raghu

Yes, I got the point. Like Darwin's theory of evolution or the Big Bang, it can only be "proven" to people who want to believe in it in the first place. So why quote all these verses that do not exist? Just say he is God, this is your opinion, and everyone must believe it on the strength of your opinion.

There would be no fighting if people like you (a) refrained from making prejudiced, sectarian statements (i.e. your comment on the ugly form of Shiva), (b) learned to respect facts and evidence, and © stopped making wild and unfounded claims. But in my experience, people like you continue to be argumentative when you no longer should be, and then you complain that there is too much argument. But you earlier said that this was in the Ramayana. That was a lie. It is NOT in the Ramayana. Why are you having so much trouble with this concept? Simply tell the truth, and do not misrepresent the facts. Now you are trying to turn this into a discussion on the merits of RCM. I don't know what that has to do with anything. Suffice it to say that RCM is not the Ramayana, and that the Ramayana does NOT depict Rama turning into Shiva or vice-versa. Honesty. That's all we need to have a productive discussion.

Whatever. Ramayana and Rama Charita Manasa are not the same. Whoever says that Rama transformed into Shiva in the Ramayana is lying. I don't understand why I must believe in the divinity of Tulasi das. It sounds to me like you are simply repeating certain assumptions as a priori facts and throwing tantrums because the rest of us do not share in those assumptions. Or maybe you just do not want to admit that you were caught misrepresenting the Ramayana.

Of course you are. Will you be answering my question any time soon?

Of course you are. Just out of curiosity, how can you follow a religion that tells you that your parents are damned to hell eternally for being born as Iyers? Isn't that a rather cruel god to sentence someone to Hell for all eternity just for practicing a different religion?

So what about those who can't be with Sai Baba 24x7? How do they get liberation?

Obviously, he bases all his opinions on Google Search Pramana. Got a question about Hinduism? Google it. Question about Raghavendra Swami? Google it. Questions about the meaning of life? Google it. Google has all the answers and will never lead you astray. Whoever heard of inaccurate information on the internet? But Christian missionaries don't follow that logic, or any other logic for that matter. They mostly Google things in their spare time, then take those results out of context and ask stupid questions on Audarya using fake pseudonyms like "Manmohan Singh" and "Tenali Ram." I think we should all go to Christian forums using names like "John the Baptist" and "Moses" and "Joseph" and ask questions like, "How is it that the all compassionate Judeo-Christian God asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son?Why does the Judeo-Christian God make pharoah stubborn and then make Moses question him about releasing the Hebrews? Why does the JC God punish the Egyptians for pharoah's stubborness, which in turn was the result of God's intervetion?"

If we just ignore the Christian missionary, do you guys think he will just go away?

All I denied was the idea that the Ramcharitamanasa is the same as Ramayana. This is a fact since RCM is written by Tulasi dasa and is a recent composition in Hindu, while Ramayana is written by Valmiki and is a much older composition in Sanskrit. Even this was only in response to your dishonest claim that the Ramayana depicts Rama transforming into Shiva and vice-versa. When challenged to substantiate this claim, you then stated that it was from Ramcharitamanasa. Then you claimed that Ramacharitamanasa is same as Ramayana, and you inferred that this happened in Ramayana based on what you read in RCM. And then you admitted you had never read Ramayana. I have read the Ramayana, and when I pointed out that this is not present in Ramayana, you flew into the typical battle rage that occurs when another Hare Krishna has been shown to be incorrect. I really do not understand why you cannot simply acknowledge your mistake and change your views. How does abusing me help you in any way? Why do you persist in repeating mayavadi conclusions based on questionable sources?

Excuse me, but earlier you wrote this: "This is so hard to believe when people in the south are described (in Ramayan) as having features that resemble South Indians today." Where in the Ramayana are such descriptions found? Please back up your claims with evidence.

Fine by me. It still makes me wonder why he would bother with a text that could never enjoy mainstream acceptance. I believe you are assuming quite a bit about me, which I respectfully suggest says more about you. By mentioning the possibility about BV authoring the Chaithanya U, I was merely following the direction that Kulapavana (whom I believe is a Gaudiya Vaishnava - correct me if I am wrong) started. His exact words from earlier in this thread - "It seems that it was Bhaktivinoda Thakur himself who wrote that text for the sake of preaching. At times Bhaktivinoda would pretend to be a Baul so that he could better preach to Bauls (see his Baul Sangeet). He did not do it for money - he did it for a good cause. I find such actions much less problematic than accepting money raised by very questionable means for the sake of building a spiritual mission. Once you believe that end justifies the means, it is a very slippery slope." and Unfortunately, the evidence in the form of how Gaudiya Vaishnavism is practiced is not consistent with your view that Chaithanya's divinity is irrelevant or unimportant. Let us take iskcon as an example. In iskcon books, including the ones distributed to people on the streets, the divinity of Sri Chaithanya is stated everywhere as if it were an obvious fact. In the Preface and Introduction to Bhagavad Gita As It Is, Chaithanya is referred to as "Lord Chaithanya" repeatedly. In Sri Chaithanya Charitamrita, one of iskcon's main books, the second chapter of the first section has an extensive description of his divinity and the reasons for his advent. Then again in Bhagavata commentary of Prabhupada again we see arguments in the purports about how some verses really mean Chaithanya even though such references are oblique to say the least. In iskcon gatherings which are open to the public, Sri Chaithanya is customarily referred to as Lord Chaithanya, non-different from Krishna, etc. If Chaithanya's divinity is not so important, then why does Prabhupada go through so much trouble to establish it in the basic books which his rank-and-file followers read? Why do iskcon followers casually repeat such assumptions even to novice seekers who come to their temples? You can say whatever you want about Ramanuja and Madhva, but my observation is that their followers do not emphasize their "avatar status" anywhere near as much as Gaudiyas emphasize Chaithanya's avatar status. I believe I acknowledged both points. I never claimed that they were "cheaters." Frankly speaking you are obfuscating the issue. The issue is that Gaudiyas (see postings of rahalkar, sant, and sonic yogi previously) repeatedly present this "evidence" even today arguing for Chaithanya's divinity, and that too despite the fact that there is no way for anyone to cross-examine the evidence. Their attitude towards this "evidence" is hardly neutral. They will be happy if we accept it; they will be hostile if we do not. I never see Gaudiyas issuing disclaimers to the effect that this evidence is from pramanas that were lost over time. But always I do see the same evidence being posted all over the internet in attempt to convince the uninformed public of the correctness of a view (which you claim against all observable facts is actually unimportant in gaudiya vaishnava doctrine). Faith in supernatural occurrences in the Puranas is not the issue. If the Purana clearly says that Sri Krishna took avatara as a 16th century Bengali bhakta, then no one can deny that the Purana says it. The issue is whether or not it was actually said in the Purana in the first place. Let us not confuse belief in supernatural events described in the Puranas with unquestioning faith that a spurious reference does in fact come from a Purana. There are numerous references quoted by Gaudiyas across a wide variety of sources pointing to Sri Chaitanya's divinity. If we are honest and objective, we have to acknowledge that every single, clear-cut reference to Sri Chaithanya's divinity is always from a "lost portion" of some smriti and thus must be accepted on faith. Rather strange coincidence, don't you think? More importantly, despite all these numerous references, we see that hardly one of them is known by any source outside the Caithanya sampradaya. Once again, another convenient coincidence. Of course, none of this would be an issue if Caithanya's followers did not insist so strongly on proclaiming his divinity. But since they do, expect people to express legitimate doubts. In response to "He [Madhavendra Puri] was "greatly celebrated," and yet there is no record of him in the mAdhva mathas." you wrote: I guess this depends on how you define "well known" or "greatly celebrated." In any case, I was not arguing anything all here. It was Sonic Yogi who claimed that Madhavendra Puri was a "greatly celebrated" Madhva ascetic, to which I pointed out that there is no record of him in the Madhva Maths. If you want to believe that he was a "greatly celebrated, well known" Madhva ascetic despite the fact that (a) there is no mention of him in the Madhva maths, (b) he did not have a Madhva name and, © he did not possess a Madhva philosphical outlook (as per Sonic Yogi), then by all means be my guest! In response to, "This is unlike, say, the IshAvAsya upanishad, which all sampradayas have. If you quote from IshAvAsya upanishad to say, an Advaitin, he has to accept the evidence and either accept your interpretation or be able to offer a better interpretation. But he cannot simply ignore it, because IshAvAsya is known to be genuine across different sampradayas. The same is not true of Chaithanya Upanishad." you wrote: If you believe an Upanishad's authenticity is not relevant, then why quote from it or any other "scripture" at all? Just give your own opinion and leave it at that. Why bother with "Chaithanya Upanishad" or "Allah Upanishad" or any of these other dubious references? What is the point of quoting from a scripture whose authenticity only you accept? To say that something is "Upanishad" or "shruti" carries a certain distinction in Vedic culture regarding its origins and authenticity. The vast majority of these later, so-called "Upanishads" are either authored texts or simply texts that do not enjoy widespread acceptance because they are only known to one sect, not preserved, etc. Some of these texts contain views that you will no doubt find repulsive. These include references to Advaitic concepts of moksha, belief in oneness of Vishnu and Shiva, belief in supremacy of Durga, etc. If someone quotes from such sources will you accept their validity and modify your own point of view to accommodate their "evidence?" I never claimed that the universally accepted Upanishad list was large. On the contrary, it is pretty much limited to 11-12 Upanishads. And naturally, Chaithanya Upanishad is not among them. It has nothing to do with "blaming one and forgiving the other." No one from your rival mathas is publishing obscure "lost over time" evidence on the internet to glorify their acharya as an avatar. Time and again it is only gaudiya vaishnavas who are doing this. Well, Swami Narayan followers quote from an obscure Skandha Purana reference establishing his divinity. Do you accept it, or are you rejecting it based on prejudice? If Sai Baba followers similarly quote from an even more obscure source about his divinity, can you rationally reject it or is that too based on prejudice? We don't need to turn this into another form of moral relativism. The honest approach would be to simply avoid using obscure, non-mainstream evidence to prove anything, especially on internet forums to impressionable young minds. Which is it? That they were humble, or that books were not as universally available? One explanation contradicts the other. If no challenge was issued because their books were not universally available, then this nullifies the argument that the lack of challenge implies acceptance. If no one challenged because they were "humble," then I must ask - what does humility have to do with it? If a Sai Baba quotes an obscure tantra proving his divinity, then am I arrogant for questioning it? Please clarify. Similarly, we cannot know the full glories of the Supreme Lord. We cannot know all of the different forms that He can take. But we cannot use this logic to suggest that a particular person is actually His avatar. Nor can we use this logic to suggest that an unknown shastra should be accepted as authentic. I can acknowledge that there are other shastras and other Upanishads that are authentic and that I do not know about. But if we are honest, we must admit that we do now know what those other shastras are. So if someone presents one of them that is not accepted in the broader Vedanta tradition, we must take exception to their standard of evidence. We cannot simply accept any bizarre or obscure text on the plea that we do not know "all" of the Vedas and that not accepting such texts is based on prejudice. There has to be some discrimination too. JNd, The Bhavishya Purana verses predicting Jesus say that King Salivahana fought with the Romans. Historically, we know that no such conflict existed. Is it possible that Salivahana fought with Rome and we do not know about it? Possibly, but extremely unlikely. Similarly, there are other historical inaccuracies in that text. All available evidence points to interpolation, and rejection of such verses seems more intelligent than blind acceptance. You can argue all you want about our limited knowledge of the full Veda, etc, but at the end of the day we have to think and make decisions based on what is possible and what is probable. It is possible that the Romans invaded India, against everything that we know to be true historically. But it is more probable that this misconception was in the mind of the author of these spurious verses. Problem is that "many scholars" in Bengal and Orissa have different opinions. Some like Prabhupada. Others hate Bhaktivinod. Some like iskcon. Others think it is deviant, etc. Everyone claims they are representing the real Gaudiya Vaishnavism and that the others are different, impure, untrue, etc. And despite the heterogeneity, Gaudiya Vaishnavas do not hesitate to state authoritatively that their views are right and all other GV views are wrong. Then when taken to task, we are told that no one has the official view. But once that silences us, again the fighting starts with everyone claiming that they have the official view. It is not really clear who one must go to get the real story on Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Not Chaithanya since he only left 8 verses. Not the gosvamis, since they never acknowledged the Madhva-Gaudiya parampara. And so on and so on. Rubbish. I have not singled out any specific Gaudiya Vaishnava as representative of the group. I have been listening to everyone's opinions, even whey they contradict each other, as Kulapavana, theist, Sonic Yogi, ghAri, et al. often do. But one thing that is common to most of them is their aggressively public stance about Sri Caitanya's divinity, despite your attempts to downplay this. Perhaps you all need to discuss amongst yourselves what your priorities are instead of ascribing impure motivations to me.

Despite the fact that you are spewing anti-Brahmin hate speech, i actually feel sorry for you. It is obvious that you have bought into the Marxist class-conflict paradigm and cannot help but see Hinduism through this lens. Small wonder then that you want a religion without brahmins which makes you feel empowered and obviates the need to accept any authority. Obviously, blaming brahmins for all the problems of the world is yet another way by which Neo-Hinduism is rationalized.

I understood that perfectly well. It really isn't relevant here. If it matters, I was mostly referring to the New Testament. What?!?!? How can you be a Vaishnava and not believe in Jesus? Don't you know that Jesus is a pure devotee of Krishna? You Offender! Theist will now have to put you in his ignore list. (p.s. to Sant, this is sarcasm) Thanks for clarifying your views on this. I did not realize christbusters.com was your website. I am sure Theist will want to have words with you regarding this. Let the fireworks begin! Most days I dislike the distance and separation which the internet forces upon us. Today is not one of those days.

Yes, I've been beaten at my own argument. Please forgive me for my offenses. I simply cannot debate with you.

No, sambya. Punctuating your sentences with more than one exclamation mark is an excellent example of egoism. I don't need special ascii characters to make my points. I prefer clear thinking and referencing facts. When one has a well-informed basis for disagreeing with a religion or religious movement, the Neo-Hindu is apt to liken it to intolerance. Nothing new here. What important questions, Sambya? There is about as much intelligent content in your postings as there is in a doorknob. If you insist on going round and round in circles, don't expect me to rescue you from your self-imposed myopia. You're upset because you are a neo-Hindu and you cannot tolerate anyone pointing out the endless differences between Neo-Hinduism and traditional Hinduism. But they are different. Neo-Hinduism is the product of Westernized thinkers with a penchant for secularism and atheism. Would you like me to quote from Swami Vivekananda himself to show this? Abusing me is not going to change anything. Neo-Hinduism is what it is - an illegitimate successor to a grand and dignified tradition. Deal with it.

Not true. I offered a very clear and concise definition on "Hinduism" based on its historical usage in the Neo-Hinduism thread and elsewhere. It's not my fault that you can't read. That's strange. gHari and theist say that I've been ridiculing the Gaudiyas all along and that I am a smartha caste brahmin. Whereas you say that I am ridiculing Neo-Hindus and favoring Gaudiyas. Would you guys like to get together and decide what your story is going to be? Not true. Frankly I think many Hare Krishnas are Neo-Hindus. Also not true. Only you are rubbish. Everything else is worthy of discussion. I have no idea what it is you are trying to say here. No doubt you are experiencing such a fit of rage that it is interefering with your ability to communicate clearly. When you are done wiping the spittle off your monitor, would you like to repost what it is exactly that you are trying to say? If clear thinking and intellectual honesty make me anti-Hindu, then I guess I'm guilty as charged. I have subjected Gaudiya Vaishnava ideas to the same sword with which I have subjected Neo-Hinduism ideas. But being a Neo-Hindu, I suppose you only saw what you wanted to see. Truth hurts. And the truth is that Neo-Hinduism is a real entity which has aggressively usurped the position of Hinduism in the minds of many. Your temper tantrum is an example of why one cannot argue with Neo-Hinduism at all - because Neo-Hindus can only rely on hearsay and disjointed thinking to articulate their views, much like the Hare Krishnas!

Sant, please take a course on elementary reading comprehension. And while you're at it, it wouldn't hurt for you to grow up a little and get a bit of maturity before coming to forums like these and picking fights.

As a matter of fact I have. By the way, have you? Since it was your claim that he was a "greatly celebreated" Madhva sannyasi you must surely have some evidence to back that up. So let me see if I have gotten this straight. He was a greatly celebrated Madhva ascetic who took sannyasa initiation from a mayavadi? Accepted by whom? There is still no historical record of a Madhavendra Puri or even of Lakshmipati Tirtha from whom he supposedly took diksha in the Madhva Maths. Casting stones at me is not going to change that. I think the issue was your claim that he was "greatly celebrated." Whatever else you believe about the Astha-Matha parampara listings, you can be quite certain that they will include all "greatly celebreated" individuals. Whatever you say, Sonic.

All acharyas did. Likely this is due to those pramAnas being lost over time. But the difference is that Madhvacharya's core tenets are based on pramAnas which are still extant, whereas Gaudiya Vaishnava view that Chaithanya = Krishna is only to be found in obscure references that no one has heard of and are only acceptable to Gaudiyas. In Madhva's time, no one questioned the authenticity of many of the sources he quoted from. Whereas among Gaudiyas, there is internal dissent about such things as "Chaithanya Upanishad" as we have seen here.

Now you see, this is exactly what I have been saying all along about the Bible. Except that when I say it, the Hare Krishnas fly into a rage, whereas when one of their own says it, then there is no problem. The only real difference between my position and your position regarding the Bible is that your conclusion is not logical. Why? Because you are still rationalizing the acceptance of "half the hen!" Let us break it down: 1) Christianity is the religion of the Bible 2) Bible represents (at least theoretically) the teachings of Jesus. 3) Through Bible, teachings of Jesus and understanding of Jesus' position as son of God, savior, etc is known. 4) Yet, Bible has been interpolated over the years (Sonic Yogi just admitted this above). 5) Since we know some parts of Bible have been subject to interpolation, it stands to reason that other parts of Bible could also have been interpolated/adulterated (logically follows from point #4). 6) Therefore we do now know what parts of Bible really represent what Jesus taught. 7) Therefore any doctrine (divinity of Jesus, exclusivity of Jesus, alleged teachings of Jesus) based on the Bible is similarly suspect. So why go through all the trouble of accepting a religion based solely on a set of scriptures which you admit have been adulterated over the years? We can't trust the Bible, as you have just admitted. You can suspect that some parts of the BIble have been interpolated, but you cannot rule out the possibility that other parts have been interpolated. So why go gaga over Jesus? Everything you know about Jesus is *from* the Bible, which you just admitted is adulterated by people coming after Jesus!

He was "greatly celebrated," and yet there is no record of him in the mAdhva mathas. This is nothing more than sectarian propaganda invented by Gaudiyas to rationalize their differences with mAdhvas. I think you and I both know that you have *no* *basis* at all for your prejudiced remark to the effect that mAdhva vaishnavas had no love of God, other than the silly, childish logic to the effect of "they did ritualistic ceremonies, therefore they had no love of Godhead."

Prior to Gaudiyas, I have not heard of so much emphasis on a fabricated scripture that deifies the acharya. Of course, Ramanuja followers believe that Ramanuja is an incarnation of Adi Sesha. But this isn't emphasized, and it is not offered as any sort of rationalization for his philosophy. Tattvavadis consider Madhva to be an incarnation of Vayu (he himself also made this claim). But again, this isn't emphasized or required to believe in Tattvavada. Now pardon me for saying this, as I intend no disrespect for your tradition, but there is a world of difference between writing something that is obviously a fiction vs writing a fiction and passing it off as an unauthored text. Upanishads are unauthored texts. Being part of the Veda, they enjoy the same authority as the Vedas. The whole point of referring to shruti is that everyone accepts the shruti as authority, because in all paramparas we still see that the shrutis are still being passed down in oral tradition. Now, it should be obvious why an obscure so-called shruti that is only known to one parampara cannot be reliable as evidence. The point is, if Chaithanya Upanishad is a real shruti but is only known to one parampara, then its authority is irrelevant, since no one else can verify its authenticity. This is unlike, say, the IshAvAsya upanishad, which all sampradayas have. If you quote from IshAvAsya upanishad to say, an Advaitin, he has to accept the evidence and either accept your interpretation or be able to offer a better interpretation. But he cannot simply ignore it, because IshAvAsya is known to be genuine across different sampradayas. The same is not true of Chaithanya Upanishad. In the more likely scenario where Bhaktivinod actually "wrote" this Upanishad, the question that is raised is how such outright duplicity can be considered acceptable in the propagation of one's sampradaya. To the best of my knowledge, Bhaktivinod did not claim he was writing it. The text was being passed off as a genuine Upanishad. If he had written about Chaithanya as a drama or some such thing, there would be no issues. But he wrote it as if it were an Upanishad, meaning he wanted us to accept that it was a part of the eternal, unauthored corpus of Vedic texts. I'm sorry to have to say this, but that comes across as bad scholarship and makes it difficult for one to trust anything he says, however many other good qualities he may have.

Thank you for clarifying. If you are trying to speak from the position of a student, you are not doing a very good job of it. Most of what you have been doing on these forums has consisted of teaching rather than learning. Even your teaching leaves something to be desired, since you have consistently been hostile to just about every viewpoint that does not match your own, and have shown disinterest in examining facts or evidence and assessing ideas on their merits. But anyway, your definition of "student" might be different from the standard English dictionary. It is strange to me that on one hand you say you are a student of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, yet you attack the credibility of other Gaudiya Vaishnavas because they do not to your views.

Why is it necessary for someone to fabricate an Upanishad for "preaching?" Especially when the basic thrust of the fabricated text is that your acharya is God? Why does one's acharya have to be deified for the sake of acharya?

Whether you talk to Hare Krishnas or Ramakrishnas, in the end their reasoning process and epistemology can be reduced to one simple principle: They are right, and they do not need to provide any evidence to back it up.