tackleberry

What exactly is the point being made on this thread. That Krsna is not Bhagavan? That is absurd. One would have to toss out the Bhagavad Gita and the Bhagavatam to make that stick and even then there are sastras that would cause embarrasment.

Correct. But to be fair, nobody's suggesting that, except the OP.

Being logical and on topic is not a dodge.

In your little mind you have grasped at a non-existent straw and think you have somehow won some kind of victory. Dream on. It's off topic and you are arguing across threads all frustrated with the proverbial hair up your orifice. If you want to discredit Prabhupada start that thread and we'll discuss it.

Cbrahma, answer with a yes or no. Do you or do you not believe in Christ Loka? Don't evade this, don't change the subject.

I am not aware of Rama being accused of cowardice in this episode. On the contrary it was the smart move, as he would have failed to win a head-on battle with Vali by virtue of the latter's unique abilities.

 

So I do not see any problems here.

 

Cheers

Let's see. In your case, the inference is: Rama made a smart move because he didn't have the capacity to defeat Vali. In another person's argument, the inference could be: Rama is a coward because he hid behind a tree.

Both arguments are flawed, because your inferences contradict the source (upajIvya) of its hetu. Bottom line, no matter what the anumAna is (whether your inference that Rama couldn't have defeated Vali, or another inference that Rama was a coward), if it contradicts upajIvya, it's flawed.

It is probably OK to think like that, but why does Lord Vishnu appear as such "imperfect" avatars? Essentially to help us, and to have some entertainment by being "imperfect".

According to MadhvAchArya, the arguments pointing to alleged flaws in the Lord suffer from upajIvya virodha. Put simply, it goes like this, if we consider the oft-repeated accusation that Rama was a coward and lacked powers, because he killed Vali hiding behind a tree etc. etc.

Inference or anumAna: Rama is a coward

Source of Inference (hetu): Vali Episode

Source of this hetu: RAmAyaNa, which NEVER says Rama is a coward.

Conclusion: anumAna contradicts the source of its hetu, and therefore renders itself invalid. Technically, it's called upjIvya virodha.

The same logic provided by Madhva can be extended to ANY accusation regarding the Lord's alleged flaw, doing which we can render the opponent's argument invalid and meaningless.

In your fevered imagination. I answered your ridiculous accusation and all you are capable of is making groundless wholesale insults. Get a life.

Why don't you just answer this question for our benefit? Do you or do you not believe in Christ loka? If you do, please provide shruti pramANa. Thank you.

Where have you been? Yes, the English-educated, crypto-socialist, liberal intelligentsia of India habitually attacks Hindu culture up to and including Lord Vishnu and His devotees. They have been like this for decades. And no, they don't make a special case for iskcon devotees. They hate you just as much as they hate the rest of us.

 

Like nice little subjects of the British crown, they learned their lessons well. Now they teach the very derogatory theories that they themselves were taught. This is the tragedy of imperialism - when a culture becomes enslaved to the ideas of a foreign power who have guns and muscle but no civilization or sophistication.

Agreed, but the Brits did what they had to do. As a conquering race, their job was to demoralize the enemy, which they did. Not that it makes it right, but it's *normal* for the conqueror to demoralize the enemy by attacking his culture and so on; it's more or less a war tactic. If not forgivable, at least it's understandable.

But what is neither forgivable nor understandable is Indians doing the exact same thing.

The Shvetashvatara Upanishad is Veda; it is to be found in the Krishna Yajur Veda. So you might say that any statement contradicting the SU is contradicting Veda.

Which you're not following, are you? Let's see. The AmbrAni Sukta in Rg Veda, for instance, says that Shri, the Goddess of the universe, derives her power from Vishnu. There are multiple places where Vishnu's supremacy is mentioned. Now if we consider the Rudra of SU to mean the deity Shiva, one portion of the veda will contradict another. To avoid this contradiction, one has to accept Rudra as another name of Vishnu, so that shruti won't be self-contradictory. Your approach will put SU in conflict with other parts of Shruti.

eko hi rudro na dvitiyaya tasthur

ya imal lokan ishata ishanibhih

pratyan janams tishthati sanchukocha anta-kale

samsrijya vishva bhuvanani gopah

(SU 3.2)

 

I am sure there are ways of reinterpreting this text

There are no 'many' ways of interpretation at all, except in the minds of neo-hindus. All interpretation must follow one rule and one rule only-it shouldn't contradict veda. And because veda says Vishnu is supreme, other texts must be interpreted in tune with Vishnu's supremacy, failing which we indirectly admit inconsitencies in the veda. And once you admit contradiction in the veda, any 'proof' you give of Shiva's supremacy would be invalid, because you consider the very source of this so-called evidence to be invalid and full of contradictions. It's that simple.

Pranam

I have said all along I accept what Veda Vyasdev has given

Which means you accept that Shiva isn't supreme based on the Mohini, BakAsura, BanAsura, and similar incidents. Thank you!

I don't know where some Indians get the idea that Siva is jiva-tattva.

He is Visnu in another form. Does that mean that Saivites are Vaisnavas or that Vaisnavas should worship Siva?

So you and your illiterate hippie friend-Mahaaak-know better than Madhva, Ramanuja, and several other vaishnava achArya-s, who opined that Shiva is jiva-tattva. Oh well....

The demand for Pramana is easily satisfied. The Shvetashvatara Upanishad is shruti and it is overtly Shaiva. There are literally hundreds of quotations that could be given from Mahabharata and Puranas that confirm the same point. The reason why Rudra is born from Brahma and his association with tamoguna is explained in detail in the Shiva Purana. I can't see any reason to presume that the Bhagavata is any more authoritative than the Shiva Purana.

Then please quote SU. The word 'shiva' means auspicious, doesn't refer to the deity shiva. And shiva purana is tamasic.

It's surprising to see this in-fighting , because Hinduism is so cultural.

It's usually Westerners (mlechhas) that are condemned as blasphemers.

Whatever we think of Hinduism, nobody is suggesting Hindus are angels who can do no wrong. Nobody ever did on this forum, or elsewhere, at least to my knowledge.

These are Indians that are blaspheming their own gods? Nice. So it's not just the mean 'ol Westerners.

Who cares where blasphemy comes from? Whether it's from India or west, it's wrong and must be condemned. There must be no distinction in these matters, abuse is abuse.

Pranam

 

 

 

simple answer, YES

 

But why seek my opinion, don’t you believe Sri Vyasdev, when he writes , \

That's the question I am asking you. Do you believe Bhagavatam when it says Shiva's mind is filled with kazmala as mentioned 8.12.35? If you don't, you don't believe in bhagavatam. If you do, you do NOT accept him as supreme. So which one is it? Don't evade the issue.

Pranam

 

Hara the Man Lusting After Hari the woman, if you call lusting after Hari a flow, so be it.

My personal opinions or yours are immaterial here. What bhagavatam says is important. Bhagavatam is calling Shiva as one fooled by the Lord's Maya, and that his agitated mind is full of kazmala, filth. See 8.12.35 for reference. Now tell me, could this entity be supreme?

There were no H-bombs during world war two, they were not developed until 1949

 

I wouldn't believe everything the Catholic church says either, the way they exploited and forced their nonsense Pope in India is unforgivable

 

Interesting reading though. Remember its not so much the body we need to protect, it's the soul. Whats the point of having a healthy body in mundane religiousity that lives a long time without Krishna?

Careful! On this forum, you can attack Krishna, no problem. But you cannot attack the pope, and hope to get away with it. The hare christians are watching.

Hare Krishna Everyone,

 

Thank you so much everyone for engaging me in Krishna katha for approximately one year. It was really a very enjoyable experience. You have engaged me so well that I have become a senior member of Audarya in a short amount of time!

 

I just wanted to say that (starting from this Friday) although I will be still posting, it will be not so frequent. My studies are becoming harder and I will be preparing for college applications around this winter. Please bless me to continue remembering the lotus feet of Lord Nityananda even while I am doing my studies, because otherwise my life is useless.

 

If I have offended anyone with harsh words or anyway else, please be compassionate and forgive me.

 

Thanking everyone once again,

 

Your servant eternally,

indulekhadasi

I wish you all the success. But out of curiosity, what would you like to pursue in the material world? Any specific interest like music, writing? Because these professions may be a little more conducive to spirituality....

Pranam

I accept

Thank you for accepting that Shiva lost control due to lust. Now do you think an entity subject to flaws like lust etc. can be supreme?

Pranam

 

I have no problem accepting what you have quoted.

 

So the Lord is attracted by Mohini Swarup. Hara runs after Hari all fun really.

 

 

Bhagavatam doesn't say it's all fun (if so, provide verse number), it clearly says Shiva is overwhelmed by lust, loses control and runs like a mad elephant. Do you accept it or not?

What do you mean?

Read Shvu's post to which Amlesh has responded. You'll understand.

Often Hinduism is accused of being polytheist because of its pantheon of deities. The big arguments that ensue even from Prabhupada's translation of deva into demigod illustrate this difficulty. Sanskrit dictionaries render the term 'a god', divinity or exalted personality as possible meanings. When it comes to so many devas, if the the word god is used the conclusion seems inescapably polytheistic. Also many Hindus I've spoken to, sound polytheistic in their democratic attitude towards the devatas, nevertheless recognizing a hierarchy of sorts. One day there is Narayana worship, the next Ganesh worship and so on. How does this practice escape the Western theological accusation of polytheism?

If you define polytheism as the belief in multiple gods, yes, most traditions within Hinduism are polytheistic. Classical traditions consider deva-s like Indra, Surya etc. to be real entities. Even advaita considers them real, at least on the vyavahArika (sp) level.

But this is totally different from believing that all gods are equal, and except neo-vedanta, no tradition within Hinduism does that, because they do believe in the Supremacy of One God, to which different traditions may give different names. Which makes most of Hinduism monontheistic, except advaita which is monistic as well.

As you can see, this is quite complicated, and the simplistic 'western' idea of defining Hinduism as 'this or that' just doesn't work. Words like polytheism, monotheism may be useful in understanding western religions, but to understand Vedic traditions, it's better to approach them with a mind uncluttered by such notions.

In any case verse numbers were given. The purpose for those verses were that Prajapati are praying to Lord Shiva there is no escaping that, there is no doubt about that. I don’t need no interpretation I accept just as given by Vyasdeva.

Excellent! The same Bhagavatam also says in 8.12.27:

tām anvagacchad bhagavān

bhavaḥ pramuṣitendriyaḥ

kāmasya ca vaśaḿ nītaḥ

kareṇum iva yūthapaḥ

TRANSLATION

His senses being agitated, Lord Śiva, victimized by lusty desires, began to follow Her, just as a lusty elephant follows a she-elephant.

--------------------------------

So Ganesh Prasad, do you accept what Vyasadeva says in the above instance?

I am interested in Bhagvatam and what Vyasdeva is saying

In that case, you also believe in the following bhagavatam verses, right?

8.12.28

so 'nuvrajyātivegena

gṛhītvānicchatīḿ striyam

keśa-bandha upānīya

bāhubhyāḿ pariṣasvaje

TRANSLATION

After following Her with great speed, Lord Śiva caught Her by the braid of Her hair and dragged Her near him. Although She was unwilling, he embraced Her with his arms.

8.12.31tasyāsau padavīḿ rudro

viṣṇor adbhuta-karmaṇaḥ

pratyapadyata kāmena

vairiṇeva vinirjitaḥ

TRANSLATION

As if harassed by an enemy in the form of lusty desires, Lord Śiva followed the path of Lord Viṣṇu, who acts very wonderfully and who had taken the form of Mohinī.

----

So Ganesh Prasad, do you accept the above verses given in the bhagavatam?

Thanks for that, but humbly, after knowing by the Grace of Hari some of the qualities of Mahatmas, I don't have the courage to claim that I have some love for Krishna or having understood the purpose of Vedas.

 

Infact, I need to thank you all Vaishnavas, without whom I'm nothing. If with ego, I can claim to have understood something, then I would like to thank Srila Prabhupada and also all the great acharya of the different but same conclusive Sampradaya who rescued me in my delusive moments.

 

I can never take the credit of anything even if something good can come out of me.

LOL...speak of taking the bait.

No response. DOES THIS MEAN I HAVE OFFICIALLY WON THIS DEBATE HERE AND FOREVER MORE! THANK YOU! IT WAS FUN!

That was funny. The reason why no one responded was because those verses had nothing to do with Raghu's question. Put simply, the verses don't prove your point, so why would anyone care to respond?

I didn't call Vishnu a demigod. But that is semantics. He is surely a guna avatara, as are Brahma and Siva.

As for Dark Warriors' claim that Siva is a post occupied by jiva, what scripture is that based on?

Also as far as 'Prabhupada said', Prabhupada is simply translating slokas and drawing from Vaisnava traditions. This is exactly what DW is doing. He disagrees with Prabhupada.

Who am I supposed to believe?

In many places, Prabhupada doesn't give the exact meaning of the Sanskrit words while translating. Whenever there's the word 'Brahman,' he translates it to mean 'brahma jyoti' or 'impersonal brahman,' which isn't at all accurate. There's no Sanskrit equivalent for these words found in the scriptures. So whilst Prabhupad's efforts are laudable, we must also learn the real meaning of the words to deepen our understanding. Blind faith isn't gonna help.