karthik_v

Ethos, First of all, I am not even disputing the fact that the Pandavas were very elevated. I just said that they had their own share of blemishes too. Every one, except Krishna Himself, is faulty in some regard. So, I am not slandering. Please note. I am also not disputing that everything happens due to the plan of Krishna. Nothing moves unless He wants it to. I am only questioning justifying violence in the name of God's wish. "But philosophically, it is because God is there that 'anything' can be justified absolutely because that absolute point is the standard by which all things are measured." That is also debatable. We silently dislodged the vedas as the numero uno text and instead conferred that honour upon the smritis. We also said that many rituals are "useless" in this yuga. We also said that Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva propounded only "temporary" philosophies which we should ultimately dislodge, within centuries of their disappearence. Are we not making it sound as if God's own writ isn't absolute? If something is absolute, can it mutate and change? Shoudl not not be constant across the yugas?

I thought this question of Theist was very pertinent and deserved more discussion. Honestly, did anything there justify such a large scale war and the killings of millions? The Kauravas were unjust and they stole the kingdom of the Pandavas. The Pandavas were not without their share of blemish. They were so base that they could pledge their own wife while gambling. This is an episode that invloved only a 100 Kauravas and 5 Pandavas. Why was it necessary for such a large scale battle to be fought? The answer that it was God's wish is always unsatisfactory. The Muslim terrorists who flew that Boeing into WTC also claimed that they were carrying out Allah's wish. The Muslim aggressors who raped and killed millions of Hindus in India [a number that would constitute the largest genocide ever, making the anti-Jewish pogroms pale in comparison], did so in the name of their God. The Christian evangelical criminals who decimated native cultures in South America, India and Philippines indulged in violence in the name of their God. Their God? Yes, that wasn't a typo. When terror and violence can be justified with lame statements like "Oh, I did so to please my God", I guess those who were at the receiving end would just reply: "Indeed your God. Let me find mine. Let us get even then." I am all for violence, when necessary. I am only against violence in the name of and for the sake of God. Let us have violence only for our own sake. Then we can define necessary moralality to govern it. How about God only for the sake of spiritualism?

Of course, none but Krishna Himself is perfect. I often find it funny that some people are trying to portray Jesus as the epitome of perfection. He had his own share of defects - for example, he was a racist. That doesn't negate the fact that he was great in many other ways. For example consider this verse from Mark 7:27, where a Gentile woman pleads with Jesus to save her daughter. Jesus bluntly refuses to heal her and says: "But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs." Here the word "children" refers to the Jewish people and "dogs" refers to "Gentiles". If only a Hindu saint had uttered those words, the missionaries would have made a propaganda out of it and reviled him. By now, heathen India would have become entirely Christian. I am not demanding that we Hindus go about highlighting the darker side of Jesus [which of course existed], but we need not go overboard glorifying him - that too as the "son of the Lord". He was no greater than the great saints of India such as Adi Sankara, Ramanuja or Raghavendra. In fact, much less. Shiva is correct in stating that Jesus just founded a Jewsish sect. Today's Christianity, Catholic or otherwise, has no connection to his teachings. This is entirely a concoction of Paul.

Dear Sirona, Thanks for the empathy you displayed by understanding the sufferings the Hindus faced at the hands of the Catholics under the guidance of Vatican. Xavier, in particular, was a thorough racist and inflicted enormous pains on the Hindus. He was just a scum bag and no saint. Most of the times we accept someone as a saint because we are told so. A fifty years from now, children in Italy may really start to believe that pope Pius XII was a saint. Those Jews who went to the camps because of his machinations would feel otherwise. In my opinion, Vatican and the other Christian denominations are no different. While the Protestants are overtly abusive of Hinsuism, the Catholics are covert. This doesn't mean that the average Christian is evil. Generally, they are ignorant of the machinations of the church. But the church in itself, is evil. Vatican in particular, given its sophisticated network.

Al Ma'arri lived over 1000 years ago in Syria. He was a Muslim apostate and a great poet. He camouflaged his verses in such a way as to escape persecution - after all, the punishment for apostacy from Islam is death. He had contempt for all religions and prophets, though he seems to display some admiration for the Hindus. Here are the excerpts: The holy fights by Moslem heroes fought, The saintly works by Christian hermits wrought And those of Jewry or of Sabian creed -- Their valour reaches not the Indian's deed Whom zeal and awe religiously inspire To cast his body on the flaming pyre. He also displayed quite a witty and pessimistic view of life: What inconsistency that God should forbid the taking of life, and Himself send two angels to take each man's! And as for the promise of a second life -- the soul could well have dispensed with both existences. He had nothing but contempt for the prophets: The Prophets, too, among us come to teach, Are one with those who from the pulpit preach; They pray, and slay, and pass away, and yet Our ills are as the pebbles on the beach. And some special "love" for Mohammad: Mohammed or Messiah! Hear thou me, The truth entire nor here nor there can be; How should our God who made the sun and the moon Give all his light to One, I cannot see. And all the semitic religions take some beating here: Tis strange that Kurash and his people wash Their faces in the staling of the kine; And that the Christians say, Almighty God Was tortured, mocked, and crucified in fine: And that the Jews should picture Him as one Who loves the odor of a roasting chine; And stranger still that Muslims travel far To kiss a black stone said to be divine: Almighty God! will all the human race Stray blindly from the Truth's most sacred shrine? For more fun, go to: http://www.secularislam.org/skeptics/almaarri.htm

I agree with gHari prabhu. Inquisition of Goa is one of the worst crimes committed against the Hindus. They were burnt, killed, humiliated and their women raped and taken away. All under the directive of Vatican. Xavier himself played a very active role in the oppression of the Hindus. He had such a racist mindset against the people of colour. Apparently, he was a lot more racist than Jesus himself. Jesus knew of only 2 races and hence his racism was directed at Gentiles alone. Xavier knew a lot more races and consequently, his arena was larger too. That the average Catholic is a nice human being doesn't mean that the Vatican is free from blame, just as the fact that the average Muslim is a nice human being doesn't absolve Islam of its crimes. One doesn't become a saint just because he carries that prefix "St." or just because Vatican declared so. One who fails to be a nice and moral human being, doesn't qualify for sainthood. It is irony to say that "Xavier saw something which we don't" whereas the fact remains that he called the "heathen Hindus as having a heart as dark as their skin outside". In modern times, he would be called a racist. Should we call him a saint just because he lived 500 years ago?

True. Regarding Parasurama, I have come across another argument that though he was a shaktya avesha avatara, after he annihilated the kshatriyas 21 times, he ceased to be an avatara and that was why Rama was able to vanquish him.

Hari Bol Krishnas prabhuji, I didn't know that you are the same H.K.Susarla [of Rice university], whose posts I have read, enjoyed and found them to be very informative, elsewhere in the past. If my provoking would get you to write more on this forum, I intend to do that, as we would all very much benefit from what you write

Fayarus: Now Quran and Prophet Muhammed, are in the very clear Historical age. Really? Is there even one historical evidence that Prophet Mohammad ever existed? By historic evidence I mean, writings by contemparory historians, epigraphs from other empires around then, etc.. The very first compilations of Quran happen only 55 years after the supposed date of existence of Mohammad. In short, there is absolutely no evidence that Mohammad ever existed. For all we care, he is no more than a figment of imagination in the minds of Arab traders who wanted to invent a bunch of rules to further their hegemony. Fayarus, may I know why you have chosen not to answer any of my questions in the other thread as well as my pointing out at the factual errors you had made about Ramayana etc.?

Krishnas prabhuji, Welcome back. Your knowledgeable contributions are most needed here. Every conversation I have ever had with the Dvaita list crowd on this subject indicated that Vyaasa was the guru of Madhva. I would agree with you. In the famous Sanskrit movie on Madhvacarya also, Vyasa is portrayed as his guru. I don't know if that finds any mention in the writings of that acarya, but the Madhva tradition definitely considers that way. Shvu: According to his Sampradaaya, he is Vaayu himself and required no Guru. So for all practical purposes his lineage starts from himself. Krishnas: I have already posted from Shriimadhva Vijaya indicating that Madhva did in fact take instruction from Vyaasa. Madhva tradition certainly holds him to be an incarnation Vaayu. Yet, just like other great incarnations like Caitanya Mahaprabhu or Adi Sankara [who also took initiation and instructions from a guru, though they were born with all the knowledge], Madhvacarya, despite being Vaayu himself could have still taken instructions. Regarding interpolations, I must admit that I know of no interpolation to SB, while such interpolations abound Mahabharata and Ramayana.

14:26 and 14:27 must be read together so that there is no loss of continuity. Adi Sankara also agrees that maam in 14:26 refers only to Narayana situated in the hearts of the devotees. And then comments on brahma-bhuyaya as becoming Brahman. This means that Adi Sankara considers the Narayana situated in the hearts of the devotee as the impersonal Brahman. So, if we go by this premise, Ram's post on Adi Sankara's commentary follows logically. This raises a question: Why does Adi Sankara treat that maam in 14:26 as the impersonal Brahman? Why not apply the direct meaning which would mean that Krishna addresses Himself in the first person? Now, Srila Prabhupad treats this maam in 14:26 as the personal Lord Krishna and subsequently comments on brahma-bhuyaya as getting elevated to Brahman consciousness. So, if we go by this premise, then his commentary on 14:27 makes sense as well. This raises a question: Why does Srila Prabhupad seem to suggest that there is a higher personal conception [or that Brahman is only a part of Krishna] after stating that the Brahman state is aikantikasya sukhasya or ultimate happiness?

Fayarus: I hope you have read the Hadiths. There is an instance when Mohammad is taken to the heavens and he gets a vision of Allah. Did he see a formless God? If so, how did he "see" him? In case you are not sure of what I am talking about, please consult more knowledgeable Muslims. If you still can't locate it, please let me know and I will tell you where to find it.

Sumeet prabhu, I will respond to your points after the present point taken up by Ram and Shvu with Krishnas is discussed.

This is a concept you will find explained nicely in the writings of Sri Aurobindo. Very true. Sri Aurobindo also talks of cyclical time that envelopes the human cicilization. The only difference being that he doesn't insist that Satya yuga is all perfect because every inhabitant had only sattvic guna. He says that Satya yuga was better because the sages were more closely connected with nature and hence inquiring into the absolute. He does allow for evolution of consciousness in the society. Not that the puranas don't.

Krishnas: It's interesting how these quotes are provided without verse numbers, and without the original Sanskrit. That is because I don't have the Sanskrit verses with me now - I mentioned it yesterday itself. Do you think that the translation is wrong? You said you are familiar with SU. I have given adhyaya numbers and it is not impossible to locate the versesin those short adhyayas. that still does not explain away the personalist evidence from the same Upanishad that was already quoted. You cannot take a verse out of context and claim that it supports a particular philosophy. Yes, Svetasvatara upanishad definitely recognizes the personal element [just as advaita does]. It says that this personal Supreme is Shiva and very explicitly says that beyond this there is an impersonal Brahman. I hope you are not going to insist that SU claims that personal God is the ultimate and it is Krishna. So, my argument that SU actually weakens Vaishnava doctrine while strengthening the advaita school still stands.

Sumeet Prabhuji, Thanks for your quote on Mundaka upanishad 3.1.7. When I get back home this evening, I will refer to Sri Aurobindo's commentary on the same and revert. BTW, when Sri Aurobindo says "surya", he doesn't refer to the physical sun. He refers to the Brahman, normally invisible to us, but which gets revealed as we realize. "Surya" is the external manifestation of that "Brahman". He treats it as figurative speech.

Sumeet prabhuji, Its nice to see a Vaishnava versus advaitin discussion. I hope we will be able to to satisfactorily answer your queries regarding whether vaishnavas have proven advaita to be non-vedic or not by grace of our Vaishnava acaryas and Sri Krsna. Actually, I am not a follower of advaita. If any, I try to follow many of the teachings of Srila Prabhupad. But, I don't to exclusivism, denigration of Adi Sankara or advaita, relegating Siva to the levels of a demi-God and the dogma that the "guru is perfect". Hence, I started this thread.

Shvu: I would agree with you on the translation of Katha upanishad 4:11: "By the mind is this to be attained: there is no difference here at all. Whoever seems to see a difference here goes from death to death." Is this in anyway different from advaita? Perhaps Krishnas can clarify. May be he can come up with atleast 1 principal upanishad that establishes personal God as Supreme while negating impersonalism. That God need not even be Krishna - even Shiva will do, provided impersonalism is negated or established as marginal to the personal form. Looks like disproving advaita is not an easy task - not even when debating with a neophyte like me. Perhaps, GV acaryas were aware of that. May be that is why they never dissected advaita in a scholarly manner and just resorted to abusing Adi Sankara.

In the fourth adhyaya, Svetasvatara upanishad further goes to establish that the Supreme is indeed the impersonal Brahman: "The one who is without color, diversified by its union power, distributes many colors in its hidden purpose, and into this, its end and beginning, the universe dissolves." And also declares Rudra as the unborn. Same as advaita: "Knowing you are unborn, one approaches in fear. Rudra, with your smiling face protect me forever."

Here is another proof that we cannot take the vedas literally. This upanishad too talks of eyes, ears, hands etc., in a very symbolic manner and clarifies the same: "The Spirit has innumerable heads, eyes, and feet. It surrounds the earth on all sides and stands ten inches beyond. The Spirit in truth is the whole universe, whatever has been and whatever will be, also sovereign of immortality and whatever grows by food. Its hands and feet are everywhere, everywhere its eyes and head and face; its ears are everywhere. It stands encompassing all. Seeming to have the quality of all the senses, it is empty of all the senses, the sovereign Lord of all, the great shelter of all. Though embodied in the nine-gated city, back and forth to the external flies the human spirit, the master of the universe, both the moving and non-moving. Without foot or hand, it is swift and a grabber. It sees without eyes and hears without ears. It knows whatever can be known, but no one knows it. People call it the supreme primal Spirit." So, may be Sri Aurobindo and Adi Sankara have valid points regarding the meaning of mukham in Isopanishad.

Svetasvatara upanishad Third adhyaya: This tells us that the Supreme personal form is Rudra [not Krishna]. And in the same adhyaya, it goes on to say that beyond this personal form is the higher impersonal form. Very much advaita. I don't know how any Vaishnava can take this as a support for his philosophy. "For Rudra is the one, others notwithstanding for a moment, who rules all the worlds with power, watching over creatures as their protector, after creating them all, merging them together at the end. Having eyes and mouths everywhere, arms and feet everywhere, the one God making hands and wings, creates the heaven and the earth." "Higher than this is God, the supreme, the infinite, hidden in all things, body by body, the one embracing the universe--- by knowing this as Lord, humans become immortal."

Svetasvatara upanishad First adhyaya: This too certainly tells us about the impersonal Brahman. "Those who practiced meditation and union saw the divine soul power hidden in their own qualities." "In this which vitalizes all things, which appears in all things, the supreme--- in this God-wheel the human spirit wanders around thinking that the soul and the causer are different. When favored by this, one attains immortality. This has been sung as the supreme God. In it there is a triad. It is the firm support, the imperishable. By knowing what is in there, God-knowers merge in God, intent on it, liberated from the womb."

Shvu, I would say that the concept cyclical time is atleast implied in the creation hymns of Rk veda. But, I agree with you that it cannot be stretched beyond limit, as done in smritis, and lead towards fatalistic stances.

Hari Bol Sumeet prabhuji, Good post. I agree.

Dear Prasadji, I think Shvu has made some valid observations. Even in the previous ages, people have struggled to overcome their bondage to wealth, envy, sexual attraction and fame. The same now. I think that the population increases exponentially after it crosses a threshold. For example, till the 17th century, India's population was [guesstimated at] a mere 50 million. Now that has increased 20 times. I do believe that all our puranas have a divine origin and a certain element of truth and historicity to them. But, to accept every word written therein is incorrect. All of them have seen liberal interpolations. Many of them have been mixed with silly psuedo-science and myths. We would do better to seperate them. Don't you think Kaikeyi was quite jealous and scheming too. Don't you think that Dasarath was attracted to Kaikeyi on sexual grounds? We can just wish away everything and say that they were all enacting a pastime, but that would just remain a wish.