tackleberry

Thank you for giving yourself away.

If you don't believe in Krishna, then don't call yourself Vaishnava. Simple.

And those who don't are implying that SP went against shastra. Which would you prefer, then? SP the diplomat, or SP the ajnAni? If the latter, why would you follow him?

So all these bona fide religions are sanatana dharma, eh? And what are these bona fide religions...?

Don't see what the big deal is. SP referred to christ loka, which isn't mentioned anywhere in the shastra. If you're intelligent at all, you'll reject SP's idea and stick to shastra. Doesn't mean you reject SP completely. So you keep SP and shastra, both.

By your own admission, everything is eternal. And because everything is eternal, don't you think it peculiar to restrict Sanatana Dharma to Chaitanya's movement to the exclusion of every other religion?

I don't know why people are infatuated with the term 'sanatana dharma.' According to veda, entities like KAla, AkASa, and SabdA are also eternal. According to some acharyas, evil is eternal. False religion is eternal. Which means, eternity has nothing to do with truth. Truth may be eternal or nitya, but that doesn't mean all nitya vastu-s are truth.

Whatever you say!

In all honesty, Kulapavana seems to be one of the few people around here to have analyzed Prabhupada, critically and rationally. Others are refusing to do so, NOT out of love for SP, but on account of their irrational attachment to their former religious backgrounds.

That's because you and your friends never answered it. You guys have cleverly evaded the issue.

What then was Prabhupada's assumption?

But Krishna doesn't! So you're going against the Lord's teaching....

How can one surrender to Reality, whilst yet attached to myths?

As Jesus' existence hasn't been proven, the question as to whether he was Vaishnava doesn't arise. It's as foolish as discussing the favorite color of a barren woman's son!

In other words, you will surrender to Krishna WITHOUT ever abandoning your attachment to Christ. But would you call this surrender?

BuddhAvatAr was for a specific purpose-to delude the asura-s. But in any case, we cannot compare normal people with Lord Krishna and his transcendental activities. Bottom line, SP used to say neo-vedantins like Vivekananda and Mahesh Yogi have twisted vedanta in order to present it to a western audience. But SP himself was guilty of this, wasn't he? He too made compromises, as you've mentioned in your post. Yet, he wasted no time in blasting neo-vedantins for doing the same thing. This is what I am referring to, this appears quite peculiar to me.

In that case, are you prepared to abandon Christ and surrender to Krishna?

I am quite puzzled by this, to say the least. If Prabhupada had so much faith in Krishna, he could've presented Vaishnavism in its pure form with no regard for Christian sentiments, safe in the knowledge that Krishna would take care of the rest. That he chose to do otherwise raises some interesting questions on SP's convictions. Some people might wonder why a devotee would act like salesman, unless he lacked faith in the Supreme.

I didn't say that at all, it's your dubious method of inference. CB says there's no explicit condemnation of C in the veda and other shAstrA-s; and therefore, C must be valid. Then again, there's no explicit condemnation of many unethical activities in the veda. Does that mean we must consider them valid? Bottom line, a self-evident fact needs no extrinsic proof. Agama or scripture is necessary with respect to atIndriya vastu-s, objects beyond sense perception. But the present case is well established by pratyaksha, so where's the need for Agama, as CB insists?

Just a clarification. What do you mean by 'sastric support?' Are you expecting us to quote some verse in the veda that declares C to be incompatible with V? If so, you might want to violate traffic rules, because there's no explicit condemnation in the sastra. The same goes for many other illegal and unethical activities. Hopefully, you catch my drift.

Your question is similar to asking a person to prove his innocence, which isn't necessary at all. Such an approach will be met with censure and ridicule in the real world. Likewise, what you call 'incompatibility' requires no proof unless there's evidence to the contrary. Which means, it's up to you to substantiate your claims that Christianity and Vaishnavism are compatible, failing which we'll have to conclude that they aren't.

For a Vaishnava, meditation is the steady, unbroken concentration on Vishnu's qualities, forms, and activities. There are many purposes, foremost being the desire to attain His grace. But more importantly, one cannot have the direct vision of God (aparOxa jnAnam), unless one is able to fix the image steadily in one's mind. This is why meditation is very important for a Vaishnava, but it comes at a later stage in life. Initially, of course, your time is better spent in svAdhyAya and smaraNam. This helps one prepare for dhyAnam, which eventually leads to aparOxa jnAnam.

Not in a mechanical way, though. You relate everything to Krishna. When you drink water, for instance, relate the taste to Krishna. When you see some mind-boggling stuff, just try to see those things as reflections of Krishna's achintya shakti. And so forth. This is smaraNa, rather than dhyAna. DhyAna, which is the unbroken concentration on the Lord, is only possible for superior deva-s like Vayu, Shiva, and the rest. For us humans, this should suffice. Also, try to understand this verse in the Gita. Bhagavat Gita 9.27 yat karoṣi yad aśnāsi yaj juhoṣi dadāsi yat yat tapasyasi kaunteya tat kuruṣva mad-arpaṇam SYNONYMS yat — whatever; karoṣi — you do; yat — whatever; aśnāsi — you eat; yat — whatever; juhoṣi — you offer; dadāsi — you give away; yat — whatever; yat — whatever; tapasyasi — austerities you perform; kaunteya — O son of Kuntī; tat — that; kuruṣva — do; mat — unto Me; arpaṇam — as an offering. TRANSLATION Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer or give away, and whatever austerities you perform — do that, O son of Kuntī, as an offering to Me.

Most of us know what it is. It's got to do with the matters of the heart. You're in love with someone, and that 'someone' doesn't reciprocate. You think there's no justice in this world, no god. Right?

Is there any source like Bhagavatam etc. that lists Chaitanya's avatarhood in unmistakable terms? Not bhavishya and other obscure purana-s, but something more authentic....