Ganeshprasad

Pranam

wow, what a surprise, happened to look for something and find the site is back for business. Good luck all

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Pranam all

Goodbyes does not appear in Guajarati language or culture, so I will say to you all Avajo, Pachi maila meaning come back soon, see you later.

It was fun while it lasted, so Thanks to J N Das swami.

I know I might have been pain to many, so forgive me if you can, I was only trying to do the Hindu thing. Allow me to quote

O Lord, let any one accept any sadhana, he is free to follow its pursuit.

But to me Your name is the granter of all boons.

Karma, upasana, jnana - the various paths outlined in the Vedas for the emancipation of the soul - all are good.

But I seek only one shelter and that is Your name; I seek nothing besides….Tulsidas Goswami

Jai Shree Ram Aum Namo Shivaya, Jai Maa

Jai Shree Krishna,

Pranam Sant ji

Just so that you know it was not me, giving you a negative reputation

All the best

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

I think that is the entire point. The title of the thread is "Who is a Vaishnava?". Obviously, for this title to make sense, one who does not meet the criteria laid out by the OP is not a Vaishnava.

Sure, that is if you take the literal meaning but weather Narsinh Mehta expected this for someone who is on the first rung of the ladder on the path of bhakti would be subject of speculation.

He had unflinching faith for lord Krishna if his story is anything to go by and his 100ds of bhajans are testimony of his life.

like Tulsidas, Mira etc he did not form any institute or seek any following yet their life story and bhajans are great inspiration to millions of bhakta of all denomination of Hindus.

Point here is these ideals are for anyone to follow, as you rightly point out, it certainly would make better world, what to speak of this forum.

As an aside, most of these criteria are about morals...and morals are more relevant to a healthy society than to religion. Non-Vaishnavas & atheists have to be moral too, unless they desire anarchy. And as morals apply to all people, regardless of their religious beliefs, I would like to keep the differentiating line clear. They do not have anything to do with Vaishnavism specifically or with any one other brand of religion.

Agreed but since he saw his world from Krishna point of view it was natural to apply vaishnav perspective , fortunately for us Gujarati ‘s Vishnu/Shiva rivalry never been so intense as in other parts of Bharat.

Infect Narsinh Mehta was granted Krishna Darsan by dint of him worshiping Lord Shiva.

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

That is a stringent set of qualifications. I can safely say there is no human on the planet (or ever was) who meets all these qualifications.

 

We can instead keep it simple and say a Vaishnava is one who worships Vishnu - the dictionary meaning.

 

Cheers

These were the ideals of Narsinh Mehta Of Junaghad

weather one can meet these criteria fully or not is beside the point, but one can try emulate them, even if some of them, would go a long way for ones spiritual growth.

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

You may be hearing word games but I am not playing any.

From where I am standing that is what I see.

Prabhupada said not to be concerned with the differences between the allegorical stories in Bhagvatam vs. modern science. Instead he advised to "take the essence" of Srimad Bhagavatam and not be bothered by lesser subject matters. Yes I said lesser subject matters. Who the present manu is irrelevant when compared to krishna-lila. I am indifferent to the manu's and kings of old or the wars between the asuras and devas for planetary control.

That is fine, each to their own, but then Vyasdeva must have his own reason and Sukdeva his.

But that is not what I am discussing or objecting to.

All I am asking in a simple yes or no, would this title of a thread acceptable to you BECOMING IN DIFFERENT TO BHAGVAT PURAN.

 

But I give up on you. I am totally indifferent to what is your opinon on the matter.

That is fine, because I have not expressed my opinion for you to comment on.

I have only made objection to your unsavoury opinion on Vedas which incidentally you have failed to defend.

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

Ganeshprasad,

 

You continue to ignore the post I kept quoting from Dasomi. This is my third and last request to you to respond in detail to that post. It is obvious why you want to ignore but until that is done there really is nothing more to add to our conversation.

 

Hare Krishna

There is no obvious reason as you suspect.

Fact of the matter is Raghu dealt with it at length, so I did not feel the need to add to it, and now Chandu has answered in short and sweet to the point and I quote again

The problem is with the person who is bewildered By the flowery language of Vedas.Not the Vedas itself.

 

We must learn the context of the verse , he has not said to be indifferent to Vedas but to rise above the tri guna, if you study Vedas that is what you will find in there. Lord Krishna would not say this later and I quote again, as quoted by Chandu

4:30 All these performers who know the meaning of sacrifice become cleansed of sinful reactions, and, having tasted the nectar of the results of sacrifices, they advance toward the supreme eternal atmosphere.

31:O best of the Kuru dynasty, without sacrifice one can never live happily on this planet or in this life: what then of the next?

32:All these different types of sacrifice are approved by the Vedas, and all of them are born of different types of work. Knowing them as such, you will become liberated.

Knowing them as such, you will become liberated.....

Jai Shree Krishna.

Pranam

I will answer this one. Yes one should also become indifferent to all material subject matter by becoming Krishna conscious, even in the Bhagavat Purana.

are we not playing with words here?

Be honest is it the same as saying becoming indifferent to Bhagvat puran?

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

 

 

 

Parts of the vedas are mundane. Mundane referring to 'worldly'. They regulate worldly life in a way that is spiritually progressive so in that way the purpose of the vedas is essentially spiritual.

 

I am glad we can agree on the purpose of Vedas. Fact that it deals with both worldly and spiritual, is not surprising after all we are bound in this world of tri guna. Final goal of Vedas are to lift us out of this material world.

But understand this point, IT IS KRISHNA WHO TELLS ARJUNA TO BECOME INDIFFERENT AND NOT ME. Krishna is the goal of vedanta. .

I am afraid Krishna does not say that, raising above tri guna does not translate to being indifferent to Vedas.

Philosophical discussions of Upanisad is all about enquiry in to supreme brahman,

Chandu has quoted verses in Bg4.30-32 does make it clear what Vedas purpose is and result of its application, Krishna does not contradict , it is our own interpretations that gives rise to erroneous statement like becoming indifferent to Vedas.

I highly doubt that a PHd professor spends much time sentimentaly pinning of his days in kindergarten. Of course he does not bemoan those days but they now have no more relevance for him personally.

What’s learned such as 2+2=4 always follows as truth in his final equation.

　

Quote:

Therefore, let the scripture be your authority in determining what should be done and what should not be done. You should perform your duty following the scriptural injunction. (16.24)

 

Ah but which scripture. Should we all try to become scholars in Vedanta Sutra or should we accept Srimad Bhagavatam as the proper commentary on the vedanta sutra. I think the latter.

Who am I to argue of your choice, but all school of thought in Hindu dharma accepts the authority of Vedas.

Bhagvat also teaches various material subject and as already been pointed out by someone, would you then become indifferent to Bhagvat puran?

Perhaps the problem is you don't understand the word indifference. That would explain a lot.

Yes the words are often misunderstood, not surprising therefore Vedas become the subject of being indifference.

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam Chandu

 

 

4:30 All these performers who know the meaning of sacrifice become cleansed of sinful reactions, and, having tasted the nectar of the results of sacrifices, they advance toward the supreme eternal atmosphere.

31:O best of the Kuru dynasty, without sacrifice one can never live happily on this planet or in this life: what then of the next?

 

32:All these different types of sacrifice are approved by the Vedas, and all of them are born of different types of work. Knowing them as such, you will become liberated.

 

 

Knowing them as such, you will become liberated.....

 

Thanks for the quotes very nice.

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam Theist

A dramatic post Ganshprasad .

None more than the thread header it self,Theist, far for me to suggest to you how to word it but when you put it the way you did, It is bound to have a response.

Vedas speaks in many level of truth, from mundane to highest, problem here is you are trying to paint picture of Vedas to be just mundane and therefore one can be indifferent to it, and that is far from the truth.

The analogy breaks down here because after tasting the fruit of the Holy Names one no longer needs to seek any other fruit. No need to return to the tree personally. But like I said the tree still stands for others who are to water and prune the tree and harvest it's fruit.

If one has developed the highest taste that does not follow he/she would become indifferent to that which showed the path, just as PhD professor would not knock the pre schooling.

There will always be more people wanting to go to heaven or get rich without acknowledging their eternal dependence on the Supreme Person, the one without a second, Sri Krishna so don't worry.

Oh I am not worried but what you are pre supposing is that everyone who so follows Vedas do not acknowledge the supreme, now that is news to me.

Perhaps you can tell us what is better, to obtain riches by dharmic way or build big empires in the name of the lord, any which way, by hook or crook?

You end your post with a Jai Sri krishna yet you are arguing against His very words in the Bhagavad-gita. Does that make sense to you?

No sir I am not arguing against Lord Krishna, as it is already pointed earlier Shree Krishna has not said for anyone, to be indifferent to Vedas, infect he says I am to be known by all Vedas b.g 15.5 further he says in chapter 16

Therefore, let the scripture be your authority in determining what should be done and what should not be done. You should perform your duty following the scriptural injunction. (16.24)

Now you tell me how can you ignore what Lord Krishna says?

When we become indifferent to Vedas then we act on our own whims, cheat, lie or what ever in the name of end justify the means.

Please read this post from Dasomi to clear your confusion.

Yes I have, nothing I have read tell me to be indifferent to Vedas.

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

2.Asato Ma Sat Gamaya

Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

Mrityor Maamritam Gamaya

Om-Let us be led from the unreal to the Real

From darkness to the Light

From mortality to Eternity

Vedas how can I ever be indifferent to it?

What would those brahman’s think, spending their life time reciting them, learning and preserving them, for what?

So that we can be indifferent to it!

Should we neglect the tree that gives us the fruits?

Would a PhD professor be indifferent to kindergarten to high school to university?

If we have little or no knowledge of Vedas or its purpose we should not comment on it.

By all means hang on to the fruit we like but don’t try and chop that tree.

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

i dont want u to eat meat . i cant compel u its prohibited in islam. its totally ur wish.

Useless statement, there is not an ounce of sincerity in it, why do you come preach to us violence when we have given you enough evidence and reason for our vegetarians diet.

i was saying wat ur holy scriptures says. vedas are of the top prioriites. vedas does permits. almighty god in his infinite wisdom permits us its we who find hurdles in it....

You have got no clue as to what Vedas are saying or what is the purpose behind the human life is. Do you have faith in Vedas? If not there really is no point in us discussing it, cause, any rational discussion on it will fly over your head.

You are right when you say ‘almighty god in his infinite wisdom permits us its we who find hurdles in it.... ‘

Because our Shastra says in no uncertain terms that jivo jivasya jivanam meaning one living entity is food for another but that all mighty God has given us power to discriminate and I don’t even for a moment think about eating another human, so do you call this a matter of finding hurdle? Do you?

Bhagvat Gita is no less authority for us hindus and I pointed to you this verse which I quote again

And that action performed in ignorance and delusion without consideration of future bondage or consequences, which inflicts injury and is impractical, is said to be action in the mode of ignorance. 18.25BG

I ask you again what mode are you in?

I know this will have no effect on you but this is for the benefit for us Hindus, Vedas does not advocate meat eating, fire sacrifice is grossly misunderstood, here I quote some verse from the Vedas:

May I be dear to all animals (Atharva 16.71.4)

May you eat rice (Vrihi); may you eat barley (Yava), also black

beans (Mdsa) and Sesamum (Tila). This is the share aloted to both

of you for happy results, 0 you two teeth (dantau), may you not

injure the father and mother. (Atharva - 6-140-2)

Do not kill any of the Creatures. (Yaju. L 1)

Do not kill the horse. (Yaju. 13.42)

Do not kill quadrupeds. (Yak. 13.44)

Do not kill wool-giving animals. (Yak. 13.47)

May you be illumined by the mighty rags of knowledge and may

you not kill the cow, the aditi (Yaju.13.43)

Do not kill a cow but treat her as Mother. (Yaju.12.32)

Protect both our species, two-legged and four-legged. Both food and water for their needs supply. May they with us increase in stature and strength. Save us from hurt all our days, O Powers!

Rig Veda Samhita 10.37.11. VE, 319

One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or of another animal, and deprives others of milk by slaughtering cows, O King, if such a fiend does not desist by other means, then you should not hesitate to punish such a person.

Rig Veda Samhita, 10.87.16, FS 90

Peaceful be the earth, peaceful the ether, peaceful heaven, peaceful the waters, peaceful the herbs, peaceful the trees. May all Gods bring me peace. May there be peace through these invocations of peace. With these invocations of peace which appease everything, I render peaceful whatever here is terrible, whatever here is cruel, whatever here is sinful. Let it become auspicious, let everything be beneficial to us.

Atharva Veda Samhita 10. 191. 4

Those noble souls who practice meditation and other yogic ways, who are ever careful about all beings, who protect all animals, are the ones who are actually serious about spiritual practices.

Atharva Veda Samhita 19.48.5. FS, 90

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

Hinduism is totally based on the teachings of the holy scriptures...am i ryt? then i dont understand when almighty god has given the permission of having non-veg still u deny that...???

Why oh why do you want Hindus to eat meat? when would you understand in that thick skull or that hardened heart of yours, the meaning of peace.

You would kill innocent beings for the promise of paradise and I would not kill an ant willingly, even for the promise of liberation. A Hindu is par dukhe dukhi.

Do you understand Sanskrit or the real import of those offerings?

All those verse has no meaning if I cant understand this simple instruction that Lord Krishna gives.

And that action performed in ignorance and delusion without consideration of future bondage or consequences, which inflicts injury and is impractical, is said to be action in the mode of ignorance. 18.25BG

So ask you what mode are you in, we all know eating meat is impractical, even science is coming round to this thinking, do you not feel the pain and anguish you are subjecting to those innocent creatures.?

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

This is a prayer to Rudra but it does not help your thesis in any other way.

of course it doesn’t in your eyes, but a self effulgent, whom no one can defeat is quite clear to me. Or

Book 6 HYMN XLIX. Visvedevas.

-----

10 Rudra by day, Rudra at night we honour with these our songs, the Universe's Father.

Him great and lofty, blissful, un-decaying let us call especially as the Sage impels us.

Note: Rudra is the father of the Universe. At night, Soma is His form and in the day the Sun is His form. Sages and men pray to both. Some jiva this one is!

In Rig Veda 7.40.5 it is clearly stated that Rudra gets his strength through worship of Vishnu.

Visnu is the lofty arrow of Rudra. This is how Rudra gains strength and this is how He destroyed Tripura with Visnu ashtra.

I can quote how Indra is stronger then Vishu, what would that prove?

Do you believe the Vedas and shrutis are inconsistent? If you do, then there is no point having any discussion one way or another.

Did I say anything to that effect?

However, if you consider them consistent and one in purpose, then they must be interpreted to resolve apparent inconsistencies. Names like "Rudra,Maheshvara," and so on are also listed as names of Vishnu in the Sahasranama.

I see no inconsistencies apparent or otherwise, Shaivas say the same in regards to names of Shiva which includes Vishnu etc.

We find within the Veda a statement that Vishnu is supreme and then another place Rudra is extolled as supreme, we might conclude that Vishnu and Rudra must be the same being or different aspects of the same being.

In that way there is no inconsistency in the Veda and we can accept its statements at face value, without recourse to unusual interpretations.

However that’s is not my problem since I have no problem accepting this

46 They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and heavenly nobly-winged Garutman.

To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan.

47 -----

48 Twelve are the fellies, and the wheel is single; three are the naves. What man hath understood it?

Note: The wheel is single and the 12 spokes (fellies) are perceived as different aspects. To what is One, sages give many a title.

The "Rudra" in Svetashvatara Upanishad can be interpreted as Vishnu. This is internally consistent since the Shvetaashvatara invokes Hari in the very beginning and later refers to the Deity as the one from whom Brahma was born.

.

When SU is referring to Shiva, Rudra, Hara Girisa I take it as meaning just that I can fully understand your problems as a Vaishnavas, but I am still inclined to accept what the Upanishad actually says and not what others would like it to say.

If the Upanishad wants to teach us that Narayana is the Supreme Deity, why does it say that it is Rudra who is devanam prabhavas chodbhavas cha?

shanno mitra.h sha.m varuNa.h | ... | shanno

vishhNururukrama.h | namo brahmaNe | namsaste vaayo |

tvameva pratyaxam brahmaasi |

shankara explains as follows: The various gods are propitiated because they remove the various obstacles encountered while trying attain knowledge. vishNu is called urukrama.h, since he is swift footed. vAyu is called the perceptible brahman rather than the other deities (mitra.h, varuNa.h, vishhNu, etc) because as prANa he is closest to the

self (Atman). Hence vAyu alone is called pratyaxam brahma. Note that shankara has no problems in elevating vAyu as compared to vishNu in this bhAshya.

Look at the paradox here vayu, in kena upanisad failed to see brahman yet here he is pratyaxam brahmaasi

Unlike you I would not relegate Vishnu to lower then Vayu, because I have no hierarchy problem, Brahman is Achintya.

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

Rig Veda 7.40.5

 

Now tell me how "Rudra" should be understood in these different instances and you will have finished making your point.

See Rig Veda 7.XLVI.1

If it was that simple as you might have us believe, the debate would have ended a long time ago.

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

Three words: What about it?

Just five letters in this case, RUDRA

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

For those who want to eat animal flesh will find any excuse under the sun, so its hardly surprising to find they actually distort meaning, by inserting words and also omit certain line.

 

 

 

6. Hindu scriptures give permission to have non-vegetarian food

No they dont, read on

It is mentioned in Manu Smruti, the law book of Hindus, in chapter 5 verse 30

"The eater who eats the flesh of those to be eaten does nothing bad, even if he does it day after day, for God himself created some to be eaten and some to be eater."

Actual Verse

30. The eater who daily even devours those destined to be his food, commits no sin; for the creator himself created both the eaters and those who are to be eaten (for those special purposes).

We know one living entity is dependent on another. That is what we can see and that is what Vedas tell us jive jivese jivanum now we could easily use this as a lisence to kill and enjoy and contrast this with thou shell not kill in the bible and yet we see the opposite, why, because we follow the higher doctrine of ahimsa.

What I find so sad of muslims is that they wish peace in their greating to one another yet they lack in their action

Again next verse of Manu Smruti, that is, chapter 5 verse 31 says

"Eating meat is right for the sacrifice, this is traditionally known as a rule of the gods."

Further in Manu Smruti chapter 5 verse 39 and 40 says

You convinently omited full verse, here it is

.

31. 'The consumption of meat (is befitting) for sacrifices,' that is declared to be a rule made by the Gods; but to persist (in using it) on other (occasions) is said to be a proceeding worthy of Rakshasas.

And then if we read further which our friend deliberately remains ignorant about for obvious reaons, makes it abuntly clear what we human should not eat.

Chapter 5

48. Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to (the attainment of) heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun (the use of) meat.

49. Having well considered the (disgusting) origin of flesh and the (cruelty of) fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh.

50. He who, disregarding the rule (given above), does not eat meat like a Pisaka, becomes dear to men, and will not be tormented by diseases.

51. He who permits (the slaughter of an animal), he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells (meat), he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, (must all be considered as) the slayers (of the animal).

52. There is no greater sinner than that (man) who, though not worshipping the gods or the manes, seeks to increase (the bulk of) his own flesh by the flesh of other (beings).

53. He who during a hundred years annually offers a horse-sacrifice, and he who entirely abstains from meat, obtain the same reward for their meritorious (conduct).

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam JND and all

It is unfortunate that someone asks a sincere question about shiva purana, and some members want to immediately come out with their sectarian attacks. It is for this reason that I feel a religious forum is pointless.

 

Is it justified to attack someone because they like Lord Shiva? Suppose we replace Shiva with some other religion. Would the same attack be appropriate?

 

For example, would it be appropriate to mock other religious people as follows:

 

Oh great, we have two Christ Afficinados on board here!

 

Oh great, we have two Buddha Afficinados on board here!

 

Oh great, we have two Islam Afficinados on board here!

 

Oh great, we have two Yahwey Afficinados on board here!

 

It is sad to see some people's hatred for Hinduism while they themselves follow a subset of it. Sectarian hatred is what makes religion useless. Whether it is Christian sectarianism, Islamic sectarianism, or Hindu sectarianism (under the brand Vaishnava).

 

If a thread doesn't interest you or tally with your belief system, then please don't read it. If there is someone asking about Shiva, Shakti or Ganesh, and if you hate those devas, then please don't read the thread. Try to control your speech. Only speak on those topics which you hold dear.

 

As has been mentioned many times, this is not a vaishnava forum. Have the courtesy to respect all vedic religions here even if you disagree with them. It is a fact that basically all Vaishnavas here have never even read Shiva Purana, so they should just keep quiet. If you don't know a topic, please resist the uncontrollable urge to speak.

 

I used to participate regularly in these forums, but because of so many meaningless posts I lost interest in even reading the forums. Now I don't even have much interest to keep the forums open, as 50% of what is posted here is basically rubbish, with the other 50% being actually valuable information. If we count the number of innocent posters like the starter of this thread who have visited and posted sincere questions on Hinduism, only to be smashed with the vaishnava know it all hammer, it will be thousands and thousands of people. Is it worth it, offending thousands of sincere seekers, just to have a place for religious people to argue?

 

Reading the above message, my eyes became wet, all this years I had been posting here, this is all I wanted to convey. If I had said anything other than that or hurt any ones sentiment, I apologise unreservedly.

I will now bow out of this forum and resist posting any further, happy in the knowledge the forum founder has made this profound statement and if I can take a cue from him than I should concentrate in my sadhana.

Once again my Dandvat Pranam.

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

Oh great, we have two Shiva Afficinados on board here!

Sriman Sambya & Sriman Ganeshprasad please provide the assembly of vaishnavas [or just direct your erudition solely at me] the answers to these questions:

 

Where, in sastra, has Lord Shiva explained the topics:

jiva,

parkriti,

karma,

isvara,

kala (time),

the differences between the yogic schools of thought,

basic sitting silent meditation,

dharma,

moksha,

sat-sanga,

good vs passionate vs bad foods/actions/austerities/fearlessness/equanimity/faith/

sacrifice/charity/renunciation/knowledge/performers/(doers of actions)/understanding/determination/happiness?

Well i was going to make a similar response but Kaisersoseji beat me to it.

you may also try Siva Gita.

Oh no i can hear a Tamsic Cry.

Please remember not to quote anyone except your Dear Bhagavan's melodious words.

i hope you take your own advise and not bore us by your copy paste someone else's opinion.

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam Mothman

have you got your answers from reading the above posts?

Kaisersoseji have given a good answer, i think.

Jai Shree Krishna

Ganeshprasad,

 

Kindly refrain from posting anything on this thread. The specific purpose of this thread is to understand Shiva from the perspective of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. THIS IS A SERIOUS THREAD WITH A SPECIFIC SUBJECT!

Pranam Raghu

Just in case you did not notice this is a general forum

Most important what is the nature and purpose of your inquiry, is it to learn and assimilate that knowledge in your sadhna or is it simply find holes in their doctrines? Are you the sole judge to explain their inconsistencies?

If you are SERIOUS ABOUT LEARNING THE SPECIFIC SUBJECT! Perhaps you can take Harihar advice and approach a senior gaudiya vaishnava acharya in person to get reply to your query.

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

Gee, what a lot of vaishnava

This is what happens when people have hierarchy problem.

Sure there are apperant contradictions in the Shastra and each group start with their own base and reconcile them to suit their own doctrine.

Are you so insecure in your own belief, so that you relegate devas to demidog status and Lord Shiva a Jiva! Fortunately Vedas do not support such silly views.

The One God encompasses and surpasses All Attributes.

And the many Gods are the various Attributes of the One that is beyond Attribution.

The One true God is known by many Names; and these Names evoke Forms.

And yet, the One true God encompasses and surpasses All Names, and All Forms.

That One God is effectively unimaginable, unnameable, and unable to be given worldly tribute.

Only in Samadhi can this One God be truly Known.

Sri Bhagvat 4.1-28Atri Muni desiring a son like him called upon the Bhagvan thinking of him only. But although he is far beyond the mental speculation of man, all three of you have come here. Kindly let me know how you have come, I am greatly bewildered about this.

4.1/30 –31

AS you willed, precisely so it must happen; it could not otherwise. For it was your will, O Bahmana- you, who are so true of resolve. We three (taken together) represent the truth on which you cotemplated. Now there will be born to you, may you be blessed, three sons embodying our rays, who will themselves be celebrated throughout the world; O dear sage, and shall spread your fame too.

Atri Rishi started from not knowing who the Lord is, performed extream tapsya to realize the truth. Supream Brahman is known through ones effort and not by debates or even reading lots of books and certainly not by denigrating Devas.

Jai Shree Krishna

Now my question is this - and this is primarily for Vaishnavas, since Advaitins and Neo-Advaitins may not really care one way or another. If you say Shiva is God, and that he is the same as Vishnu, they why object to Shaivism? Why object to the idea that one can worship Shiva for liberation?

 

Why indeed when Bhagvat Puran endorse it.

SB 4.6/45 O most auspicious lord, you have ordained the heavenly planets, the spiritual Vaikuntha planets and the impersonal Brahman sphere as the respective destinations of the performers of auspicious activities. Similarly, for others, who are miscreants, you have destined different kinds of hells which are horrible and ghastly. Yet sometimes it is found that their destinations are just the opposite. It is very difficult to ascertain the cause of this.

SB 8.7.20: The devas observed Lord Siva sitting on the summit of kailasa Hill with his wife, Bhavani, for the auspicious development of the three worlds. He was being worshiped by great saintly persons desiring liberation. The devas offered him their obeisance’s and prayers with great respect.

ekadā deva-yātrāyāḿ

gopālā jāta-kautukāḥ

anobhir anaḍud-yuktaiḥ

prayayus te 'mbikā-vanam ( SB 10.34.1)

Meaning:

One day Gopala along with his mates, eager to take a trip to worship Lord Śiva, travelled by bullock carts to the Ambikā forest ( SB 10.34.1)

tatra snātvā sarasvatyāḿ

devaḿ paśu-patiḿ vibhum

ānarcur arhaṇair bhaktyā

devīḿ ca ṇṛpate 'mbikām ( SB 10.34.2)

After arriving there, Krsna along with his mates bathed in the Sarasvatī River and then devotedly worshiped with various paraphernalia the All powerful and all pervading Godhead Lord Paśupati [devaḿ paśu-patiḿ vibhum] and his consort, goddess Ambikā. ( SB 10.34.2)

So Lord Krishna had no problem why should you?

Tulsidas Goswami had no problem, let me guess he might fall in your classification as Neo- Hindu.

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

 

Question. Is there any scriptural Verse you can point to which says one can not be Brahmin unless one is born in Brahmin family?

Mahabharata Shanti parva

"Yudhishthira said, 'Thou O grandsire, art endued with wisdom and knowledge of the scriptures, with conduct and behaviour, with diverse kinds of excellent attributes, and also with years. Thou art distinguished above others by intelligence and wisdom and penances. I shall, therefore, O thou that art the foremost of all righteous men, desire to address enquiries to thee respecting Righteousness. There is not another man, O king, in all the worlds, who is worthier of being questioned on such subjects. O best of kings, how may one, if he happens to be a Kshatriya or a Vaisya or a Sudra, succeed in acquiring the status of a Brahmana? It behoveth thee to tell me the means. Is it by penances the most austere, or by religious acts, or by knowledge of the scriptures, that a person belonging to any of the three inferior orders succeeds in acquiring the status of a Brahmana? Do tell me this, O grandsire!'

"Bhishma said, 'The status of a Brahmana, O Yudhishthira, is incapable of acquisition by a person belonging to any of the three other orders. That status is the highest with respect to all creatures. Travelling through innumerable orders of existence, by undergoing repeated births, one at last, in some birth, becomes born as a Brahmana.

...."Bhishma continued, 'Hearing these words of his, Purandara said unto him. The status of a Brahmana, O Matanga, which thou desirest to acquire is really unattainable by thee. It is true, thou desirest to acquire it, but then it is incapable of acquisition by persons begotten on uncleansed souls. O thou of foolish understanding, thou art sure to meet with destruction if thou persistest in this pursuit. Desist, therefore, from this vain endeavour without any delay. This object of thy desire, viz., the status of a Brahmana, which is the foremost of everything, is incapable of being won by penances. Therefore, by coveting that foremost status, thou wilt incur sure destruction. One born as a Chandala can never attain to that status which is regarded as the most sacred among the deities and Asuras and human beings!'" end of quote.

Varna has traditionally been recognised by birth, birth again is determined by Guna and Karma, so the cycle goes on, until one decide to transcend all designation.

Jai Shree Krishna