raghu

As I mentioned before, not all "Hindus" accept the doctrine of radical universalism. This is primarily the view point of neo-advaitins like Vivekananda, Sai Baba, etc. In traditional Hindu sampradayas great pains are taken to distinguish one's own system of philosophy from those of others. This includes even Sri Shankaracharya. I don't really care to get into a debate about who is and is not a Hindu. It's a functional definition useful for discourse rather than a theological term. Most would include Vaishnava sampradayas under the umbrella term "Hindu," but they most certainly do not accept that all paths are "valid."

I am a "Hindu" but I do not believe that all paths are "valid." There are other "Hindus" also who object to this idea of "radical universalism." http://www.dharmacentral.com/universalism.htm

Once again, here is the pompous statement that the iskcon devotee made which got this thread really hot: As I had mentioned, the iskconite happily criticizes Hindus but does not include members of his own camp. I have observed that no small minority of married couples in iskcon do things that are not "pure devotional service" or "attaining spiritual life" but they are not criticized. Our iskcon friend is more interested in criticizing non-iskcon people than specifically in bringing people to the level of "spiritual life." "Those who live in glass houses..." It amazes me that with iskcon's history, there are people who still like to get up on their soapbox and criticize everyone else. Not only are iskconites so myopic in their criticism, but even when you bring up this double standard, still the iskconites behave as if they are being persecuted. It's as if the faults of others, no matter how small, must always be the subject of public discussion by people who cannot even demonstrate any standard of brahminical behavior, while the faults of iskcon members, no matter how egregious, are always to be minimized and swept under the rug. By the way, some comments were made earlier in this thread about the character/motivations of Prabhupada/ISKCON's founder. I am in now way supporting or endorsing those claims. I have not said anything about that. My focus is purely on the double-standard of criticizing Hindus while turning a blind eye towards the bad behavior of one's own camp. I also mentioned something about the whole Jesus nonsense, but anyway that is old.

He doesn't enjoy any attention from traditional Vaishnavas. He does enjoy a lot of attention from iskcon devotees, who are supposedly Vaishnavas. As far as why, we have already had extensive discussions in which the character of the Biblical god was shown to be completely unlike that of Sri Hari. We have pointed out the total absence of any evidence in the Vedas substantiating this idea that Jesus is an "empowered servant" of Vishnu and similar theories that are en vogue amongst the new-age, iskcon community. Still, for reasons that are unclear they continue to hold that the Biblical god who is partial to the Hebrews, who manipulates the Egyptians to refuse his demands, and who then subsequently hurls plagues and natural disasters to punish those same Egyptians, is the same as the chariot-driver of Arjuna who is content to merely speak the truth and let the individual living entity make up his own choice. Does Krishna punish people simply for worshipping other devas? No. Does Krishna play racial favorites? No. Basically the iskcon people have some idea that the real Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are different from what their followers hold them to be, and even different from what their scriptures hold them to be. But then again they have no proof of what these religions really are. The more you press them for objective evidence, the more they will post ad hominem attacks that target your character. Theirs is not a logical position. Look at how agitated Theist became when I pointed out the contradiction in his position about non-sectarian Vaishnavism and sectarian Vedas! I would not say that He does not do anything that is not in the sastras. I would say rather that if someone claims that He did something that is not documented in sastra, then the burden of proof is on them to show this. Of course, in iskcon, the standard of proof is whatever one has heard from one's guru. In iskcon, members are taught not to ask any pointed questions of their guru. They are supposed to just accept whatever the guru says or else they are ostracized from the camp. Thus, you have "gurus" who take depression medication, "gurus" who commune wth aliens from other planets, "gurus" who advocate recognition of homosexual marriages, etc. I will take this opportunity to point out how the iskcon translation of the above shloka is so out of character with what iskcon people actually do. On one hand, one is supposed to "give up all varieties of religion" and yet on the other hand iskcon people talk all about jesus and read more about Bible than they do about vedanta. And then again despite giving all lip service to Jesus and non-vedic religions they say they are trying to "cultivate devotional service free of all mundane designations."

Getting back to the issue, my point was simply that when one of these iskcon types gets on his soapbox and starts preaching about the inability of people to follow some spiritual values, he invariably names Hindus, Christians, and other religious groups as guilty parties but never other iskcon devotees. That pompous quote again: "Hindus, Muslims, and Jews also have no need for the teachings of any Vaisnava because they refuse to follow the very rudimentary and primary instruction in regard to abandonment of all varieties of religion in favor of actually attaining spiritual life." If the author of this remark were truly interested in getting everyone to "take to pure spiritual life," then he would be equally attentive to the hypocrites within his own cult. But that isn't really the case here. This is all about someone who wants to feel good about himself by making unflattering generalizations about other religious groups. Really? Now that is interesting. Because I can definitely remember a certain someone opining on these very forums that the Vedas are sectarian Hindu books, and even going so far as to ridicule someone for basing his views on God on those sectarian, "Hindu books." As far as real Vaishnavas are unconcerned, Vedas are unauthored and beginningless and not the product of any specific person or culture. But then again I remember the same certain someone objecting to that idea as well. It is strange that one would argue that Vaishnavism is "not a product of this mundane world" (which I have no problem with) and yet believe that the Vedas upon which that same Vaishnavism is based are sectarian Hindu books.

Uh-huh. I wonder if the average iskcon devotee householder who watches television, goes to movies, eats hotel food, pontificates on religions other than Vaishnavism, and has a greater than 50% chance of being a divorcee can also said to have done "abandonment of all varieties of religion in favor of actually attaining spiritual life."

I'm afraid I do not follow. Advaita is refuted by acharyas, but still valid. But it's not really valid, just "valid" in the sense of being "Vedic?" And despite not being condemned, purvacharyas took so much time to refute it? A lot of philosophies may be "Vedic" in the sense of acknowledging the authority of the Veda and developing their metaphysics on the basis of interpretation of Vedas. If that is what "Vedic" means to you, then so be it. However, quoting Vedas to establish a philosophy and actually being derived from valid interpretation of the Vedas are two different things. This is getting off on a bit of a tangent. My point was only that one might call some Advaitins/Smarthas as "Vaishnavas" because their family deity is Vishnu, or in other words use "Vaishnava" as a more or less functional definition (engaged in ritual worship of Vishnu) rather than a metaphysical one (understanding one's self to be eternally the devotee of Vishnu). Personally, I tend to prefer the latter, but that is just me. Obviously worship is rarely the issue. Rather, it one's understanding of the tattvas and their relationships(s) that is the point. Who is the author of this quote? No doubt Sri Adi Sankara acknowledged that Narayana is Brahman. But in other instances even within his commentaries he is agreeable to anya-devata upasana. His views are thus inconsistent and unclear. I don't know what the point of this is. I do agree that in worship, even in anya-devata worship, there is often some component of Vishnu worship. For example if you have ever heard smarthas doing Vinayaka-puja, you will hear some mantras that clearly invoke Vishnu. However, many smarthas still downplay Vishnu's significance, align themselves with Shaivites, or (even worse) claim that there is no difference between Vishnu and Shiva. This is in spite of the mantra they chant! All of which goes to show that one may or may not call someone a "Vaishnava" for different reasons. This is news to me. As far as I knew Sri Sankara was the one who promoted panchopasana. But I would be happy to see the evidence that says otherwise. That is of course your opinion. Personally, I favor a less liberal understanding of the term "Vaishnava." But that is just me. raghu

Right, that's what all the modern neo-advaitin god men say. "Truth isn't hard, let me just strip away all that Vedanta stuff and make it so easy that you can absorb in the span of a 15-second sound byte."

This is a perfect example of the sort of watered-down, quasi-Advaitic, new-age fluff that passes for "philosophy" amongst neo-advaitins and gives orthodox Advaitins a bad name.

I don't agree that Advaita is a "valid path to follow." How can any Vaishnava suggest that it is a "valid path" when acharyas have take great trouble to refute many of its conclusions? Whether or not you call the Advaitins "Vaishnavas" has a lot to do with what "Vaishnava" means to you. Certainly there are Advaitins whose ishta-devata is Krishna. But then again to a staunch Advaitin, any form of Vishnu is at best temporary "saguna brahman" for them... Having said that, I agree that Advaita has a long and venerable tradition with a history of Vedic scholarship that is unparalleled in gaudiya circles, and its followers should at least be given some perfunctory respect. For them to be called "demons" by so-called Vaishnavas who do not even have a guru, don't know Sanskrit, and cannot even properly represent their own philosophy strikes me as an embarassment to the sampradaya they claim to represent. I've seen many an arrogant "Vaishnava," puffed up with their so-called knowledge, challenge Advaitins only to get converted into mayavada themselves. Then of course there are the "Vaishnavas" who have nothing but scorn for Advaita while simultaneously praising Christianity or Islam. We would all benefit if these would-be dig-vijays could spend less time posting trite generalizations about their religious misconceptions and spend more time studying their sampradaya's philosophy with a good dose of humility.

There are numerous instances throughout shruti in which Brahman is referred to by names that are ordinarily associated with anya-devatas that are in the same sources and elsewhere regarded as subordinate entities. One has to use context to infer whether it is para Brahman that is being referred to or a subordinate deity. This is the principle laid down in the Vedanta-sutras. Of course, as you say, Shaivites will have their interpretation, and one may reasonably question why one cannot assume that names like Rudra/Hara/Maheshvara etc in this case cannot refer to Shiva. But then again, the same Upanishad begins with an invocation to Sri Hari, and it speaks of the Deity as the one from whom Brahma was born and instructed in knowledge. That is clearly Vishnu. Even in the Vishnu Sahasranama there are names like Rudra, etc that also belong to Shiva. Hence, context must be used to determine who is being referred to. Any interpretation will eventually fall under the weight of its assumptions. If Shvetashvatara Up. is a Shaivite text, then how would those Shaivites interpret the Rig Veda mantra 1.22.20 which refers to the param padam of Vishnu? How would they interpret Rig Veda 7.40.5 which states that Rudra got his power by propitiating Vishnu? If Rudra in the Shv. Up. means Shiva then why shouldn't Rudra in RV also mean Shiva? If the Shaivites say that Rudra can only mean Shiva in some contexts, then they also agree with the logic of using context to determine which Deity is referred to by the name, rather than assuming the most common reference. In that case why not the more consistent Vaishnava interpretation? If only Shv Up. is authoritative and other shrutis like Rig Veda are not, then the question is why. If the Shaivites hold that there is irreconciable contradiction even between different shrutis, then there is no sense in trying to interpret any of them, and any view based on such interpretations is ultimately self-defeating.

When the Upanishad distinguishes the jivatman from Brahman, which you have accepted that the Sv Up does, then bhakti is an implicit conclusion. As far as your comments that (1) the Svetashvatara proposes a form of "qualified" dualism with (2) Shiva as the supreme deity, I would be very interested to know why you think that. One would be very hard pressed to pass the Sv Up as a Shaivite text given the numerous context clues that point to Sri Hari as the object of worship.

Kimfelix, Of the different pramanas, or modes of acquiring right knowledge, only that pramana that is not based on human limitations can possibly give knowledge about that which is presently beyond human perception. Most religious traditions assert authority to their scriptures for various reasons, but even taking them all at their word, their scriptures are the product of human authorship and thus they cannot be objectively held to be beyond flaws. Saying that the author was "divinely inspired" or that he was an incarnation of God or met some angel requires additional, non-verifiable assumptions about the spiritual status of the author and his intent to enlighten instead of deceive. In the Vedantic tradition, Vedas (shruti-pramana) are considered apaurusheya - unauthored. They are eternal in nature and not the product of any human being, not even God. The Vedas mention things such as rishi, deva, and meter with each sukta but they never mention an author. Nor are the Vedas traditionally remembered as having an author or being an authored work - note that this is different from saying "known to be authored but author presently unknown." Even classical opponents of Vedanta (i.e. Buddhists) did not challenge their unauthoredness. It is only modern scholars in academia who assert that the Vedas are the composition of various sages, but they have no proof and the Vedas themselves do not say this. True knowledge is not flawed. Flaws are a function of a living being's imperfections or ignoble motives. Thus an authored work is naturally suspect, while an unauthored work could at least conceivably deliver flawless knowledge about that which is beyond the scope of human senses. Thus, one might naturally prefer to study the Veda for this reason. Scriptures like the Bhagavata Purana are not exactly in the same category as the Veda because they have an author. Their authority is thus dependent on the Veda. Still, because the author wrote it to help explain the essence of the Vedas, it is good to go to the Bhagavata and similar smritis to help understand the apaurusheya Vedas. Hope this helps. Good luck.

In response to your point that: <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> My point was simply that: The fall of Vedic civilization was brought about by repeated Muslim invasions beginning in the 7th century followed by European imperialists who annexed Indian territory and used it for their own ends. to which you simply replied: I can see that this is going to be one of those iskcon-type discussions, where the guy who disagrees with the iskconite cites facts to support his case, and the iskconite simply repeats his own beliefs completely indepedent of and in fact disregarding all contradictory facts, until the detractor just goes away. Any 3rd standard history of India textbook can be perused to review the facts that support the point of view that Vedic civilization declined due to military aggression and repeated looting and plundering of Hindu temples and kingdoms by foreign invaders, followed by intellectual re-writing of history and religious traditions to support the biases of foreign proselytizers. You have no evidence to support your view that Vedic civilization declined due to internal corruption. I'm not even sure what you consider to be "corruption" in this case. I honestly don't understand why you are so fixated on your perception of Vedic culture's degradation prior to iskcon. Perhaps you have some kind of idea that the world needs iskcon and that iskcon is going to fix everything. Frankly speaking, iskcon seems quite degraded by even this casual outsider's observations. Prior to encountering iskcon, I had never heard of gurukulas where children were sexually abused, gurus who get seduced by their female therapist disciples and then go into "retirement," gurus who advocate homosexual marriages, gurus who claim they can commune with other dimensions and speak to aliens, "vaishnavas" who claim that you can't really "know" anything, "vaishnavas" who think christianity is bona fide vaishnavism, etc etc. I know iskcon devotees who are twice initiated and yet have not even read bhagavad-gita, what to speak of knowing the works of Baladeva Vidyabhushana or the six gosvami disciples of Sri Caithanya. I have even observed here numerous times that iskcon people disagree with their acharya's predecessor acharyas. I can show with minimal effort that iskcon is a very degraded form of gaudiya vaishnavism, what to speak of being degraded from the context of Vedic culture. However, I suspect that the moderators will not find this discussion welcome and will be quick to delete any such postings. Suffice it to say that your comments are really nothing more than thinly-veiled hate speech against Vedic culture, and they do nothing to bolster iskcon's reputation among those who really practice Vedic culture (as opposed to just talking about it). iskcon would benefit more from honest and faithful preaching of its sampradaya's teachings rather than undertaking historical revisionism just to make their teachings seem more appealing to the masses. For every finger you point at Vedic civilization's alleged shortcomings, i can with evidence point ten more at your own iskcon's colorful history. "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." Meditate on that before you presume to step onto the soapbox. I will not bother writing any more in response unless you do. Raghu

As this is a generalization, it is hard to prove or debunk. If even two "leaders of Vedic culture" became "corrupt," then it grammatically supports the statement that "leaders of Vedic culture became corrupt." However, the common understanding of such a statement would be that a sizeable percentage or a majority became "corrupt." That being said: 1) What do you mean by "leaders of Vedic culture?" Are you referring to sannyasis, gurus, brahmins, or kshatriyas? Or someone else? 2) What is your definition of "corruption?" Are you referring to someone who converts to mayavada? who worships anya-devataH? eats meat? or something else? 3) What percentage (ballpark) figure of leaders do you estimate to have become "corrupt" (by your definition as outlined in #2), and what is your evidence to support such a statement? I only ask these questions because in my experience, these kinds of statements sound suspiciously like the propaganda that Marxists and other anti-Hindu factions tirelessly preach, and which has become commonly accepted as truth without due consideration for facts and evidence. It is a given that any class of individuals will have some corrupt ones, but to make this as a blanket generalization there ought to be sufficient basis for the statement. Otherwise it is no different from hate speech. If you want my opinion, I have observed a lot more corruption in ISKCON within the past 15 years than I have even half of the corruption their members have alleged to be present within other sampradayas. What history books are you reading? There is not even a semblance of cause and effect in your statements above. The fall of Vedic civilization was brought about by repeated Muslim invasions beginning in the 7th century followed by European imperialists who annexed Indian territory and used it for their own ends. There was no one India at that time - there were only multiple Indian kingdoms which shared some common culture but were often at war with each other (just as they were prior to Kali Yuga as documented in Mahabharata and other smritis). Furthermore, both the Muslims and the Europeans had a technological advantage in the form of muskets and cannon. The few Indian kingdoms which were able to obtain these had to do so through trade. While the Muslims raped and plundered Hindu temples, it was the British who aimed at a policy of intellectual domination. Following MacCauly's policies, they were the ones who rewrote India's history and portrayed Vedic culture in a derogatory way, including much unfounded criticism of brahmanas which turned many Hindus away from Vedic culture. The fact that many Hindus continue to accept such ideas even implicitly testifies to the legacy of the British intellectual conquest. The fall of Vedic culture was an inevitable result of contact with technologically and numerically superior aggressor civilizations. Saying that it was due to corruption in Vedic culture is begging the question.

Today's "caste system" is loosely based on varnashrama dharma but also contains many new elements that are not a part of the varnashrama system. For example, there are many subcastes of the brahmin caste, and sub-subcastes, etc. Similarly there are other castes that are thought to be subcastes of one varna or another. Sastras recognize only four varnas - brahmana, kshatriya, vaishya, and shudra. Sastra also recognize a fifth class of individuals - people living outside of Vedic civilization - who do not fall into any of the previous four categories. Note that "Dalit" is not a Vedic designation and, like many of the modern caste designations, has largely come into play for political reasons. The first three varnas - brahmanas, kshatriyas, and vaishyas, are expected to take up initiation and study of the sastras from a very young age. Unfortunately due to the near total breakdown of the educational system, in which traditional gurukulas have been replaced by secular English-medium schools, this is not happening in most cases. While gurukulas teach children to revere the Vedas and to uphold dharma, secular schools specialize in teaching children all sorts of derogatory theories about Hindus/Hinduism/Vedic culture that are promoted by Christian, Muslim, and socialist scholars. If you are born into a Brahmin family then you are expected to take up the role of a Brahmin which means initiation and study of the Veda. You will be called a Brahmin by society whether you do this or not. It therefore behooves you to live up to your duties. I don't know what you mean by "better that everyone else" since there are different standards by which one would compare and judge different people. In my experience, this sort of vague language is usually used to start fights that invariably involve brahmin-bashing. If we are comparing individuals according to spiritual maturity, then a traditionally-raised brahmin will generally be "better" than members of other varnas. After all, he specializes in studying the Vedas and living a simple life. On the other hand, if you are comparing according to prowess, kshatriyas are "better," etc. Why not just follow varnashrama as it is described in the sastras? Which "personality sanyasi cults, gurus, power trippers and dictatorial leaders" are you referring to who long, long ago destroyed the purity of Vedic culture? Historically speaking, Vedic culture was destroyed by repeated foreign invasions, culminating in the British occupation of India in which Indian education was subverted to British and Christian political interests. You simply do what Hindus have been doing for centuries - follow your duties as ordained by sastra and dedicate the fruits of your labor to Sri Vishnu. The first step to becoming a real Vaishnava is to accept initiation from a qualified Vaishnava guru. The second step is to follow that guru's instructions.

What an amazing archaeological find! And it was right there on the internet all along. By the way, here is an excerpt from the intro of that home page: This sounds like Christian propaganda to me. And that last part - help the poor, sustain the feeble, etc. Is this "pure devotional service?"

By "valid" I am referring to acceptability as a source of right knowledge. The Bible is not valid as an *indepedent* authority. It may say a few nice things that anyone can agree with, but its being authored makes it subject to the possibility of having flaws and thus its contents are suspect. If a scripture contains some falsehoods, then it is useless as an independently authoritative scripture, since the reader would then have to use his own judgement in sifting out the true from the false, thus elevating his own sense of discrimination above the authority of the said scripture. This would obviate the need for calling it a scripture in the first place! Everyone knows the Bible depicts "God" as partial and cruel, playing one race against another even by the most conservative of interpretations. But do any of the iskcon christians accept that this is true? Of course not. Moreover, it is well known that the Bible is adulterated with beliefs of many post-Jesus followers - a fact which the iskcon christians agreed to rather explicitly. Of course, they couldn't agree for long, since that is the basis for rejecting its authority in the first place, and they simply cannot have any of that. Basically, they are confused, and all they know is that they must have appreciation for their precious Bible and Christianity even when they acknowledge all the problems of accepting Bible in the first place. This must be the second time I have seen iskcon christians making baseless accusations about the Vedas in order to bring them down to the level of the Bible. I question how people like Theist or gHari can make any claim about the Vedas when they seem so ill-informed about even Bhagavad-Gita, Bhagavata, Mahabharata, etc. And I again question why they make these claims without bothering to try and support them with facts. Perhaps it is because they can only dig up dirt by going to Islamic propaganda websites, as gHari hinted to earlier. That is truly pathetic.

Some wonder why we should bother about the beliefs of certain so-called Vaishnavas. If they want to believe that Jesus was a great avatar and that Christianity was a great religion, shouldn't we leave them to their beliefs? Unfortunately, ignorance does not lead to true knowledge. It only breeds more ignorance. The belief in Jesus as a pure Vaishnava leads foolish people to propose increasingly ludicrous ideas in order to reconcile this theory with fact. Here are numerous examples of this point culled from these very forums and elsewhere: 1) Because Jesus is a pure Vaishnava, his teachings (i.e. Christianity) are also valid in their own context. 2) Since Christianity is a valid religion and Christian scriptures do not forbid cow-slaughter, cows need not be regarded as sacred by everyone - it is ok for Christians to kill and eat cows because their religion is bona fide and does not forbid this. 3) Because Christianity is valid, it is acceptable for Vaishnavas to cozy up with the Christians while being extremely hostile to other Hindus. Thus, in iskcon a very pious brahmana who is vegetarian, a teetotaler, and who does his sandhya vandana religiously every morning during the brahma-muhurta is regarded with contempt and derision if he is not a Vaishnava, while a hamburger-eating Christian who is attracted to drinking liquor and watching nonsense on television is seen as a peer and treated as an equal. 4) Because nothing can be known conclusively about Jesus and Christianity due to the historic reality of Christianity, iskcon followers must now assert that nothing can be known about Vaishnava Vedanta either. We can't really "know" anything, they say - one of the cardinal teachings of ATHEISM. 5) Christians preach the idea that one must have "faith," and that the validity of belief is directly proportional to the strength of one's "faith" in it. Consequently, iskcon vaishnavas who are very taken with Christianity preach the same thing - we shouldn't question stupid ideas masquerading as Vaishnavism - we have to just have "faith" in them. 6) Since Bible is considered valid pramana by iskcon vaishnavas, and Bible is clearly not apaurusheya, the whole concept of apaurusheyatva is abandoned and unappreciated by iskcon vaishnavas. Iskcon vaishnavas consequently accept many degraded literatures as religious scriptures, such as Koran which teaches its followers to violently suppress all other religions and even Kama-Sutra which teaches people about prostitution and enjoying the senses without restriction. I have personally witnessed that some iskcon people think very highly of Kama-Sutra and think that because Vedanta-Sutra and Kama-Sutra both end in "Sutra," therefore Kama-Sutra is one of the "bona fide" kama-shastras of post-Vedic literature. This is the logical result of watering down Vaishnava standards of epistemology with Christian ideas on what constitutes scripture. 7) Since Bible is bona fide even though it preaches hatred of certain ethnic groups and depicts a "God" who is partial and cruel, the Vedas must also have mantras that depict God as partial and cruel, because after all Vedas can't be any better than Bible! So iskcon people will happily go to Jihadi website and lookup where those cruel Veda mantras are so that they can smear the Vedas and satisfy their Christian insecurities. 8) Since Christianity is a "bona fide" religion and its followers identify themselves as disciples of Christ, so it is also ok for Vaishnavas to just identify themselves as disciples of some guru with whom they have never had contact and not go through the process of actually submitting to a qualified, living guru (case in point, most of the so-called "vaishnavas" who have been flaming me who are not even initiated). 9) Jesus is an incarnation of Sri Balarama! 10) Because other Vaishnavas do not accept iskcon's theories about Christianity and Islam, iskcon followers treat those sampradayas and their followers as less enlightened. I have personally seen iskcon people who have not even read one shloka out of bhagavad-gita but will nevertheless criticize stalwart Vaishnava acharyas like Sri Madhvacharya and Sri Ramanuja. 11) "Falldown from Vaikuntha" Does this nonsense sound familiar? Sure it does - the Christians also have their concept of "Fall from Heaven" or "Fall From Grace." This is yet another way in which sympathy with Christianity leads one to adopt beliefs that are not in line with pure Vaishnavism. 12) Not only other sampradayas, but even iskcon vaishnavas disrespect any gaudiya vaishnava gurus who do not agree with their Jesus theories. The Narasingha Swami whose writings I quoted here was denounced as a "fool" by certain so-called Vaishnavas who are not even initiated. 13) Many Vedic practices such as archana, yagna, tapasya, etc are denounced as sectarian "Hindu" rituals because Christianity has no room in its worldview for them. Even much of the Vedas is regarded by iskcon christian sympathizers as too "Hindu" for their taste - real Vaishnavism is then regarded as something completely beyond the Vedas. 14) Since Christianity is supposed to represent "abridged Vaishnavism" or just essentials of Vaishnavism, Bible is given great weight by iskcon vaishnavas while Vedas are denounced as ritualistic writings of Hindu priests. The Bhagavata Purana by contrast treats the Vedas as devotees of Sri Vishnu! 15) Jesus is the "Holy Spirit" of God and he suffered and died on the cross. Therefore, God incarnates in a body of flesh and blood - one of the disgusting and offensive tenets of mayavada! There are so many misconceptions resulting from the unholy union of gaudiya vaishnavism with christianity and it is impossible to do justice to all of them. Suffice it to say that Christianity's influence on iskcon/gaudiya vaishnavism leads to many people propagating ideas in the name of vaishnavism that have nothing to do with vaishnavism.

It is simply impossible to respond to the large volume of irrelevant and off-topic banter. Certain individuals continue to demonstrate a great prejudice against the use of their mental faculties. When challenged to do so, their insecurities manifest themselves, and they take solace in setting up strawmen and knocking them down, patting themselves on the backs all the while. Trying to have a discussion about history and religion with these people is like singing classical music to a herd of monkeys. Let us just bring up the undisputed facts and leave it at that: 1) There are numerous versions of the Bible which differ from each other in content. There is no objective way to conclude which one is supposedly the "original" Bible representing what Jesus taught. 2) The Bible as we know it is not the original writing of Jesus or even of one writing during the time of Jesus. It is a hasty reconstruction of what Jesus was deemed to have taught by widely divergent (and mutually antagonistic) parties at the 4th century Council of Nicea. 3) Points #1 and #2 cast doubt on the authority of the Bible even from a Christian perspective, for they obviously refute the idea that the Bible survives as a single, unaltered edition from the time of Jesus to today. Even though we have no reliable account of the historic Jesus or an unblemished recording of what he taught, certain individuals continue to maintain that Jesus was undoubtedly a pure devotee of Vishnu and his teachings were in some sense simplified Vaishnavism.

An attempt to bring this discussion back on track (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible): Bible refers to the collections of canonicalreligious writings of Judaism and of Christianity.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-0>[1]</SUP> The books that are considered canon in the Bible vary depending upon the historic tradition using or defining it. These variations are a reflection of the range of traditions and councils that have convened on the subject. The Jewish version of the Bible, the Tanakh, is divided into three parts: the Teaching, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Christian version of the Bible includes books of the Tanakh, but includes additional books and reorganizes them into two parts: the books of the Old Testament primarily sourced from the Tanakh (with some variations), and the 27 books of the New Testament containing books originally written primarily in Greek.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-1>[2]</SUP> Some versions of the Christian Bible have a separate Apocrypha section for the books not considered canonical by the tradition or sometimes the publisher. And from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus): The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that Jesus was a GalileanJew, was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman GovernorPontius Pilate because of an accusation of sedition against the Roman Empire.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-3>[4]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=_ref-4>[5]</SUP> Few critical scholars believe that all ancient texts on Jesus' life are either completely accurate<SUP class=reference id=_ref-5>[6]</SUP> or completely inaccurate.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-6>[7]</SUP> <SUP></SUP> <SUP></SUP> <SUP>These are just a few of the many examples one could cite to cast doubt on the attempts of some gaudiya vaishnavas to definitively say anything about the Bible, Christianity, or Jesus. By the way, these are not from Jihadi websites - they are fairly neutral in origin and the points they make are also known to Christian believers who graduate from seminary. </SUP>

Then you also are having trouble with elementary reading comprehension. Learn to use context cues to determine the meaning of a word with multiple dictionary meanings. From context it is *obvious* what I was talking about when I said "corrupted." A lot of the useless arguing here can be avoided if persons such as yourself, Theist, Murali, ghAri, etc could suppress your knee-jerk instincts to disagree and instead take the time to understand what is being written *in* *plain* *English.*

And here we come again, full circle..... How do you even know what Christ's message is???

I don't understand why you think this says what you are claiming that it says. I suppose an explanation is forthcoming, but for now it simply begs the question. Also, and I am sure you probably have some misunderstanding of this as well, but Vedas are not considered to be original works of Sri Vedavyasa by anyone. Even Puranas are not accepted as independently authoritative if they disagree with shruti. Being authored by a "divine being" does not constitute valid pramana. Buddha is Vishnu-avatara but that does not make His teachings about shunyavada correct, for example.

Theist, I can go on making simple, factual statements, and you can go on insulting me to cover up your inability to produce sensible answers to pointed questions about your religious faith. The bottom line is that you are obviously having trouble comprehending what you have written on this thread, to say nothing of comprehending what others have written. This makes it unlikely that you can join anyone in any intelligent discussion, as you seem perenially incapable of offering an original thought on anything beyond a limited and stereotyped set of cursory quips. To date, these programmed responses seem limited to the following key phrases/tactics: (1) "we are transcendental to all religions," (2) accusing anyone you don't like of dodging your questions, (3) grand statements about the religious unity of Vaishnavism and other religions, (4) "Hinduism" or references to Indian ethnicity as a sarcastic explanation for why someone would disagree with you, (5) ad hominem attacks, (6) more ad hominem attacks. Given this extremely limited repertoire of pre-arranged replies, are you certain you aren't a 'bot programmed by some bored CS grad student? For someone who claims to have no interest in discussing this matter with me, you have an uncanny ability to continue returning to the thread with absolutely nothing intelligent to contribute. As far as your alleged interest in cultivating bhakti "free of material designations," I do applaud that. If you are truly serious about cultivating real bhakti, then take up the next logical step, and accept initiation from a qualified Vaishnava guru and study sastras under him. Only by accepting a guru will your many misconceptions get burned away, and you do seem to have a great many misconceptions on some very basic points.