raghu

I did. There is nothing in there about evolution.

Rahalkar, I have the entire Garuda Purana in the original Sanskrit. I looked and looked and could not find this verse anywhere. I looked in my edition of the Padma Purana. These verse are nowhere to be found in the Padma Purana. You guessed it. This is not in the Narada Purana as claimed. Nope, not in the Garuda Purana. I looked for this too. The Narasimha Purana is actually an Upa-Purana, but I have the two volume edition published by Nag Publishers. Again, this quote is also not there. Nope, I checked for this too. It's not in Markandeya Purana. This verse is not in the Vamana Purana. I'm sorry to say that none of your quotes can be found in the puranas from you claim they are quoted.

There is no such teaching in the Vishnu Purana. If you feel otherwise, please quote the relevant shlokas.

Sant, that quote is from Nectar of Devotion written by your own Prabhupada. If you think he is nonsense, well, that is up to you! Once again that quote: One should begin the worship of the demigod Gaṇapati, who drives away all impediments in the execution of devotional service. In the Brahma-saḿhitā it is stated that Gaṇapati worships the lotus feet of Lord Nṛsiḿhadeva and in that way has become auspicious for the devotees in clearing out all impediments. Therefore, all devotees should worship Gaṇapati Let me again point out that I merely quoted this in response to Theist's contention that, "Can't worship some demi-god or the things of this world and expect to also have Krishna too." That may be Theist's view, but that does not appear to be the view of the guru he claims to follow! But as always, when confronted with inconvenient facts, you always have the option of attacking me. Character assasinations are obviously pure Vaishnavism, free of all mundane designations. Or so I learned from the Hare Krishnas on this forum.

No, we just want you to substantiate the idea that you know what Advaita is. I already have. By "study" you mean what you heard from a Non-Advaitin Acharya? You claim to know what Advaita is, but you aren't a disciple of a guru in that sampradaya. Isn't that hypocrisy? Please list the names of all Advaita books which you claim you have studied. If you have truly studied Advaita for 35 years, you must surely be able to name at least one. Which guru in the "Advaita sampradaya" did you submit to? I do not desire to know Advaita siddhanta because I already know it. I am merely calling your bluff, since it was you who originally insinuated that you knew what Advaita was and that others did not. Now we are looking for some evidence for you to back up that claim. So far, you have spent the last several postings reassuring us that you know what genuine Advaita is, but you already misspoke earlier and now you aren't saying anything at all about it - just telling us that you know it. The real problem seems to be that you do not know it, but you want everyone to think that you do.

Please reread posting #29 and answer the questions regarding your understanding of Advaita. Your repeated attempts to evade the question when you yourself criticized someone else for his supposed misunderstanding of Advaita are really not doing you any credit.

Let me repeat the questions since you have not answered them: Which Vaishnava acharya taught you about "Advaitism?" Would you consider it fair if an Advaitin said he knew all about Vaishnavism because he heard about it from an Advaitin acharya? For what it's worth, your ideas about "Advaitism" are incorrect on several counts. What you describe as "Advaitism" sounds more like the bheda abheda philosophy of Bhaskara and the Neo-Advaita propagated by Vivekananda and others of his ilk. And yes, I base my views on Advaita on the writings of Sri Sankaracharya. In addition, you mentioned that kaisersose never learned Advaita from the writings of Sri Sankaracharya. May I enquire as to what writings of Sri Sankaracharya you have read? Answers to questions will be much appreciated. Assuming you have any.

Sant, everyone is confused when you say anything, because you can't type in proper English and don't seem to have any idea what you are talking about. Knowledge of the Vedas. Oh I'm sorry. With Hare Krishnas many words often do not mean what they seem. Very well, let us use your dictionary. Uhh, yeah. Vedic rituals were performed under Madhva's direction and are done right down to the present day in the Madhva tradition. Have you never been to the Udipi Sri Krishna temple? Vaishnavas from traditional sampradayas are quite qualified to perform Vedic rituals and yagnas and continue to do so today. You are certainly not qualified - do not extrapolate to others the weakness of your own character. In response to, "certain individuals on this very thread have a repeated tendency to proclaim that they know the real essence of the Vedas and yet go around using their so-called knowledge to club everyone else over the head, calling them "mundane,hodge podge," etc." you wrote: So let me see if I got this straight. It is Caitanya Mahaprabhu's philosophy for people to claim they know the Vedas even though they never studied the Vedas, and then to go around clubbing other individuals with this so-called knowledge and calling their religion "mudane,hodge podge," etc? Sant, what are you talking about? Do you have any idea how crazy you sound? Can you not trouble yourself to learn English? No one can figure out what it is you are trying to say. Whatever you say, Sant. Am I correct in assuming that you are no older than 16 years of age? In response to my quoting Sri Krishna's instructions on austerity of speech in BG 17.15 and Prabhupada's commentary to that effect, you wrote: You may not take Sri Krishna's instruction seriously, but it is there nevertheless.

I don't understand why any postings are being added to this thread. The idea of a continuous "Madhva-Gaudiya parampara" has already been refuted. Ranjeet never answered my question about his so-called sastric evidence, which is not surprising. And the basic conclusion seems to be that anyone who questions the historic or philosophical basis of a "Madhva-Gaudiya" parampara is Offensive. Let me know if I have gotten any of that wrong. But in any case, thanks for the poetry of Vallabhacharya. It is quite beautiful, especially when sung. If I may suggest - listen to the rendition by the late M.S. Subbulakshmi which is really quite pregnant with devotional emotion. Hopefully the fact that she was a Hindu won't be a problem.

Which Vaishnava acharya taught you about "Advaitism?" Would you consider it fair if an Advaitin said he knew all about Vaishnavism because he heard about it from an Advaitin acharya? For what it's worth, your ideas about "Advaitism" are incorrect on several counts. What you describe as "Advaitism" sounds more like the bheda abheda philosophy of Bhaskara and the Neo-Advaita propagated by Vivekananda and others of his ilk. And yes, I base my views on Advaita on the writings of Sri Sankaracharya.

Not true. You often find sly comments inserted in about the supposed narrow-mindedness of Vaishnavas and these are often interjected by Shaivites, Shaktas, Neo-Vedantins, etc. Vaishnavas of course, we all know, are narrow-minded because they believe based on evidence that Vishnu is the supreme Deity. And this too despite the fact that majority of forum participants are Vaishnavas. On other forums where general Hinduism is the emphasis, Vaishnavas will generally not speak up about their beliefs, even when other Hindus are misrepresenting them (usually by spewing some rubbish to the effect that Hinduism supposedly accepts all gods as equal, an idea that is not a characteristic of many Hindu religions). In fact, I have personally observed that when a Vaishnava does speak up to set the record straight about what Vaishnavism is, the Neo-Hindus will shout him down, call him a fanatic, etc. It does not matter that they have never read Bhagavad-Gita or any other scripture that they claim to venerate. They just know that the Vaishnava is a narrow-minded fundamentalist. And that he is wrong. Swami Vivekananda was every bit as sectarian as those he criticized. Claiming that religious conflict in the world is due to Dvaita is sheer ignorance. When Dvaita as a tradition has been localized to Indian subcontinent until recently, there is no possibility of Dvaita causing the problems he mentioned. His attempt to use "Dvaita" as a term to describe other non-Advaitic religions is just a sneaky attempt to promote Advaita and denounce theism in general. The idea that dvaita philosophy leads to ill effects among "low-adhikari masses" is nothing more than prejudice trumped up by Neo-Advaitins. Neo-Advaitins are taught that acceptance of any hierarchy among the devas is equal to "hating other gods." When such 5-year old logic permeates the public dialog on Hinduism, it is little wonder that ignorant Hare Krishna fundamentalists show up.

The reasons why should be obvious. Hinduism is a majority tradition in India, so denouncing the historical existence of Krishna and Rama has obvious political advantages for those who hate Hinduism and want to subjugate it through politics. Nobody cares to go after Buddha because Buddhism is hardly of any interest in the political realm. You can't get away with blaming Buddhism for the plight of modern Muslims, for example (though I hear that the Taliban found a way in Afghanistan a few years ago). As soon as you understand that most Indological scholarship is colored by political and/or religious motives, the reasons for such double standards become clear.

Seeker, you already have your answer. Those quotes are all bogus interpolations (which I realize is redundant). Menon is a Christian fundamentalist who is using tactics like these to entice Hindus into believing in Christianity. Doubtless this was the motivation of the original author of those passages who managed to get them passed off as "Purana." You have to wonder at why any Hindu would refer to Biblical events as historical while casually describing Puranic events as mythological. It's *obvious* he is a Christian missionary playing the standard missionary game.

Well here goes the Hare Krishna revisionism once again. The statement "thou shalt have no gods before Me. For I am a jealous God" does NOT mean what Theist says it means. It means exactly what it says. The god of the Bible explicitly prohibits worship of other deities. In the Middle East prior to Christianity, there were still numerous pagan religions in which deities associated with nature, etc were being worshipped. This is context in which the statement "thou shalt have no other gods...." is made. Someone should tell Prabhupada that. In his Nectar of Devotion, chapter 8 (http://vedabase.net/nod/8/en) he clearly wrote: "One should begin the worship of the demigod Gaṇapati, who drives away all impediments in the execution of devotional service. In the Brahma-saḿhitā it is stated that Gaṇapati worships the lotus feet of Lord Nṛsiḿhadeva and in that way has become auspicious for the devotees in clearing out all impediments. Therefore, all devotees should worship Gaṇapati." Feel free to quote the original in case Theist continues to give you a hard time.

I don't understand why it is an "offense" to consider taking initiation from one guru as opposed to another. For that matter, I don't understand why it's anyone else's business who you take initiation from. It's your life. I agree with JND - focus on your sadhana. I would add to this that you should read and learn whatever you can, and try to evaluate every prospective guru in an intelligent way without falling back on blind faith unchecked by objective analysis of the guru's knowledge and character.

Several points: 1) The definition of "sectarianism" seems to mean different things to different people. There is nothing wrong with believing in the correctness of one's views and the incorrectness of contradictory views, so long as one can discuss them in an informed and cultured manner. 2) If by "sectarianism" you are referring to loud, brash, and rude bickering characteristic of Audarya, then I beg to differ with your assumption that it is a problem with "Vaishnavas." On the contrary, it is primarily a problem with one specific group of "Vaishnavas." You and I both know who they are, but i do not want to name them for fear that this posting will be deleted. 3) Shaivism and Shaktaism is no more all-accepting in their assumptions than Vaishnavism is. For that matter, even Neo-Vedantins are not so all-accepting. In his Complete Works, Swami Vivekananda blames all of the religious conflicts in the world on Dvaita. Similar attitudes are found in many Neo-Hindu leaders who essentially argue that the God-jiva dichotomy is inherently intolerant, racist, bigoted, etc. This attitude is itself prejudice, so no holier-than-thou conclusions can be extrapolated about non-Vaishnavas.

I have been trying to say the same thing on this forum for many years now. I have repeatedly taken issue with the "hatred for Hinduism" (your words) which manifests itself as certain "Vaishnavas" repeatedly heaping all kinds of condescending remarks on Hinduism - i.e. that it is "hodge podge,mundane," etc. Similarly, we have seen discussion of traditional varnashrama system degenerating into more of these "Vaishnavas" denouncing it as "smartha caste brahmin" culture. Even Acharya Madhva and his followers have been attacked. There seems to be no end to the hatred - even other Vaishnavas are targets. I tried to start a thread on this forum recently to raise the level of awareness regarding this anti-Hinduism prejudice. Without any explanation, the entire thread was deleted. Meanwhile, those who continue to post abusive remarks against Hinduism are allowed to do so with impunity. So what is to be done? Perhaps we should be resigned to the fact that hatred of Hinduism is en vogue and is not going away any time soon. Hinduism hs become everyone's favorite kicking dog. When you are in a bad mood, just spew venom against Hinduism. When even this forum's moderators protect the haters and censor those who try to make a change, one is left with the impression that it is unreasonable to stand up against anti-Hindu prejudice. Presumably because it comes from certain "Vaishnavas" and is therefore legitimate on that basis. I personally think this is rubbish, but then again, as many have stated, I am merely a "confused Hindu,a smartha caste brahmin," etc

Why do you say no one? Are you saying Madhva was not qualified? Are you saying Ramanuja was not qualified? Are you saying that their disciples were not qualified? Are you saying that their disciples cannot determine who is qualified? This is nothing more than arrogant presumption. You may be not be qualified, but do not make assumptions about others based on your own limitations. You are confused, which is not surprising. The story was about understanding the Vedas properly, not about ritual chanting. The point is that Vedic knowledge should be received with humility and should lead to true reformation of character. Whereas certain individuals on this very thread have a repeated tendency to proclaim that they know the real essence of the Vedas and yet go around using their so-called knowledge to club everyone else over the head, calling them "mundane,hodge podge," etc. I realize you do not know what I am talking about. In the past, subtlety has generally been wasted on you. The people who do know what I am talking about conceal their guilt by silence, and by threatening placement in ignore lists, etc. So I will just say to them, here is what your own guru has to say on the subject (BG 17.15): anudvega-karaḿvākyaḿ satyaḿpriya-hitaḿcayat svādhyāyābhyasanaḿ caiva vāń-mayaḿtapaucyate TRANSLATION Austerity of speech consists in speaking words that are truthful, pleasing, beneficial, and not agitating to others, and also in regularly reciting Vedic literature. PURPORT One should not speak in such a way as to agitate the minds of others. Of course, when a teacher speaks, he can speak the truth for the instruction of his students, but such a teacher should not speak to those who are not his students if he will agitate their minds. This is penance as far as talking is concerned. Besides that, one should not talk nonsense. The process of speaking in spiritual circles is to say something upheld by the scriptures. One should at once quote from scriptural authority to back up what he is saying. At the same time, such talk should be very pleasurable to the ear. By such discussions, one may derive the highest benefit and elevate human society. There is a limitless stock of Vedic literature, and one should study this. This is called penance of speech. That is good advice to take.

This reminds me of a story from the Mahabharata of a young man who wanted to learn the Vedas. He performed various sacrifices in order to get the favor of Indra for becoming learned in Vedas. Indra would repeatedly tell him that he could not make the man learned in the Vedas, and that the only way one could get knowledge of the Vedas was through careful study and penance under the guidance of a guru. Still, the man persisted and his austerities became so severe that Indra reluctantly gave him the knowledge of the Vedas. Armed now with knowledge of the Vedas, the man became proud of his learning. Since he was given his knowledge of Vedas as a boon, he did not go through the reformatory process of studying Vedas as a celibate brahmachari. For this reason he had not developed the good qualities that come with Vedic education, and instead had become puffed up because of his knowledge. Day by day his arrogance grew until he wanted to be worshipped by all others for his knowledge. He became lusty and deluded, and he began making unwanted sexual advances towards a brahmin girl. When the girl declined to accept his proposal, he beat her and raped her. The girl's father, who was a qualified brahmin, then performed a sacrifice to invoke the presence of two black spirits whom he commanded to kill the rascal, which they did. And that was the end of him, Vedic knowledge and all. This warning to self-styled "brahmanas" or "devotees" is just as relevant today, especially on Audarya. Vedic knowledge must be learned in the traditional way accompanied by sensual restraint, wisdom, and humility. There is a danger in taking short cuts and thinking one's self to be very learned.

Sambya, what is the matter with you? Can you not see how someone can be God and yet not be God at the same time? This quote has nothing to do with the issue of being and not being God. Or maybe it does. Actually it inconceivably is relevant and not relevant at the same time.

Well, both Sai Babas and Hare Krishnas agree that Krishna is God. So, there's your reconciliation. Just ignore all points of difference like Theist said. And as far as Osho is concerned, he is a womanizing swami with female disciples. And there are many HK swamis who ran off with female disciples, which prompted their peers to quote BG 9.30 to explain how they are gurus and yet no longer gurus. So there's your reconciliation. Again, using Theist-Sant logic.

I have just reconciled Atheism and Theism using Theist-Sant logic: Both ideologies consider the world to be real. I have ignored all other points of difference, but since I found that similarity, I have by expert use of Theist-Sant reasoning reconciled these two ideologies. My new philosophy is called "achintya atheism-theism vada." My parampara goes back to Sri Caitanya himself, who is simultaneously God and not God. Don't disagree with me lest you be deemed Offensive. Worse, you may end up in my ignore list, a fact which I will constantly remind you when I respond to the postings of yours which I am ignoring.

Sant, please learn English before trying to get into a discussion on philosophy using the English medium. No one here has time to teach you basic reading comprehension, and your "Yes it is/No it isn't" style of argument is just decreasing the signal to noise ratio on this thread. thanks, Raghu

That is not reconciling. Look up the word in a standard dictionary. To "reconcile" two points of view means to bring them into accord. He did not show how Advaita and Dvaita were actually compatible. They are not. Saying that "qualitiative oneness" is compatible with "quantitiative difference" is not the same as saying that Advaita and Dvaita are reconciled. Of course, since you have previously redefined words like "brahmin,Hindu,servant," etc, I suppose that it's to be expected that you will similarly redefine "reconcile."

As Kaiser said, do your homework. Advaita holds that Brahman alone exists, that the world is illusion, and that liberation consists of realizing the absolute identity/non-difference between the Self and Brahman. You cannot reconcile that with another philosophy that holds the opposite to be true, i.e. that the jiva and Brahman are eternally distinct. Saying that Acintya Bheda Abheda "reconciles" Advaita and Dvaita because it incorporates some concept of "oneness" with "difference" is false. Advaita philosophy does not merely stand for qualitative oneness - it stands for absolute non-difference. Similarly, Tattvavada aka Dvaita does not merely advocate difference between Brahman and jiva, but other differences also, namely differences between different jivas, difference between Brahman and matter, difference between the jivas and matter, etc. According to Tattvavadi system of philosophy, all of these differences are real and eternal. Thus, "Dvaita" cannot be reconciled with any philosophy which does not also accept all of those differences as real and eternal. You cannot reconcile two religions by ignoring all of the points of distinction and only accepting the common points. Perhaps you could say that you borrowed the points that you liked and made up your own religion. Also, if you are planning to initiate a discussion on philosophy, may I please request you to first learn the proper use of punctuation so that your English is easier to read?