raghu

Creative indeed, since "acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva" does NOT actually reconcile "advaita and dvaita philosophies."

Why would that get you good karma? If hastening a soul's departure from a bad birth is good, then I should get good karma points for killing non-believers. After all, because of their bad birth they have d to false religions handed down to them by their ancestors. I think that's a very trite analysis. Would you like to quote the specific evidence and the context so we can discuss it in detail? If memory serves, the story in question was about adhering to one's duties, and not about the butcher being "an intelligent guy." The sage was humbled by seeing the butcher's devotion to his family when he (the sage) had abandoned his own dependents. BG 3.13 answers this doubt pretty clearly. Fine. Then by the same logic don't raise a hue and cry if one particular nation/religion/civilization decides to wipe out another nation/religion/civilization. After all, not all humans are equal, and therefore it goes without saying that not all civilizations are equal. And since these differences were created by God according to you, you shouldn't mind if the stronger carry out genocide against the weak just to serve their (the stronger's) interests. All of this logically follows from your argument. The unfortunate tendency among meat-eaters is to assume that any discussion or encouragement towards vegetarianism is by the very fact "holier than thou." What is particularly stupid in this case is that you are a meat-eater hanging out on a religious forum full of people who are obviously vegetarians, and then complaining that they are "holier than thou" because they discuss vegetarianism. So, if they cannot discuss vegetarianism on a forum dedicated to their beliefs because that will hurt your precious feelings, then where exactly are they supposed to discuss it? Vegetarianism is cool. But no one should talk about it lest kaiser get upset.

I didn't say that "people run away from defending their points." I said that Theist was. And still is. And probably will have to continue doing so, lest he be forced to concede that he has been an anti-Hindu chauvinist in his postings since time immemorial.

Good point. So if TATA captures the entry-level automobile market, what will that say about Kali Yuga in 2012? This is certainly a deep philosophical point which must be pondered carefully.

Because Hit and Run is what one does when one lacks substance to back up one's views.

Of course not. That's why he posted it. Now that he is being called on his chauvinistic attitude towards Hindus, Theist can only change the subject and hope that no one will notice. Does anyone remember the time when the Hindu priest Rajan Zed was heckled by Christian fundamentlists during his historic invocatory prayers on the US Senate floor? The entire civilized world condemned the behavior of the Christians, but not Theist. On *this* *very* *forum* Theist made a hue and cry about how the Hindu priest was not a Vaishnava and how he didn't care at all about the situation. Forget human rights or freedom of speech. The man was not entitled to respect because he did not to Theist's religious views. I believe that is what we call bigotry.

And in the Bhaktivedanta Purport to the Bhagavatam 3.4.22 we find: http://vedabase.net/sb/3/4/22/ Badarikāśrama in the Himalayas, the abode of the Nara-Nārāyaṇa sages, is a great place of pilgrimage for the Hindus. Even up to the present, hundreds and thousands of pious Hindus go to pay respects to the incarnation of Godhead Nara-Nārāyaṇa.....These are Badarikāśrama, Rameśvara, Jagannātha Purī and Dvārakā. Faithful Hindus still visit all these holy places for perfection of spiritual realization, following in the footsteps of devotees like Uddhava. Still no comment on Theist from that or similar passages by Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada in which terms like "Hindu" and "Hinduism" are invoked without reservation. Strange that when a spirit soul comes to this forum and asks about initiation into Hinduism, he is treated to the typical, condescending, harangue about how Hinduism is "hodge podge" and "mundane." The poster is accused of being "attached" to the term Hinduism. But when Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada uses the term "Hindus" or "Hinduism" in his writings, Theist is curiously silent. Will we ever see an explanation from Theist rationalizing this double standard? Obviously not, because any explanation short of "I'm sorry, I was mistaken" will not make sense to anyone who can think. Why won't Theist just admit his mistake? Two possible explanations: (1) Theist is a pure devotee, and beyond all mistakes, thus no need for him to admit any mistakes, even when he makes them. (2) Theist is a bigot with an anti-Hindu bias. Posting condescending drivel against "Hinduism" makes him feel better about himself, and so he won't admit it when "Hinduism" is clearly shown by his own guru to mean something other than the ugly stereotypes he repeatedly propagates on this forum. Now, everyone can feel free to decide which of these two possibilities seems most likely.

At this point I believe Theist will now post something to the effect that I am argumentative, bigoted, mundane mayavadi, etc.... That's what you do when someone proves you to be wrong. Don't concede the point because then people will see that you can make mistakes. Just attack the other guy. Problem solved.

And once again, from http://vedabase.net/sb/6/2/5-6/ "The mass of people should always feel security because of the government's protection. Therefore, how regrettable it is for the government itself to cause a breach of trust and put the citizens in difficulty for political reasons. We actually saw during the partition days in India that although Hindus and Muslims were living together peacefully, manipulation by politicians suddenly aroused feelings of hatred between them, and thus the Hindus and Muslims killed one another over politics." How dare Prabhupada use the term "Hindu?" Does he not know that "Hindu" is an unclear term,and worthy only of derision?

http://vedabase.net/sb/3/4/22/ (Prabhupada's commentary on Bhagavatam3.4.22) Badarikāśrama in the Himalayas, the abode of the Nara-Nārāyaṇa sages, is a great place of pilgrimage for the Hindus. Even up to the present, hundreds and thousands of pious Hindus go to pay respects to the incarnation of Godhead Nara-Nārāyaṇa. It appears that even five thousand years ago this holy place was being visited by such a holy being as Uddhava, and even at that time the place was known to be very, very old. This particular pilgrimage site is very difficult to visit for ordinary men because of its difficult situation in the Himalayas in a place which is covered by ice almost all year. A few months during the summer season people can visit this place at great personal inconvenience. There are four dhāmas, or kingdoms of God, which represent the planets of the spiritual sky, which consists of the brahmajyoti and the Vaikuṇṭhas. These are Badarikāśrama, Rameśvara, Jagannātha Purī and Dvārakā. Faithful Hindus still visit all these holy places for perfection of spiritual realization, following in the footsteps of devotees like Uddhava. Someone needs to explain to Sri Prabhupada not to be so attached to the term "Hindu.Hindu" is not a spiritual term, and it is not right for him to speak of "Hindus" since that is a confusing term. He should just have said "santana dharma" and that would have been clear. He is obviously attached to the term "Hindu." This is very bad for spiritual realization and we must correct him immediately.

Here is more "Hindu" confusion from Sri Krishnadas Kaviraj, author of Sri Caitanya Caritamrita: CC Madhya 16.180: Arriving in that way, the Muslim governor was respectfully brought before Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu by the mahā-pātra. The governor then stood before the Lord with folded hands, and he chanted the holy name of Kṛṣṇa. CC Madhya 16.181: The governor then submissively asked, "Why was I born in a Muslim family? This is considered a low birth. Why didn't supreme Providence grant me a birth in a Hindu family? CC Madhya 16.182: "If I had taken birth in a Hindu family, it would have been easy for me to remain near Your lotus feet. Since my body is now useless, let me die immediately." Now, someone needs to explain to Sri Krishnadas Kaviraj Gosvami, that the term "Hindu" , and that he should not be so attached to this term. After all, it just applies to the body. Obviously Krishnadas Kaviraj is very attached to the term "Hindu." Shame on him!

OK Theist, I give kudos to you for your attempts to come across as dense. Let me just quote from Caitanaya Caritamrta, translated by your very own A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, to make the point you are deliberately trying not to grasp: CC 1.17.174: tumikājī — hindu-dharma-virodheadhikārī ebeyenākaramānābujhitenāpāri SYNONYMS tumi — you; kājī — the magistrate; hindu-dharma — the religious principles of the Hindus; virodhe — in opposing; adhikārī — have the right; ebe — now; ye — that; nākaramānā — you do not forbid; bujhite — to understand; nāpāri — Iam not able. TRANSLATION "As a Muslim magistrate, you have the right to oppose the performance of Hindu ceremonies, but now you do not forbid them. I cannot understand the reason why." CC 1.17.159: prabhukahe, — vedekahe go-vadhaniṣedha ataevahindu-mātranākare go-vadha SYNONYMS prabhukahe — the Lord replied; vede — in the Vedas; kahe — is enjoined; go-vadha — cow-killing; niṣedha — prohibition; ataeva — therefore;hindu — Hindu; mātra — any; nā — does not; kare — execute; go-vadha — cow-killing. TRANSLATION Refuting the Kazi's statement, the Lord immediately replied, "The Vedas clearly enjoin that cows should not be killed. Therefore every Hindu, whoever he may be, avoids indulging in cow-killing. So Theist, why the confusion here? Why did Sri Caitanya and Krishnadas Kaviraj use the term "Hindu?" Where is this term "Hindu" coming into play? Why were Sri Caitanya and Sri Krishnadas Kaviraj so attached to the term "HIndu?" Why not just say "santana-dharma?"

What value is there in calling one's self an American? Or Indian? Or a human being? These are all terms of convenience we use to communicate ideas efficiently. We do not as a matter of convention say, "the spirit soul within the American body" or "the spirit soul within the Indian body." That would be verbose and unwieldy. It's not a spiritual vs material issue. It's an issue of communication. Language is characterized by covenience and clarity while philosophy is characterized by its attempt to understand reality. Try to grasp the difference before parading your ignorance for all to see. The term "Hinduism" does not denote any specific beliefs, other than perhaps theoretical respect for the authority of the Vedas and belief in the body/soul dichotomy, reincarnation, and some other cultural features seen in religions which flourished in India prior to Islamic and colonialism. Beyond that, the term does not imply impersonalism or mayavada, as both you and sambya and other neo-Vedantins are apt to think. The etymological derivation of the term "Hindu" is geographic in origin, not scriptural or philosophical. When someone asks if it is possible to convert to "Hinduism," the correct answer is to inquire about which form of "HInduism" he is looking into. For all you know, he could be thinking about Gaudiya Vaishnavism. "Hindu" has certain meanings as described previously. Similarly, "servant" has certain meanings, "God" has certain meanings, "brahmin" has certain meanings, etc. The word "marriage" also has certain meanings, despite the desperate attempts of your swamis to rationalize "gay marriage" which is an oxymoron. All this linguistic revisionism that your people take to undermines your intellectual credibility and makes you come across as a bunch of uneducated cultists. Of course, if that is what you want, then far be it for me to stand in your way. But since an outsider came here asking a question about "Hinduism," you owe it to him to display at least a modicum of intellectual honesty in your response.

Well, in 2012 they say that TATA motors will be exporting their ultra cheap, $2500 cars to the United States. So if Kali is not finished by then, hopefully the cost of living in the West will at least decrease.

"Hinduism" is not a religion. It's a term that designates a group of religious traditions that are inspired by the Vedas. It is no more the case that being called "Hindu" implies something about your specific beliefs anymore than being called "American" implies something about your ethnicity. In language, people come up with words to describe ideas and concepts in greater brevity. It's just easier to say "Hindus" instead of "Vaishnavas, Shaivas, Shaktas, Ganesha followers, vaiseshikas, Advaitins, nyaya followers," etc. Some people cannot seem to understand that "Hindu" is a term of convenience and nothing more, and so they program these 'bots to spew the same old nonsense, triggered by any mention of the word "Hindu" about "mundane religions" and "demigod worship."

The fact is that "Hinduism" is not a "mundane religion." It is not even a "religion." Try to understand the facts before giving in to that knee-jerk reaction to preach something. It is a term adopted by scholars and foreigners to describe the wide variety of religious traditions that existed in India (and which include Vaishnavism). Being "Hindu" or professing belief in "Hinduism" does not denote any specific philosophical belief by the very nature of the term, except possibly for having some faith in the Vedas and/or scriptures that derive their authority from Vedas. Whether or not one can convert to "Hinduism" depends on the specific tradition of Hinduism that one is looking into. Hinduism is just a general category that denotes a variety of Vedic and post-Vedic religious traditions, nothing more. Try not to overinterpret the question just to give yourself a reason to post. Nothing is to be gained by propagating false ideas.

This is a bunch of Neo-Hindu, politically correct white wash. Historically there have been conversions into Hinduism, and different Hindu traditions have different standards when it came to accepting and initiating converts.

As discussed previously in the "Neo-Hinduism, What Is It?" thread, much of what is today considered as "Hinduism" is really different from traditional/classical Hinduism both in form and emphasis. This new form of Hinduism, or "Neo-Hinduism" appeals to a very specific mindset. While traditional Hindu schools of thought are often based on a rigorous approach to the source material (i.e. Vedas and/or other ancillary texts), Neo-Hinduism schools often pay only lip service to the scriptures and take a more emotional and non-intellectual approach to the scriptures. Now one may wonder why Neo-Hinduism philosophy has so taken hold of the imagination of the modern Hindu as to render him utterly incapable of even grasping the concept of a more intelligent, traditional, and dignified Hinduism. When modern Hindus are so quick to dispense with superstition in favor of science, why do they nevertheless turn to the nebulous domain of wishy-washy, politically-correct, Neo-Hinduism? Would they not instead prefer a more traditional school of thinking which is based on a stronger intellectual foundation? To understand this, one has first to understand the mind of the Neo-Hindu. In the first place, Neo-Hindus are not the product of a traditional Hindu educational system. Rather, they are almost all the result of the British educational system and its modern day, secular Indian counterpart. Neo-Hindus have been brought up to believe in all of the anti-Hindu bias that was integral to Eurocentric education. The Neo-Hindu has thus been made to feel that Hinduism is inferior to Judeo-Christian culture. He considers the "polytheism" of Hinduism to be superstitious next to the "monotheism" of Semitic religions. To him, the colorful temple worship of traditional Hindu culture is inferior to the bland, simplistic style of worship that is part of Christianity. He is ashamed of "idol-worship" that goes on in Hindu temples and would prefer instead to meditate on some abstract god in the sky as is done in Christianity. When he thinks of "Hinduism," the Neo-Hindu can only conceive of "caste system" and romantic tales of discrimination against noble but helpless "backward castes" by opportunistic and exploitive "higher castes." Secretly, the Neo-Hindu believes that Hinduism is responsible for bride-burning and all sorts of criminal activities that have been historically depicted as "Hindu" in nature. He also believes that brahmins have only been good for exploiting others. Thus, he cannot bring himself to identify with his traditional Hindu culture, which he considers to be superstitious, casteist, and misogynistic. The Neo-Hindu actually believes that religion and belief in God are the cause of all problems in the world, although he would never say this openly. At the same time, the Neo-Hindu cannot bring himself to simply convert to Christianity since that would require him to accept an intolerant belief system that is clearly foreign. He is prepared to accept foreign biases that are couched in the form of "education," but he cannot make a clear break with his own religion and culture. The result is that the Neo-Hindu has a "love-hate" relationship with his religion. He considers it backward and is ashamed of it, but he needs an alternative to Christianity. This is how Neo-Hinduism has come into the equation. Neo-Hinduism thinkers will try to convince their followers that they represent a more enlightened or evolved version of the religion practiced by their bride-burning, casteist, and superstitious ancestors. In essence, Neo-Hinduism perpetuates the racist and and bigoted views of Hindu culture by implicitly accepting them as real and then contrasting them with the supposedly more "modern" views propagated by Neo-Hindu leaders. Neo-Hindus are taught that all religions are good and correct; therefore he need not disagree with or judge any belief system negatively, and this in turn obviates the need for thinking properly about what is "right" and "wrong." Since Neo-Hindus are mostly Neo-Advaitins, the Neo-Hindu is taught that he is God, his friends are God, and everyone else is God, etc. This is very good to the Neo-Hindu, who considers devotion to God to be akin to inciting sectarian violence, but at the same time does not want to explicitly denounce religion, which would be intolerant. So he instead accepts an ideology that gives "God" an abstract place in the scheme of things, but not one that requires surrender or devotion. Since true sadhana becomes optional in the Neo-Hindu view that places everyone on the same level as God, the Neo-Hinduism leaders instead recommend social services as a surrogate form of sadhana. This is very much appreciated by the undisciplined Neo-Hindu thinker who only officially accepts the importance of religious endeavors but secretly considers them the domain of the less intelligent. The Neo-Hindu cannot understand why one would choose to offer prayers to a Deity whom one cannot see or feel, but he can readily understand feeding the poor and building hospitals, which he immediately accepts as the greatest religious sadhana. In summary, the Neo-Hindu is deeply ashamed of his religion and culture, having been taught to see it through the eyes of Eurocentric, Christian proselytizing scholars. He accepts Neo-Hinduism as the means by which to assuage the anxiety born of his inferiority complex vis-a-vis Western culture.

Then try reading Ramanuja's own writings on the subject, if you really are that earnest about it. Whatever that means...

Do you now? Well, good luck to you!

Well, that was predestined, wasn't it?

Neither do Gaudiyas, apparently. All of you have already verbalized different and inconsistent views about Shiva. Are you suggesting that that we do not have variety of schools in Vaishnavism? Hypocrisy. Gaudiya Vaishnava gurus mix and blend any and every siddhanta they need to, as evidenced by views like "Jesus is a pure devotee" and "Mohammed is a shaktyavesha avatar." You obviously have no problem with that. It's only when someone else does it that you complain. None of which answers the question of "What is the Gaudiya position regarding Shiva?" Why the harangue against Shaivism? Isn't it simply the fact that when you are unable to articulate your views clearly, you just have to transform the thread into an attack on mayavada, shaivism, etc? I don't see the need for this sort of diversionary tactic.

No, I go on and on about how there is no shastra which supports *your* position. Sri Krishna's views I have no problem with. I'm sure at some point you will explain to me (a) the objective criteria but which the above position is deemed true and (b) how it relates to anything we have been discussing here. So in other words, forget shastra. The gosvamis said it. And that is good enough, right? So in that case why make a hue and cry about "shastra?" Why not just admit that there is no shastric basis for your views, and that you are just following your gosvamis. What does this have to do with anything? Were you asleep when you read the earlier messages of this thread?

Adiyen, your disagreement with me is generating some tension, which is inherently poisonous as you yourself have already indicated. Please check your tendencies to express your difference of opinion. regards, Raghu

Did anyone find this as funny as I did, coming as it does from Sonic Yogi? The idea that "Krishna has more qualities than Vishnu" has no basis in shastra, at least, not in any conventional definition of the term "shastra." If you want to invoke shastra to silence an opponent, you should also acknowledge shastra when someone points out the lack of evidence therein which substantiates your views. Or maybe not I suppose. I guess some people see nothing wrong with the idea of "one standard for you, a different standard for me" What a tricky position to take. On one hand the Gaudiyas try to explain Siva's position in their books, and yet when this is scrutinized for its inconsistency they retreat into the "it's very mysterious" position. Using that tack, you can justify almost anything, which is why mayavadis and Neo-Vedantins are also fond of that pseudo-logic. This is meaningless bunk. The problem is that you cannot or will not commit to any position about his identity. The very idea of A entering B implies that A is different from B. B does not become A because A entered B. Does your house become you when you enter it? 100% speculation. The real question is, is that what has happened here? Merely suggesting that it could have happened is not by itself evidence of anything. That is my point - read these two sentences together as if they were one sentence, then think about it for a moment and see if you have figured out the problem. It makes little sense to argue for the validity of something by quoting from obscure scriptures that no one else accepts. That is because the views you espouse on this point are incorrect. And this was not my position at all. As far as I am concerned, I agree with the Vaishnava Vedantin point of view that the smritis are acceptable to the extent that they are consistent with shruti. And of course, the source of this is your fertile imagination, correct? So now Tulsidas is shastra? ipse dixit logic - "This is true because he said it." In other words, you are now redefining the word "servant" just to make it fit with your views. Just as Sonic Yogi et. al. redefine "shastra" to make true their view that their ideas are based on "shastra." And similarly "Vedic,brahmin," etc... is there no end to the linguistic revisionism? The basic problem with your views is that you are trying to establish something that is inherently illogical and incorrect, i.e. the idea that Shiva is both jiva and Vishnu, and yet neither in some other sense. Your philosophy is neither clear nor consistent, and that may be why intelligent people often abandon it when asking the kinds of probing questions which I just did. By embracing your logic, one can just as easily embrace mayavada. Many mayavadis also say that jiva is God, and yet not God, and yet he is God... etc and this is very difficult to understand but you must just accept it. Because they say so.