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 think there's intolerance from both sides. Whilst iskconite intolerance is similar to christianity, hindu intolerance is somewhat peculiar, in that Hindus cannot tolerate anyone who doesn't share their view that all paths are valid etc. This also is intolerance, though not half as dangerous as the iskconite variety. It's more an annoying habit of the hindus to attack anyone who refuses to believe 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

Didi Indulekha, people criticize Iskcon because Iskcon criticizes everybody, even their closest sangas. Because Iskcon devotees go overboard in their generalizations and simplifications, many people dismiss Iskcon as a bunch of wanabe bhaktas who have very little clue of what a proper Vaishnava behavior is, or what is the standard of vedic knowledge. It all starts at home. Action and reaction.

 

Iskcon devotees don't even use a broad brush to paint others - they use spray paint

Once again, here is the pompous statement that the iskcon devotee made which got this thread really hot:

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.

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.

I wonder why 'Lord Jesus' enjoys so much attention among Vaishnavas, considering that he is about as far from Vaishnavism as possible.

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!

5) Sri Hari does not do anything that isn't in the sastras. Therfore, he did not 'send' Jesus or Mohammed.

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.

Coming to the Sloka,

 

Sarva Dharman Parityajya Mam Ekam Saranam Vraja,

Aham Tva Sarva Papebhyo Mokshayisyami Masuchaha.

 

There are many meanings hidden in this sloka, and it is called a 'Rahasya Mantra' (Secret Mantra) by Sri Vaishnavas due to its hidden meanings. Strictly speaking, I am not supposed to reveal it in public (against the sastras), but since we are all Vaishnavas here, I guess there is no harm.

 

I will post the meanings in another thread. It is too big to post here.

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."

Good point. Few are really interested in transcending the material domain and so we make a religion out of Lord Caitanya's movement, identify with it as ourselves, feel separate from others and their "faiths".

 

But this is not limited to Iskcon or Gaudiya Vaisnavas.

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.

The symptom of this mentality is shown as soon as one starts to speak of Vaisnavism as a product of this mundane world, started by a certain class of people, in a certain tract of land, at a certain time in history, and characterized by certain cultural and religious rituals etc.

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.

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.

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."

Certainly, our acharyas have refuted advaita. When I say 'valid', I mean it is indeed Vedic, and its practice is not condemned by the Vedas or by Lord Narayana, as many people think.

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.

The whole concept of 'ishta-devta' is nothing more than a concoction by neo-vedantins. All our Sri Vaishnava Acharyas indeed accept advaitins as Vaishnavas. Even Sri Ramanujar, who defeated so many advaitins, did so only based on their philosophy. He never had to argue the supremacy of Narayana.

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.

Many of our Sri Vaishnava acharyas were former advaitins (Nanjeeyar, Yajnamurthy, etc.). They were defeated only in philosophy and not in the deity concept. Narayana was Brahman for all advaitins at that time.

Obviously worship is rarely the issue. Rather, it one's understanding of the tattvas and their relationships(s) that is the point.

Read this:

 

Who is the author of this quote?

According to the present day advaitins, SrI Adi Sankara Bhagavad

pAdAL was a great synthesizer of all these six religions and

that it is well incorporated within the advatia vEdAnta. Anyone

of these specific six dEvatas can thus be considered as

saguNa-brahman for them and intense devotion unto them will make

these persons fit to receive the teachings of mahAvAkyas from a

Guru. But, unbiassed scholars are of the opinion that SrI Adi

Sankara recognized only Lord NArAyana as the SaguNa-Brahman, since

in all of his commentaries on SAstras like Upanishads-Brahma

SUtras-Bhagavad GIta-VishNu SahasranAma, he has equated only Lord

NArAyana to SaguNa-Brahman and all other dEvatas as being

sub-ordinate to Him. According to these scholars, some stotras

etc on other dEvatas as being SaguNa-Brahman, attributed to SrI

Adi Sankara is a later fabrication.

 

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.

In Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swamy's site, (an eminent Sri Vaishnava acharya who gives discourses), an advaitin asked him a question and he gave the answer. Here it is:

 

Question ID: 11 - Namaskarams to my Guru I am a saivaite(Smarta) by birth.Actually I feel that we do not observe any thing exclusively to identify us as Saivaites. The Great 12 Namas of Vishnu are said during Sandhya Vandanam, The Shrardams are performed before " Prathyaksha Mahavishnu" and most of the offerings made to AAdi Narayanan .and Sarvam is Krishnarpanamasthu . I do believe that Sriman Narayanan is the Supreme Lord. I would like to start my religious quest in a more ardent way. Like the true Vaushnavite can have a Samashrayanam what is possible for me being a woman. Kindly clarify. Namaskarams Kala - Question By - Kala.

 

Answer by Swami: smarthas are not saivites. They are all vaishnavas only. You have rightly identified that there are no prostrations to Siva in our daily anushthanams which itself proves the earlier statement. You can get samasrayanam administered provided you have well understood the significance of it. This cannot be explained in mail. You have to meet an acharya in person to get all needed inputs about this.

 

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.

I do not know about Gaudiya or Madhva Vaishnavas, but Sri Vaishnavas accept the Smartas as Vaishnavas, definitely. The mordern day Smartas worship demigods and mistakenly consider Adi Sankara to have been an advocator of such systems. But it is all false and the corruption of advaita lineage happened in the 16th century roundabouts. Until then, all advaitins were Vaishnavas.

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.

Vaishnavism means worship of Vishnu, or acceptance of Vishnu as ultimate. It does not mean bhakti is a prerequisite to be a Vaishnava. Of Course, Bhakti is naturally the superior way, but even if you consider the Self to be Vishnu and that Vishnu has no attributes, you are a Vaishnava.

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."

When you are locked into an identification with a form, you have set rules and limitations.

 

When you are locked into identification with the formless, there are no rules or limitations.

 

This is why it is far easier to explain God to a young child. They don't have the decades of belief fencing them in. They are open, and willing to entertain possibilities. They'll judge later, but for now, they enjoy the innocence that life brings. They are in a constant state of bliss because of it.

 

To enter the kingdom, you must become like a child once again.

 

Feel more. Think less.

 

 

 

x

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.

Raghu, there are a number of verses in which the Shvetashvatara Upanishad names the Deity as Hara (1.10), Rudra (3.2, 4.5, 4.12, 4.21) and Shiva (3.5, 4.14, 5.14). The words Girishanta and Giritra (3.5-6) would seem to refer to Shiva's abode in Kailasa.

 

The theology of the Upanishad is rather similar to that of the Bhagavad Gita, which quotes it on occasion, but it is equally similar to the Shaiva Siddhanta. I don't see much within it that would make me think it is a Vaishnava text.

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.

I would agree that the Shvetashvatara proposes a form of qualified dualism with Shiva as the Supreme Deity. But I think you would be hard pressed to find an emphasis on bhakti there. There is acceptance of separate Deity but not much by way of instruction to engage in acts of worship or to develop a mood of devotion. There is very little about bhakti in the major Upanishads.

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:

I was referring to long long ago, when leaders of Vedic culture became corrupt, (not everyone as the Parampara disciplic chain of succession shows us)

Such corruption going on over thousands of years, ALLOWED the invading tribes to plunder, rape and steal in the land of Bharatavarsa. The fall of the Vedic culture caused that, allowed it to happen

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:

No you are wrong in your understanding, the onset of Kali-yuga was brought on by the corruption of most of the Vedic culture and the leadership which includes cast Brahmins, sages, gurus, so called sadus.

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

I was referring to long long ago, when leaders of Vedic culture became corrupt, (not everyone as the Parampara disciplic chain of succession shows us)

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.

Such corruption going on over thousands of years, ALLOWED the invading tribes to plunder, rape and steal in the land of Bharatavarsa. The fall of the Vedic culture caused that, allowed it to happen

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.

Where does the caste system stand today?

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.

Just because I have Brahmin thread or born into a Brahmin family,

 

does that make me Brahmin

 

 

How do you become a real Vaishnava

 

 

 

 

without imitation or acting?

 

 

 

 

Haribol!

I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to cause anymore of an upstart, but I found something kind of interesting that has a lot to do with this thread.

It's a lost gospel that talks about a man named Isha who came from Israel following a caravan going to India, studied in the Jagannatha Temple in Puri, was thrown out by the priests for associating too much with the "Shudras" (I like Gandhi's name for them better... Harijans... but I digress), and went into the mountains where he learned the message of the Buddha and, after leaving the Buddhist monastery, went to study and meditate with Shaiva gurus. It says that after he went back to the west, he was crucified and the heavens cried out and blackness covered the earth. It says that while he was interred, his guru came to him and raised him up, and he went back to India to initiate others in the cult of the Linga. It's in a Buddhist monastery in the Himalayas... kinda weird... Here's the document:

http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa1.htm

 

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:

... He passed his time in several ancient cities of India such as Benares. All loved him because Issa dwelt in peace with Vaishas and Shudras whom he instructed and helped. But the Brahmins and Kshatriyas told him that Brahma forbade those to approach who were created out of his womb and feet. The Vaishas were allowed to listen to the Vedas only on holidays and the Shudras were forbidden not only to be present at the reading of the Vedas, but could not even look at them.

 

Issa said that man had filled the temples with his abominations. In order to pay homage to metals and stones, man sacrificed his fellows in whom dwells a spark of the Supreme Spirit. Man demeans those who labor by the sweat of their brows, in order to gain the good will of the sluggard who sits at the lavishly set board. But they who deprive their brothers of the common blessing shall be themselves stripped of it. Vaishas and Shudras were struck with astonishment and asked what they could perform. Issa bade them "Worship not the idols. Do not consider yourself first. Do not humiliate your neighbor. Help the poor. Sustain the feeble. Do evil to no one. Do not covet that which you do not possess and which is possessed by others."

 

This sounds like Christian propaganda to me. And that last part - help the poor, sustain the feeble, etc. Is this "pure devotional service?"

But Christianity today universally accepts the old testament as the word of God. So it seems you are basically agreeing with Raghu that 99% of all Christians in the world follow a fake religion, as their religion in based on the old testiment. Also when you say you don't believe in the old testiment you are basically agreeing with Raghu that the bible is corrupted. The only difference in opinion seems to be the degree. He feels there is nothing valid, and you feel there are some things valid in the bible.

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.

Indra is not God, nor a perfect being. So there is no comparison. You would have to cite cases of Vishnu acting cruelly in order for there to be a valid comparison.

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>

I meant it in this sense:

"immoral or dishonest: immoral or dishonest, especially as shown by the exploitation of a position of power or trust for personal gain"

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.*

Christ's message is the same as Krsna's,

And here we come again, full circle.....

How do you even know what Christ's message is???

http://vedabase.net/sb/1/5/en

 

 

 

Are you thoroughly honest?

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.

raghu, I don't say this lightly. You are a fool. It was RadheRade who asked you for proff of where JESUS'S teachings had been corrupted and you failed to produce. Instead you chided him about his english for some reason. When I pointed this out to you, you present a quote from me, out of context, about how I don't accept the Old Testament as a pure scripture. Another dodge.

 

Someone starts a thread to glorify a devotees devotional service and here you come to piss on his sacrifical fire. Simply a disturbance and nothing more. Please pull your head back into your box schoolboy we have no desire to join you in there. We want to cultivate bhakti free from temporary religious designations.

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.