tackleberry

You seem to be more interested in who's converting who, which means you must accept christianity as superior to advaita, hinduism. Right?

There are many retards, vaishnavas included, who keep repeating like parrots that Madhvacharya changed 'tat' into 'atat.' First off, the word 'tat' is not present in isolation in the said upanishad. So how could Madhva have changed tat into atat? The line goes like this: sa atmaatat tvamasi Atmaatat can be split to atmaa atat, it's grammatically accurate. And this is what Madhva has done. But many idiots say he changed tat into atat, when that's a blatant lie. They're assuming that atmaatat can only be split as atmaa tat, hence the baseless accusation. But according to the rules of grammar, it can be split as atmaa atat. Hence, Madhva did NOT change tat into atat, he simply split atmaatat into atmaa atat, which is grammatically correct. Which is why even an advaitin of Madhusudhana Saraswati's stature didn't object to this. But we have retards posing as vaishnavas objecting to this. This truly is kali yuga.

So? I am Vaishnava, and I see no reason to believe in jesus or whoever. If you love him so much that you attack another vaishnava, then by all means, become a catholic and serve jeeesus:rolleyes:, and leave the vaishnavas alone.

Claim isn't enough, you need proof. Madhvacharya's unique contributions include savishesha-abedha, sakshi, jiva-trividha, the technique of interpretation (saavakaasa vs niraavakaasa), basis of pramaana, virodha-s, and much more. Hence, his claim to ingenuity has substance. Not at all, you're the one doing the twisting. Madhvacharya gives the explanation for both tat tvam asi and atat tvam asi. Second, Madhusudana Saraswati, advaitin scholar, doesn't consider 'atat tvam asi' as grammatically incorrect. Dvaita doesn't believe in dividing Shruti as bheda and abheda shruti at all, so the q itself is absurd. And if VAs have refuted, you might want to post them here. Point being, he did fight in tune with his varna and ashrama, and this was part of his nishkaama karma. So even your explanation of saranagati demands that you accept Madhvacharya's idea. No evidence that the Lord ever said other thoughts of his were for different classes of devotees, and so on. So your point is not valid. Many tried, and we all know the result.

Going by your ridiculous logic, christianity must be the greatest religion because it has got billion followers. Advaita is nothing in comparison to christianity, right? Dvaita is only for satvik souls. And because there are more number of taamasa-s in the kali yuga, it isn't surprising that tamasic religions like advaita, christianity etc. have the highest membership. And speak of logic and advaita...don't make me laugh. Jayatirtha, the foremost amongst the dvaita scholars, has shown how the flaw called 'upajivya virodha' destroys the very foundation of advaita, thus making every other pathetic attempt of the advaitins immaterial. But I don't want to hurt your feelings by exposing more and more of advaita's weaknesses. Read the KanDaNa Traya of Madhvacharya to get a better idea on how fragile advaita is.

Madhva's followers were advaitins, who converted after defeat to dvaitins. Some of them are Trivikrama Panditacharya, Padmanabha Tirtha. Since no dvaitin has ever been defeated, you'll find no mention (not in Sringeri or any other record) of any dvaitin converting to advaita. Sorry to disappoint you!

Ramanuja's interpretations involve a lot of text torturing. Take 5.16. Ramanuja treats 'param' as an adjective to 'jnanam' when it's clear that 'param' is the object of the transitive verb 'prakaashayati' with jnanam being the subject. Even a sanskrit student knows this. But Ramanuja's translations are absurd, there are many more verses where he changes the meaning of the very word he's interpreting. Madhavacharya's interpretations involve great creativity and ingenuity. Even in the verse under question, Madhvacharya gives a beautiful explanation, unlike Ramanuja and the rest. He doesn't interpret 'sarva dharmaan' in the literal sense, because that would render the core idea of 'nishkaama karma' useless. If all dharmaas are to be given up, then why would Arjuna say, "Karishye vachanam tava,' meaning "I'll do as you say," which means Arjuna was prepared to fight, to do his kshatriya dharma. Obviously, this would contradict 'sarva dharmaan' if taken literally. Hence, 'sarva dharmaan parityajya' means abandoning kaamya karma-s only. Nishkaama karma as a loving service to Lord Krishna, which is devotion in action, so to speak, must never be given up. This explanation is not only creative, but realistic. Or, the previous 17 chapters would be worthless, if we take 'sarva dharmaan' literally, as Ramanuja and others have done. Madhvachaarya's explanations are far superior. And for this, the second verse of Ishavaashya Upanishad is also a valid pramaana. So Ramanuja not quoting pramaana-s from other sources is actually a weakness on this part. Madhvachaarya's habit of quoting from ALL scriptures even whilst commenting on a single text is evidence of his integral approach, his desire to show the devotees that ALL SCRIPTURES, rather than a few of them, speak of Vishnu's glory. This is certainly a better approach, to quote from as many sources as possible, because we'll have that many pramaana-s to substantiate our stand.

In other words, you cannot quote pramaana-s. Quite typical of advaitins, who lost again and again to the 'narrow-minded' maadhva saints.

And even if he existed, what happened to jesus was nothing extraordinary, most criminals at the time were punished by crucifixion. So this guy jesus wasn't the only one to undergo this, it was common during the Roman days. So if at all the man existed, he must've been a rabble-rouser who was punished eventually for treason. So the real traitor was jesus, not poor Judas! Judas must've been the real vaishnva, then. Judasaaya NamaH.

Evidently, you missed the point. The point is NOT whether Jesus existed, but if belief in Jesus is necessary at all. For the vaishnava, the answer is no. What christians think of Lord Rama is hardly the subject matter here.

Lately, we've been seeing heated exchanges between iskconites and hindus. To be blunt, both parties are to blame. The iskconite habit of elevating every Tom, Dick, and Jesus to the status of a vaishnava is becoming very, very annoying. There are only two options here: #1 Jesus never existed. So he can't be vaishnava. #2 He existed, but never mentioned Vishnu's name even once. And Vaishnavism is the belief in the supremacy of Vishnu! Obviously, it would be illogical to consider Jesus as a vaishnava, when the guy didn't even mention the primary deity of vaishnavism. So regardless of the guy's historicity, he wasn't vaishnava. So iskconites might do well to stop their 'Jesus loves you' fanaticism. They must focus more on Krishna and the gita instead. And to the Hindus....you say all paths are valid, they all lead to the truth. If that's the case, will you accept (as valid) a person or religion that says, "Every path except mine is false." If you do, you're in effect discarding your theory that all paths are valid. If you don't, you're contradicting your original contention that all paths are valid. Either way, your theory goes down the drain. So give up this pecular fanaticism of attacking people who don't to the view that all paths are valid. Hope from now on, both parties can be a little more mature, and come to an understanding.

Who's feeding who? I think you're confusing me with someone else.

I think there's intolerance from both sides. Whilst iskconite intolerance is similar to christianity, hindu intolerance is somewhat peculiar, in that Hindus cannot tolerate anyone who doesn't share their view that all paths are valid etc. This also is intolerance, though not half as dangerous as the iskconite variety. It's more an annoying habit of the hindus to attack anyone who refuses to believe that all paths are valid.

Iskcon never claims to be Hindu, they consider themselves different from all religions, including Hinduism. Part of the reason why they attack Hindus...if not, why would they?

Quote pramana-s to prove your position. Merely saying 'there are different paths, all paths are valid' isn't pramana. It's just a politically correct statement, nothing more. If you believe advaita is correct, prove it. Attacking others (especially those who demand pramana) as fundamentalist is just a clever tactic to evade the issue, it isn't going to work.

Just like Iskonites like to criticize Hindus/hinduism, others also have the right to criticize Iskcon. Or, are you suggesting that iskcon is beyond reproach? If iskconites spend more time in defending jesus than they do in studying gita, they're going to be attacked for their hypocrisy.

Since Vaishnavas don't accept the bible, it invariably follows that they do not accept stories about Jesus either. Therefore, belief in Jesus is totally irrelevant to Vaishnavism.

Jesus never existed. So I don't see why we must believe in this non-existent entity in order to be vaishnava. Belief in the supremacy of Vishnu makes one a vaishnav. Therefore, the mythical Jesus is irrelevant to vaishnavism.

Vishnu is considered supreme in the vedas, puranas, itihaasas etc. The puranas are satvik, rajasic, and tamasic in nature. Satvik puranas consistently declare that Vishnu is supreme, whereas tamasic and rajasic puranas also do, albeit rarely. Vishnu Himself so declares in the Gita. All acharyas, including Sankara who was advaitin, have maintained that Vishnu is supreme. Therefore it isn't a vaishnava conclusion that Vishnu is supreme. It's the conclusion of Sanatana Dharma. But that doesn't mean one shouldn't worship other deities. Shiva, for instance, who's the tatva-abhimani-devata for manas (mind) must be worshipped for a good memory, Vayu and Saraswati for intelligence, and so forth. It's to show this that Vishnu sometimes used to 'worship' Shiva, Surya, or other deities, to set an example for people to follow. Hope this answers your doubts.

Couple of doubts, if you don't mind. I thought 'naH' meant 'our.' Is vishvataH the ablative form of 'from vishvam?' Is the exact meaning of kratavaH thoughts (in plural)? What's it in singular? Is the word 'yaanti' used for both 'come' and 'go.' I take it 'yantu' is an imperative tense of this verb yanti....

How does Sam+Krta become SaMskrta? I understand due to sandhi, m becomes M if consonants follow it, but I am not aware of other rules by which it becomes samskrta. And what's the meaning? Taken literally, it'd mean very little. Sam=together, krta=done. How to come to a reasonable meaning with these words?

I respect Hindus, but it's hard to identify oneself as Hindu for the following reasons: #1 Accepting all paths as valid #2 Tolerance taken to an extreme #3 Ahimsa, renunciation taken to extreme #4 Hinduism having become synonymous with Gandhianism #5 The despicable behavior of most hindus #6 Worship of just about 'anything' as divine, including movie stars, leaders etc. #7 Emphasis on monism being the 'essense' of Hinduism ...And much, much more. For these reasons, it's impossible to call oneself hindu, because it includes and admits people from totally and diametrically opposing views. It's too confusing a classification. Vaishnava would be a better label, at least it keeps things simple....

Good point, this happens to be the weakness in gaudiya theology. If all parts are removed, then there is no whole, which means the part and whole are one. So according to gaudiya theology, if Krishna is the whole and jivas the parts......well, you conclude!

I am not sure we can call earth a conscious entity. Otherwise, why do we have classifications like jaDa, chEtana etc.? JaDa refers to inanimate matter, and by definition, lifeless. If not, we'll have to equate jaDa with chEtana, which would render the classification itself useless.

No, I meant transliteration, it doesn't have to be in devanagari script.