raghu

Now this is interesting. Sonic, you previously chided me for considering you to be a Gaudiya Vaishnava and taking anything you said about Gaudiya Vaishnavism seriously. Now here you are, despite not being a Gaudiya Vaishnava, telling someone else that he is not a representative of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Logically, that requires that you know what Gaudiya Vaishnavism is. Are you or are you not a Gaudiya Vaishnava? Also, who is your Gaudiya Vaishnava guru from whom you took initiation? Please, no verbose and evasive tirades against Hinduism or mayavada. Just answer these two very simple questions so that we can all understand where you are coming from.

OK, when you make prejudiced comments like this about Hindu culture, I think it only fair to analyze and give a rebuttal. First of all, the culture that you say has "misused" the term Vaishnava has produced commentaries on the Upanishads, Vedanta Sutras, Bhagavad-gita, and Bhagavatam which emphasize Vaishnavism. Now in contrast, the culture that you represent, despite supposedly having had the benefit of a pure devotee, free of all mundane designations, has produced numerous degraded swamis who have committed every vulgar and degraded act known to history in just a few short decades. After Prabhupada, we have yet to even see one worthwhile commentary on any scripture that serves the cause of propagating Vaishnavism. And by "commentary," I mean precisely that - a verse by verse explanation of a particular scripture, not the "Christ and Krishna" comic books that are standard fare. So believe whatever you want. But listen to the facts. And since you are ignoring me, we thankfully do not have to hear you spewing any more anti-Hindu venom in response to this, and others will have the benefit of looking at the facts and deciding for themselves.

Or better yet, "In God we trust, all others pay cash up front."

Samyba, First of all, you should know better than to try and have an intelligent conversation with Theist. Just as he should know better than to try and have an intelligent conversation with you. Or maybe both of you really do not know, which is precisely the problem here. Sri Krishna's statement that anya-devata worship is "avidhi-pUrvakam" is very clear and does not require any interpretation to water down the sense of the verse. In 7.21, Sri Krishna explains that it is He who facilitates one's worship of anya-devatas. Then in 7.22 He states that the benefits granted by worship of anya-devatas are actually granted by Him. Then in 7.23 He distinguishes between the destination reached by anya-devata worship and worship of Himself. He also states there that the fruits of anya-devata worship are temporary. Then in 9.20-21 Sri Krishna says the same thing (viz temporary fruits of anya-devata worship) albeit in a different way. So what is the conclusion? BG 9.23 - those who worship anya-devatas actually worship Sri Krishna but without proper knowledge. Proper knowledge of what? Of the fact that He is the ultimate enjoyer of all sacrifices as stated in BG 9.24. And of the fact that desiring the temporary fruits granted through anya-devata worship instead of the lasting benefits of Vishnu worship is due to improper understanding. Hence, the real goal of the Vedas is Vishnu - "vedaish cha sarvair aham eva vedyaH" (Gita 15.15). You can translate avidhi-pUrvakam however you want, "in a wrong way,without proper knowledge,out of the common way." But the sense is very clear. Bhagavad-gita clearly distinguishes between Krishna worship and anya-devata worship, and there is simply no way of getting around that.

You're right. The case is closed. You don't know what you are talking about, and are just blindly repeating the conclusions of what you think is "academic research." Come back when you have reviewed the evidence, and then we will discuss.

Once again, Theist's exact words: And once again, Prabhupada's exact words:

The evidence I was referring to is in the Ramayana, in the two chapters (17 and 18 of Kishkindha kanda) immediately following Rama striking down Vali. In the first chapter, Vali gives his arguments as to why Rama's conduct was improper. In the second chapter, Rama elucidates Vali's transgressions, such as his banishment of Sugriva and his usurping of Sugriva's wife, which was tantamount to incest. The basic gist of it was that Vali deserved to be punished rather than rewarded with fair one-on-one combat with another kshatriya. It is something like the way Karna was killed by Arjuna, deprived of the chance to get a fitting warrior's death because he had stood idly by and refused to protect Draupadi. Vali accepts Rama's arguments as indicated by the shlokas at the end of the 18th chapter and then begged His pardon. The idea that Rama lacked the ability to kill Vali "fairly" is nonsense. The same Ramayana states that He single-handedly killed 14,000 demons belonging to Ravana's army in Janasthan. Of course, you may choose not to believe that, but then why believe that Rama killed Vali as a sniper from behind a tree? Accept all of it or none of it for the sake of argument. Just be consistent. As usual, I see that Sonic Yogi completely missed the point.

Sorry, but I don't take instructions from people who claim to God. Especially when they can't get a decent web page. :-)

Smaranam, Please do not make claims about not being able to see differences between obviously different philosophies such as Tattvavada (aka Dvaita) and Advaita. When these acharyas have gone through such troubles to develop their philosphies, it is very disrespectful of you to simply gloss over them and say that you cannot see any difference.

So now even Sai Baba and Swami Narayan are avatars according to Sant. This just gets better and better.

Is this not, word-for-word, what I said earlier in regards to "Hinduism?" Of course it is. Jahnava-Nitai das is an offender who is running the risk of being put in Theist's ignore list. But in any case it does not matter - whether Theist ignores you or not, it is fairly obvious that he has not grasped what is being told to him in plain English. As usually, he is trying to turn a simple discussion about language into a complicated discussion on metaphysics (which he also does not understand from the looks of it). If I ever needed an operating definition of the word "Fanatic," then this would be it - a person who insists on spewing the same nonsense over and over again even when simple, cool-headed logic is offered to explain why he is in error.

This is the logic of half the hen. The Bible is the scripture that says that Jesus is a valid path to God. However, the same Bible also says that Jesus is the only valid path to God: Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. " (John 14:6) Now the point here is obvious. If the Biblical statements preaching exclusivity are invalid, then why isn't the rest of the Bible by the very fact suspect? This is just like kaisersose criticizing Rama for killing Vali from behind, but then ignoring the two chapters in the Ramayana afterwards in which Rama explained why He punished Vali in this way, and Vali accepting this punishment and praising Sri Rama. You are just taking the parts that suit you and ignoring the parts that contradict you.

This is all fine and good, and I wish you the best. But whatever your motivations are, please do not use that as an excuse to misrepresent the facts i.e. by falsely claiming that there is no difference between Dvaita and Advaita.

Looks like all the same quotes, once again without any verse numbers, making it more than likely that these are all spurious. But then that is Hare Krishna methodology of debate - if someone questions the validity of something you say, just repeat it over and over again. For Hare Krishnas, falsehoods get turned into truth merely through the act of repetition.

Better yet, can you post your evidence for everything you have claimed?

Really? Can you quote scriptural evidence that varna was originally not related by birth? Note that I am asking for evidence that this was the general view, not exceptions. Because from what I can see, and based on the Vedic literatures that we all know and accept, there is plenty of evidence that people were chosen based on their birth, and then forced into following the system that made them qualified. Let us look at a few examples: Rama was born to Maharaja Dasharatha. Dasharatha was a kshatriya, and so Rama and His brothers were all kshatriyas. Arjuna was born as a kshatriya, and he was required to adhere to his kshatriya duty. He was not allowed to give up fighting and become a brahmin. Drona was a brahmin by birth, yet he took the profession of a kshatriya. Still, he was referred to as a brahmin throughout the Mahabharata. Ashvatthama was a brahmin by birth, being Drona's son. Despite being a murderer of children he was still referred to as a brahmin. Other examples of people whose varna followed from their birth: all of the Pandavas, all of the Kshatriyas, Parashurama, all of the warriors who fought on Kurukshetra battlefield, practically all of the kings who are named in all of the puranas and epics, all of the brahmins mentioned in the same, etc. Now against this evidence I can think of only two exceptions. Vishvamitra - he was a kshatriya and only became a brahmarishi after thousands of years of penance. Vyasa - he was the son of Parasara Muni and a fisherman's daughter. However, these appear to be exceptions instead of the rule. In summary, your view that birth was not relevant to varna in the classical tradition appears to be politically-correct, Neo-Vedantic white wash with little basis in the facts. The actual evidence indicates that people were known by the varna of their birth and expected to follow the standards of that varna. If they did not follow the standards of that varna, they were known as members of that varna by convention but no one was under any illusion that that made them special in anyway. Ashvatthama was a murderer, and he was spared because he was a brahmin, but in the end he was still a murderer. Calling him a brahmin served to emphasize the contrast between the standard he was supposed to follow and the actual level of his degradation. Of course, with Neo-Hindus today, including Hare Krishnas, the thinking is that if someone is called a brahmin, then he is somehow usurping a position that he does not deserve. They say that this is caste gosvami bigotry or something to that effect, even though it is the same culture practiced in the Vedic age. They say that one's qualification determines one's varna, which is certainly a nice thought but.... so far we have yet to see a practical means by which one's qualification can be determined by the masses. On the contrary, we see that Prabhupada (whom Hare Krishnas regard as a pure devotee of faultless vision and judgement) initiated many degraded Westerners as brahmins, and most of these so-called qualified brahmins fell down and became degraded. So if even Prabhupada could not determine their qualification, how can the masses? Practically speaking, the seminal system of determining varna makes more sense. If you are born a brahmin then you should be raised a brahmin, which includes all of the standards of austerity and respect that come with the position. It isn't black and white you see. Brahmins are supposed to be respected. But then they are also supposed to live in poverty and make their living based purely on religious pursuits. Many people who agitate about social inequality do not seem to understand that. The actual corruption is not that birth is a prerequisite for varna. The corruption is that members of all varnas are to some extent not really following their varnashrama strictly.

Smaranam, The bottom line is that you have neither studied Advaita nor Dvaita in any serious sense, as per your own admission. Therefore, to make a sweeping statement to the effect that there is no difference between Dvaita and Advaita is dishonest. You need to take the time do the relevant research before misrepresenting the facts. There are people on forums like this who are impressionable and cannot distinguish between those who know what they are talking about and those who do not. Prior to the internet, this was not a problem since people generally avoided talking about things of which they knew nothing. Unfortunately, with the advent, many indivuals are in the happen of making comments without any knowledge of the relevant facts, as you just did. If I say "there is no difference between Buddhism and Islam," then the statement implies knowledge of Buddhism and Islam, without which such a statement would be meaningless. Please check your facts.

smaranam, The reason you cannot see any difference between Advaita and Dvaita is because you are unfamiliar with the core texts and beliefs of both traditions. Try reading them some time.

Once again for the cognitively challenged: 1) Theist wrote that one cannot worship other "demigods" and have Krishna too. 2) Theist follows A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. 3) Prabhupada wrote in his Nectar of Devotion that all Vaishnavas should begin their worship with worship of Ganapati. 4) Ganapati is in the "other demigod" category, as Hare Krishna see it. QED either Theist is incorrect (again) or Theist's favorite guru is incorrect. Please note: I am not taking a position on this either way. I don't really care one way or another what you believe. I only quoted this to show how once again Theist's narrow-minded thinking seems to lack a basis in the views of the guru he claims to follow.

If you truly believe that, then you should have no problem providing the exact verse numbers for those verses. Until then, I can only assume that someone merely made up these verses and passed them off as Puranic in origin. But if you provide verse numbers and I am able to locate them, then I will amend my views.

I have also pointed out Theist's (and others') inconsistent use of many terms such as "Hindu." What this means is that I am a rabid Hindu. When you question Theist in anyway, you are a rabid Hindu. The fact that Bhaktivedanta Swami used the term "Hindu" in some of his writings is ample evidence that even he acknowledged the commonly accepted definition of the term. Whether he used the term consistently or not is irrelevant. I would argue that in other instances when he sought to distance "Krishna-consciousness" from "Hinduism," he was most likely referring to Neo-Hinduism/Neo-Advaita in those instances. Of course, some people cannot fathom this at all. They accept one instance of the term's use and ignore the others, and the rest of us suddenly become "rabid Hindus."

And for anyone courageous enough to read the other side of the story, here is the refutation of the idea that this section of the Bhavishya Purana is authentic: http://www.gosai.com/krishna-talk/58-jesus-in-the-vedas.html

Whatever you say Seph... I'm almost afraid to ask what you think the churning of the milk ocean by the devas and the asuras is actually teaching. Hmm, maybe it's just a covert way of telling us all to take drugs?

Some Bhagavan. You'd think he could get a webpage without all that free and obnoxious advertising. :-)

I understood it just fine. Your attempt to make the avatar story out to be covert attempt at teaching evolution is just a fabrication invented by neo-vedantic types who desperately need to secularize Hinduism in order to make it something they can believe in.