduism often attack scholars. When you want to take scholars to task, you need to at least appear intelligent. Writing at a 4th grade level does nothing to make your position seem more reasonable.

I hope you will take this seriously. In my opinion, if more Hindus could control the urge to respond long enough to proofread their responses, we would all be better off.

whats in a name ?!!

nothing .........its the belief that matters .............krishna durga radha shiva all are different names !!

 

So we will be compassionate about the meat-eating guests who want hamburgers. But the poor animals who get killed to become their dinners - no compassion for them?

It's funny, this sequence of events.

1) Hare Krishna claims that you can learn Vedas from the Hare Krishnas.

2) Someone points out the fact that Hare Krishnas do not study the Vedas, which essentially invalidates point #1

3) Another Hare Krishna arrives and posts a lot of irrelevant banter which basically says that "Veda" means something other than the standard definition of the term "Veda."

Conclusion: By "Vedas" the Hare Krishnas mean Bhagavad-gita and Bhagavata Purana, and specifically their own commentaries on the same. In fact, when they say "Four Books are Enough," they aren't referring to Rig, Yajur, Sama, and Atharva Veda, but rather to the four principal commentaries of their acharya.

Everyone is invited to the banquet in Ecumenism so to speak. If I were the Pope, I`d prepare a sumptous meal for the guests. There`ll be dining rooms allocated for vegetarians, a carnivorus meal for Christians and Non-Christians, and a porkless meal for Muslims.

Good news for advocates of religious political correctness.

Bad news for the animal who is going to end up on the silver platter served to the Christians and Muslims.

Kali worship is about trying to get material benediction.

Kali worship is not spiritual worship.

Kali is a deity of the MATERIAL WORLD, not the spiritual world.

 

So, worshiping Kali is NOT spiritual.

Kali does not award spiritual gifts.

Kali worship and it's discussion does not belong in the spiritual topics section of the forum.

 

It belongs in some section of the forum for discussing the attainment of material things.

 

Spiritual worship involves Narayan, Vishnu or Krishna.

Kali worship is a material situation.

It has nothing to do with spirituality or transcendentalism.

According to ranjeetmore, worship of Uma/Kali or Shiva is just as transcendental and liberating as worship of Krishna. In fact, again according to ranjeetmore (who seems to think he is a gaudiya vaishnava), there is no difference at all between Durga and Krishna.

So, Sonic and Ranjeet - discuss.

p.s. I really don't understand what Michelle Obama has to do with any of this.

Still no answer about Madhva and his views on Shiva.

So, Sonic, just to clarify - when you asked for evidence that Madhva believes Shiva to be a jiva, and when you talked about what a serious claim that was, you did not really mean that, right?

Sonic: Chanting the names of God is not part of Christianity!

Raghu: "No it is not"!

........................................

Could you tell that to a Baptist Minister, without seeming demonic?

Well given the fact that I am not a Christian, the Baptist minister will already be convinced that I am going to hell. So the answer is no.

But anyway, the point remains that repetitive chanting of the Christian God's names is not a feature of Christianity as we know it today.

It is easier to learn from your next door neighbor. But if what you want to learn is something that your next-door neighbor does not know, then there is no point going to your next-door neighbor simply because he is close.

Vyasadeva has commented that Srimad Bhagavatam was his own explanation and commentary on Vedanta Sutra.

Perhaps in your own imagination he may have said that. But he has written no such thing in either the Bhagavata or the Vedanta-sutra.

So, any conclusions derived from Vedanta-sutra that do not agree with Srimad Bhagavatam in fact challenge Vyasadev's own explanations and cannot therefore be accepted as the proper siddhanta.

Given that there are multiple recensions of the Bhagavata available, I fail to see how you could possibly maintain such a position on logical grounds. So if Bhagavata is independently authoritative, then are all the Shaivite interpolations also authoritative on the grounds that they are in the Bhagavatam, and thus Vyasa's original composition?

Also, will you be answering that question about Madhva and standards of evidence any time soon?

Chanting the names of God is no part of Christianity? . . .

 

No it is not. Gospel singing like much of church singing may only occasionally mention names of God but for the most part takes the form of a personal narrative of a seeker finding God. It is not like Hare Krishnas or most Vaishnavas who primarily sing the names of God.

If someone somewhere in the world needs to have knowledge about the Vedas ---where do they Go to learn about the most authentic persons & places to learn the Vedas? University Professors? Goverment Commodants? Social Workers?

Here's a radical thought. Why not go to the acharyas of the Vedanta traditions who still study and recite the Vedas?

The answer: The Hare Krsihnas and or ISKCON.

 

You are welcomed anytime you can escape your prior commitments.

 

tell them bhaktajan sent you,

Bhaktajan

That would be quite an accomplishment, learning the Vedas from people who do not study or teach the Vedas.

My position is that Madhva cannot and should not disagree with what Srimad Bhagavatam says about Lord Siva.

If Madhva disagrees with Srimad Bhagavatam on the position and status of Lord Siva, then I would have to say that Madhva is wrong.

 

My position on Lord Siva is the position that he is ascribed in Srimad Bhagavatam, Brahma-Samhita etc.

 

Anyone who challenges the status of Lord Siva, as he is ascribed in the books of the Gaudiya canon, will not get any acknowledgment from me, even he be Madhvacarya.

You are still evading the real question.

You asked for evidence that Madhva believes Shiva to be a jiva.

What standard of evidence will you accept regarding Madhva's view on this subject?

This is now, what, the 3rd time I am asking? Why so evasive?

Respected Members,

 

This is the response to the question by Kaisersose Ji. In my opinion, bhakti is the intense love to god. How do I define blind faith....hmm well I put it as a state where, a person is having faith in something without fully understanding the object that he or she has faith to. Faith for me is to believe confidently and whole-heartedly about a set of principles, tenets of religion, god etc.

This definition of "faith" is not acceptable, because by such definition, all bhaktas would be guilty of blind faith, since no one can *fully* understand the Lord. The infinite concept will simply not fit in one's finite mind. However, one can *begin* to understand Him based on knowledge from valid pramAnas. Whatever one may understand may be limited, but if the knowlege is valid one can accept it as true.

Now as far as what is pramAna, this is the distinguishing feature between conviction/mature faith/faith guided by a higher authority and irrational faith. Case in point - "Krishna is the author of the Vedas." This is a Hare Krishna belief, and people like Theist, Sonic Yogi, sant, and ranjeetmore would readily agree to it. Now, how do you know that Krishna is God? They would answer "because it is in the Vedas." Now behold the circular logic - Krishna is the author of the Vedas, and we know Krishna is God because the Vedas say so. Objectively, one can appreciate the problems behind that logic. But the Hare Krishnas do not appreciate the problem, and in fact will become quite hostile if you point it out. This is an example of blind and irrational faith.

The truth of the matter is that real bhakti and blind faith have nothing to do with each other. What passes for bhakti in the condescending imagination of atheistic Neo-Hindus or the soap-box style preaching of self-proclaimed Hare Krishnas on this forum has little to do with bhakti. Bhakti is guided by proper knowledge. To the extent that one has the qualification one has got to study the Vedas under a guru's guidance. And if he does not have the qualification, he should at least hear the knowledge from a guru knowledgeable in the Vedas. Most of the noisy proponents of Krishna worship on this forum are not even initiated by such a guru. The reformatory process of studying the subject matter of God, the souls, matter etc under the guidance of a guru cleanses one of the impurities that lead to the problems you mentioned.

This reminds me of their unqiue knowledge of the circumstances around the composition of the Bhaja Govindam. Apparently, Shankara was on his death-bed when he suddenly had a change of heart. Out of this change of heart, he chided his followers as fools and told them to worship Govinda (something he and his followers had never done before). But somehow magically, this is not known to any Advaitins. Only the Hare Krishnas know the real deal.

 

Well, at least they are treading new ground. I have not seen them take this position before. Madhva assigned authorship to the Vedas and called these authors as Buffoons, in spite of his doctrine founded on the work of these buffoons!

And Madhva also considers Shiva to be God. Why? Because Gaudiyas say Shiva is God. So Madhva must believe that also. No evidence from Madhva's writings will be sufficient to refute that sort of confused thinking.

Incidentally, the Sarva darshana Sangraha was authored by Madhava aka Vidyaranya, an Advaitin. Due to the similar name, it is easy to confuse him with Madhvacharya aka Ananda Thirtha.

Quite right - that was mAdhvAcharya, not madhvAchArya.

In other words, you don't have any proper statement from Madhva to support your claims, so you just try to avoid the issue with a false argument.

You should just admit you have no evidence for your claim and that you falsely represented the position of Madhva.

 

Lord Siva gives birth to every jiva in the universe.

To say that he is a jiva is simply ridiculous.

 

Siva functions as a jiva in the destruction of the universe, but that does not make him a jiva.

 

If a jiva attains to Siva-tattva, then he is not a jiva anymore.

You are simply throwing up a smokescreen to avoid answering a very simple question:

What is the standard of evidence that you will accept to determine what Madhva's views on the subject are? Please stop being evasive and answer honestly.

I strongly suspect that you will reject any evidence I provide for the reasons I have given above. Care to dispute that?

And the irony is striking, that you would presume to know what Madhva thinks on the subject even though you have never read his writings.

Please answer the question and then we will proceed.

In fact, there is:

 

 

A quotation of the Cārvāka from Madhavacharya's Sarva-Darsana-Sangraha states:

 

"The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves, and demons. All the well-known formulae of the pandits, jarphari, turphari, etc. and all the obscene rites for the queen commanded in Aswamedha, these were invented by buffoons, and so all the various kinds of presents to the priests, while the eating of flesh was similarly commanded by night-prowling demons."

 

 

This is the source cited for the above quote:

 

Madhavacarya, Sarvadarsana-sangraha, English translation by E. B. Cowell and A. E. Gough, 1904 quoted in Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya (ed.), Carvaka/Lokayata: An Anthology of Source Materials and Some Recent Studies (New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 1990)

As we have already stated, this offensive quote is actually from the atheistic Carvaka. Madhva was quoting a purva-pakshin which is usually what he does before proceeding to refute him.

There is nothing in Madhva's works to effect that he "criticised and didnt accept the ashwamedha yagya process shown in the veda"

If the Hare Krishna free thinkers are not satisfied misrepresenting Gaudiya Vaishnavism, may I please request that they leave off of misrepresenting other Vaishnavas?

 

Such a very serious claim demands evidence and proper quotes of reference.

Otherwise, nobody should put any credibility in your claims.

Sonic, let us be honest.

You and I both know that you have no intention of acknowledging that Madhva considers Shiva to be a jiva.

If I quote the Sanskrit directly from his writings, you will not be able to understand that, and thus you will reject it.

If I translate the Sanskrit, you won't accept it, because you do not know Sanskrit, and you will not depend on me to translate it for you, since you hate me for having the audacity to question your views. Thus, you will reject that as well.

If I provide the translation of a scholar of Madhva, you will reject that also, since you hate people who can think, and in your eyes anyone who is thought of as a scholar is ipso facto not a devotee, and vice-versa.

And if I provide the translation of a devotee, you will take issue with his inability to build thousands of temples all over the world as Prabhupada did, and on that basis argue that he knows less about Madhva than Prabhupada. Thus you will reject that also.

So given that all of the above are true, when you ask for "evidence" regarding Madhva's views, what *specifically* will you accept to convince you of what it is he thinks on this subject? If you really are not interested in evidence, would it not be better for you forgo asking?

Are you a bit...you know... dumb ??? When did i say that Madhva and Ramanuja are foolish...Why are you relentlessly pursuing it ???

Once again for the cognitively challenged:

1) Ranjeet says that people who consider Shiva to be a jiva are foolish. His exact words, located in this thread: http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/450287-durga-more-vishnu-shakti-than-shiva-shakti-8.html , are "Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti thakura says that both Sadashiva and Narayana are present as Themselves on the saguna plane as Shiva and Vishnu.Lord Shiva,in this saguna feature,is apparently bewildered by the three modes of maya and foolishly,is thought to be some petty Jeevatma."

2) In the Madhva and Ramanuja traditions, Lord Shiva is considered to be a jiva.

3) QED Madhva and Ramanuja (and their followers) are foolish, according to Ranjeet.

You act as if you know all the truths of Vaikuntha.

No, I simply know how to read English and infer untenable philosophical conclusions based on the sort of fanatical, prejudiced remarks you tend to make.

So many vaishnavacharyas believe shankara to be indifferent from Vishnu.

By "so many," you mean of course, the Gaudiyas and the pushti-margis?

I(right now) seriously don't care if you accept it or not.It is clearly affecting your faith in the Bhagavatam and other acharyas and Gaudiya acharyas.It's best you do not pursue the subject.

Good point. The more I pursue it, the more it makes you look bad. And we can't have any discussion that detracts from the public perception of you as an unblemished spiritual authority, now can we?

Will I be going in your ignore list anytime soon? You know that it is my goal to get every fanatic on this forum to put me in their ignore list. So far I have Theist and Kali, whereas Kaisersose only has Theist. In the short time that I've been here, I've earned the ire of more fanatics than even Kaiser the atheist. HaHa! Kaiser, you are so lame. :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashvamedha

There is nothing in this article about Madhvacharya criticizing the Ashvamedha.

Would you be ready to sacrifice yourself raghu for purushamedha?If no then you stop deciding who does lip service and who doesnt.

The Purushamedha did not involve actual slaughter of humans. Chandu already quoted an explanation describing the symbolic nature of it as a reenactment of the sacrifice of the original Purusha as described in the Rig Veda.

What abraham did was out of devotion and not as a ritual.

What difference does it make? He was ready to kill his own son. What sort of God demands that you kill your own son?

I don't really know what your point is, other than perhaps this desperate need you have to disagree with me at all times over everything, even when such disagreements find you endorsing ludicrous ideas just to argue.

You cant call it the same.

I didn't. I said that it presented problems to Jews just as purusha medha could present problems to Hindus. In both cases explanation is required - not simply sweeping it under the proverbial rug as Kali would have us do.

I wish you would work on improving your reading comprehension abilities. Much of the noise on this forum would decrease if you could resist the urge to post knee-jerk responses based on persistent misunderstanding of what others write.

Having lived in the midst of communists most of my life, I am aware of this criticism. Even if you answer this the next question would be about Human sacrifice in the Puranas.

Quite true.

How does it concern the modern day Hindus?

 

Because it concerns the Vedas, which are the basis of traditional Hinduism, it is certainly quite relevant to Hinduism. Of course, Neo-Hindus take an "evolutionary" approach to religion and will not care if sinful and grotesque accusations are made about our ancestral beliefs, even when they are not true.

Books have been written about Human sacrifice and Judaism. Does the modern Jew bother about that?

In fact, among scholarly circles, the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham does present ethical problems to Jews who have to grapple with the idea that their God comes across as whimsical and cruel. They cannot simply dismiss such descriptions as irrelevant because no amount of time will change the fact that this is described in their scripture, which is their authority. Similarly, for traditional Hindus, Vedas are the authority, and they cannot simply ignore whatever seems undesireable because that would be tantamount to rejecting the authority of the Vedas. Again, Neo-Hindus only give lip service to the authority of the Vedas, so such a point is probably lost on them.

As far as I can see the only true sacrifice that pleases God is the free will sacrifice where one offers himself and his life possessions in the loving service of Krishna and others.

 

Capturing some helpless animal or so-called man/animal and sacrificing them is just incredibly barbaric.

I guess this means that some great devotees of the Lord were "barbaric," as per Theist.

http://vedabase.net/sb/9/4/22/en1

In desert countries where there flowed the River Sarasvati, Maharaja Ambarisha performed great sacrifices like the asvamedha-yajna and thus satisfied the master of all yajnas, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Such sacrifices were performed with great opulence and suitable paraphernalia and with contributions of dakshina to the brahmanas, who were supervised by great personalities like Vasishtha, Asita and Gautama, representing the king, the performer of the sacrifices.

http://vedabase.net/sb/1/8/6/en2 Lord Sri Krsna caused three well-performed Asvamedha-yajnas [horse sacrifices] to be conducted by Maharaja Yudhisthira and thus caused his virtuous fame to be glorified in all directions, like that of Indra, who had performed one hundred such sacrifices.

http://vedabase.net/sb/8/18/20/en1 When the Lord heard that Bali Maharaja was performing asvamedha sacrifices under the patronage of brahmanas belonging to the Bhrigu dynasty, the Supreme Lord, who is full in every respect, proceeded there to show His mercy to Bali Maharaja. By His weight, He pushed down the earth with every step.

So let me see if I got this straight, Bali Maharaja is a barbarian. Yudhishthira Maharaja was a barbarian. King Ambarisha was a barbarian. And Lord Sri Krishna is a barbarian. All according to the statement of Theist as quoted above.

Did I miss anyone?