tackleberry

Do you realize that accusations are NOT truth?

This is what traditionalists call 'arthavAda.' Let me give an example. Sometimes, we compare two evil men, A and B, and say, "Compared to A, B is a saint." It's not as if we actually believe in B's alleged saintliness, but simply to emphasize A's degradation, we may say so. Likewise, when some texts say brAhmaNa ceases to be brAhmaNa, or varNa is determined by guNa rather than by birth, it's just to stress the utter importance of cultivating these brahminical guNa-s, so much so even birth isn't important. Not that the texts are ACTUALLY denying birth-based varNa, because if they were, we wouldn't have had birth-based varna system right from satya yuga. God Himself, in his incarnations, didn't change this, and made sure it functioned properly. So one has to understand these apparently contradictory statements in the manner described.

If the highest level of bhakti is devoid of jnAna, then in what way would it be different from the present state? We don't have jnAna now, and we won't have jnAna in the highest state, so what's the difference?

You might want to provide verse number? Which means nothing to me, since I am NOT his follower. And why does that make the verse interesting?

The problem with most Vaishnava-s is that they believe their religion is all about sentimentalism with little scope for knowledge. Most of them have the wrong notion that devotion is all about sentimental activities like singing, chanting etc. to the exclusion of knowledge. Reality is quite different, though, and Krishna Himself says in BG 7.17 that the JnAni is the best bhakta. This ought to inspire us to study and contemplate more, so that devotion may grow from this knowledge. But people who believe devotion and knowledge are mutually exclusive...they will get bored with devotion sooner or later. So the real problem is NOT devotion or the lack thereof, but the reluctance to accumulate knowledge.

Don't see the point of your post, but if you're denying differences, it goes against pratyaksha. And if you quote Agama to counter it, it will suffer from the flaw of upajivya virodha. Hence, your interpretation will be deemed incorrect, even if the Agama is accepted. Besides, Agama itself is replete with references to differences amongst various deva-s, how they all differ (and are subordinate to) from ViSnu, and so forth. Just a few cases will not do, and English translations cannot be trusted. Please post in Sanskrit, the very word impersonal in one of the verses you quoted sounds dubious. There's no equivalent in Sanskrit to mean "Impersonal Brahman." So your so-called references are not valid.

Other points ok, but here dvaitins would disagree, because they consider Durga to be the form of Laxmi that controls tamas, the other two being Sri and Bhu, controlling satva and rajas respectively. To equate Laxmi with Radha, on the other hand, would be a little dubious, considering the lack of evidence in either Shruti or Smrti.

Just curious...how many times do you recite? And do you always feel like it's something new, or does it get monotonous at times?

I don't see how this is relevant. But just for the record, there was nothing wrong with Arjuna's attitude, because Karna was a sUta putra (at least to people other than Bhishma etc. who knew the truth).

To speak of avyakta in this manner is really sick. And to compare Her with some ordinary apsara-s (which is what gopi-s are) is nothing short of blasphemy. Sri is samana, meaning She's with Krishna at all times and in all places. So where's the q of not gaining entry into some pastimes? You're one confused fellow, CBrahma.

If, by your own admission, there's so much confusion regarding Jesus and his 'teaching,' whatever that may be, wouldn't it be in your best interest to chuck the whole thing, and instead retain your focus on the gita, bhAgavatam, and the rest? Something to think about, eh?

Because Krishna and Sriman NArAyaNa are one?

Of course, you went around India and spoke to millions of shUdras, and they all revealed this great secret to you. They all told you the exact same thing, that brAhmana-s want them to be subordinate, and all the rest. Shame on these caste centered Hindus!

An atheist is far better than the religious hypocrites we often see at this forum. For, if the atheist were truly sAtvika, Krishna would give him the right knowledge, as confirmed in BG 10.11. At least, he has hope. Wish I could say the same about self-proclaimed Vaishnavas who commit one aparAdha after another, with no regard for shruti. So Theist, are you Vaishnava or not?

With sweet words like that, yeah sure, you're no bigot. [sarcasm, in case you didn't get it]

CBrahma, is this true? Do you feel inferior on account of this? Please don't. Just follow V, and everything will be alright. No need to feel frustrated over this, ok?

That's rich, coming from you. Weren't you making fun of some bhAgavatam stories the other day? Apparently, it's ok for you to make fun of vedic scriptures, despite calling yourself vaishnava. But it's blasphemy if we pass comments on 'other religious figures.' You can't even respect your own religion, but are upset if other religions are attacked! How silly!

I don't think 'worm dharma' is recommended anywhere in the scriptures! Dharma means dharma according to one's varna. Otherwise, dharma wouldn't even have a direction to begin with.

Yes, there are two types of varna, svabhAvika and aupAdika. Let's say your SV is brAhmaNic. But if you're khatriya by aupAdika varna, then you must follow khatriya dharma, or Lord Vishnu wouldn't have given you a birth in that particular varna. Vidura is a perfect example. Though a brAhmaNa by SV (he was yama!), he performed the duties pertaining to his 'birth' varna without ever complaining about it. So one has to proceed with the conviction that the Lord knows best. And if he's given us a birth in a varna that contradicts our SV, we must assume there's some prArabhda karma to be worked out. This is the meaning of BG 3.35.

I think you're confused. A vaishnava is one who worships Vishnu, period. No compromise there. And such vaishnavas need to cultivate these qualities. These qualities are desirable, but even without these, they'll still be vaishnavas, because the basic condition is fulfilled, which is Vishnu worship. OTOH, to define a vaishnava by these qualities without paying attention to Vishnu worship would be disastrous.

According to BG 4.13, the Lord has created the four-fold order, presently known as the caste system. Whether we call it varnAshrama dharma or caste, the labels are immaterial at the moment. Question is: Is it birth-based? Let's see. #1 The words again...cAtur-varNyam mayA sRSTam....these words suggest that the Lord created the caste system. No argument here. #2 guNa-karma-vibhAgashaH - According to guna and karma, this system has been created. Which means, Krishna makes sure people take birth in the respective castes based on their previous karma etc. If one argues that a person can choose his caste, it's tantamount to faulting the Lord Himself! It's like saying, "Krishna has made a wrong decision by giving me a birth in the kshatriya caste, so I choose to be brAhmaNa." Are we to choose our caste, or will Krishna choose for us? Who is the Lord? #3 If caste system is by choice, as modern scholars would have us believe, how are we to choose? What's the basis? And we could be wrong! But accepting caste by birth ends this problem, because the Lord cannot make mistakes. #4 Krishna spoke to Arjuna, who was born in a royal family. He was a kshatriya by default. In fact, most people from all yuga-s were 'born' into castes. They didn't choose their caste. Exceptions like Valmiki are just that, exceptions, and they don't prove the rule. #5 When Krishna says a brAhmaNa has to be kind, generous, tolerant, must perform yajnA-s, he's describing the gunas that a person born into a brAhmaNa caste has to cultivate, and the karma-s he has to perform, karma-s such as yajna, tapas etc.. It doesn't mean anyone who has these guna-s is a brAhmaNa. OTOH, a brAhmaNa must try to have these guna-s. That's all there's to it. Conclusion: All the above shows that caste system is by birth. I see nothing discriminatory about this. The Lord knows best, and based on our karma and guna, he gives us a birth in a certain caste. All we have to do is perform our duties pertaining to that caste in the spirit of bhakti. This makes one a vaishnava, regardless of caste. At the end of the day, that's what matters, bhakti to Krishna. So why would people break their heads to prove that caste system is by choice, when it most certainly isn't! And I repeat, there's nothing shameful about birth-based caste, because it isn't man-made, it's created by the Lord Himself, who's infallible, achyuta. Yet, I see people arguing in favor of caste by choice, whatever that means. Without some rigidity, can there be any system in place? And if choice were to determine caste, then millions of people can make different decisions, almost on a daily basis. This would imply a frequently changing system, which is no system at all!

If defined in the context of BG 18.66, V isn't a sect. But that's asking too much.

That's a GV perspective. For an advaitin, sanatana dharma could mean something entirely different. And so it is with other people, which is why we can't define sanatana dharma without referring to some religion or the other. The moment you say, "Sanatana Dharma is all about nitya seva....." etc. etc., you've already related Sanatana Dharma to a certain religion, in this case GV, that believes in nitya seva and related concepts. OTOH, if you define sanatana dharma in a different way, in a completely non-vedic way, that too will be related to another set of beliefs, and therefore to a different religion. Hence, a proper definition of SD seems impossible.

You know exactly what I am talking about. You call yourself Vaishnava, but have more faith in non-vedic stuff than you do in the veda, Upanishad and bhagavatam, which clearly mention Vishnu. Aren't you being hypocritical?

Yeah, believe in everything, including Mickey Mouse, Popeye, and what else not. Anything goes! This is what Vaishnavism has come to, sadly.