cbrahma

When I speak of Western monastic corruption I'm not citing Hollywood as my authority. This is documented history that at least by the Middle Ages, monasteries were not particular centers of spiritual purity. This was recorded by poets such as Chaucer and later on by Dante, not to mention legitimate historians. If the Popes were having illegitimate children, what about the rest of the clergy? There was a need in fact for monastic reform.

During the tenth and eleventh centuries there were some definite movements that took place in order to revive and renew the monastic movement flowing out of the Benedictine history. Many of those new movements took place in central France. In the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries France became the great center of monastic life and reform in the Catholic Church. First came the establishment of the Cluniac order, which was a reform movement based on the Benedictine Rule. During the tenth and eleventh centuries, Cluny represented almost everything that was vital and progressive in Western Christianity. The greatest figure in the Cluniac movement was Bernard of Cluny. He lived in the twelfth century. He wrote a great poem called "De Contemptu Mundi," which means "Contempt for the World." It was a 3,000 line poem that satirized contemporary monastic corruption. He was a monk who wrote a poem about how other monks were corrupt and how the monastic movement needed to be reformed and brought back into line with its original ideals. The poem contrasts monastic corruption and the transient pleasures of this life with the glories of heaven. So much of the poem is about heaven. It has served as the base of several hymns, including "Jerusalem the Golden."

It 'strictness' were enough, we have to remember how austere and strict were demoniac personalities like Hiranyaka.

I am not impressed by the spirituality of 'strict' disciples. It's amazing the austeries the ego will take us through for the sake of pious reputation.

Suchandra is embracing religion full tilt. Truth be known, the Western monastaries were hotbeds of illicit sex and shelters for the misfits of society.

I have yet to see rule-following sadhana produce spiritually advanced results - it has in my experience of those who claim 'strict' sadhana produced a haughty complacency and contempt for those who are 'in the world'.

Jesus exhorts us to be 'in the world' but not 'of the world'. He didnt' go off by himself - he went out and preached to all peoples.

If you don't understand what the scriptural injunctions on guru are now,

you will find out after you die.

Yah but if you understood scripture you would know that we forget after taking birth again. The corruption of caste brahminism is a commonplace of Indian history. Do you need examples?

One thing is clear Dark Warrior.U have given enough evidence to prove your point but still peoples like Cbrahma are not ready to accept it.Actually they are not in a position to reply back to your points.I dont think it is advisable on your part to go further & explain them from Sri Vaishnava point of view.

There has been enough evidence to disprove his points. His posts are filled mostly with self-serving personal attacks that can hardly be called evidence of anything but his desperation and ignorance of the rules of debate.

There are a lot of rules. I have only been Krsna conscious for 3 years and do not know all of them yet. Plus, I am not initiated yet. Only recently did I find out about tree gum not being accepted. This is because trees received one quarter of King Indra's sin, and hence they now release sap. So tree sap contains sin.

 

I know a few people, including myself, who have a lot of work to do in a day, and they cook all their food for Krsna. The trick is to cook in large batches so you don't have to cook everyday. This saves time.

 

Not everyone wants to do everything it takes to be a devotee. To most, chanting seems more like an austerity than a pleasure. The metaphor about someone afflicted with jaundice tasting sugar and experiencing bitterness is relevant here. The first time I chanted I had no results. The second time I chanted, I got finished with one round, and I was surprised at the love that manifested in my heart. I think it depends on one's sincerity how much results one gets from chanting. I don't experience constant non-stop love all the time, but I feel some love for Krsna on and off. Anyways, after chanting one round the second time, I was convinced I should become a devotee. If chanting can do this, then the Vedic scriptures must be true, I thought, and if I can make it to Goloka I will experience bliss eternally. So, if the Vedic scriptures really are true (which I am sure they are), then becoming a devotee is worth it a thousand-fold (or a billion-fold) because the benefit one receives from Krsna consciousness are far more than one can imagine. What could be better than being in constant bliss and never having to experience misery ever again? Nothing can be achieved without going through some difficulty. If you want a degree, you'll have to do the work. And if you get it, your future becomes brighter. The same thing is true with spiritual life.

 

Anyways, most people don't have the right karma to become a real devotee. Only after accumulating enough merits over many lifetimes does one become a real devotee.

There are more rules than you know. If you think jumping through hoops like a trick dog makes you a devotee - then all the more power to you. If that is what God is like - why would anybody care to serve him in the first place. I have a much larger, more merciful, less petty view of God.

Years ago when I first started reading Prabhupadas books I worried like hell about doing everything absolutely perfect and really beat myself up almost to the point of death and depression if I didn't. I have completely gotten rid of that mindset and I just do my best in the environment I am in. I don't know if that means I have lost any chance to go back to Godhead but I feel a lot better about things since letting go of things that are impracticle for me. I don't offer my food in a Krishna Consciousness way but more in a Christian way in being thankful to God for the food. I find that way much simpler than deity worship and all that.

Yes a thanksgiving is one thing - but all this 'Vedic brahamana' stuff just about covinces me that being devotee in that traditional sense is a religious impossibility in a Western workaday world.

I think what yogesh was saying is that the love you put into your devotion is more important than following every rule down to the nth degree even as a working man. Don't know for sure but the sense I get from Bhagavad Gita is to keep performing your duties and think of Krishna while you do them and then Krishna will protect you from sinful reactions and reveal the way so to speak.

It's really totally confusing. Did you see the list of things you can offer and not offer. Just avoiding all the special stuff, animal contaminants is a whole project. That's even before you start cooking.

Who knows what Krsna wants when it comes to the details of cooking?

And then if he is so high maintenance, then it's really not a job that I can or want to handle. Being vegetarian is complicated enough. Do you offer your food?

That is a very good example. I also really like the story of Jada Bharata because it has some similarities to your story. Jada Bharata's father tryed to train him to become the perfect brahmana but Jada Bharata behaved like an absolute idiot so his father would quit trying to teach him to become the perfect brahmana. Absolutely a divine story because it seems to go against all conventional thinking about Krishna Consciousness but at the same time reveals the complete transcendence of Krishna and devotional service.

Yes but illiterate brahmanas ( a contradiction in terms) and domestic mothers don't have to hold down a job.

My mother at the biginning some years ago also said the same thing but you know what she perservered and shut the nonsense voice in her head about making a mistake because she truly loved the Lord so much she was willing to take risk of punishment for making a mistake. Anyway what kind of Loving God do you think would punish his child if they made a mistake when their intentions are tinged with love and devotion???

 

SO Just Do It!!. Try your best he is more interested in your love and devotion and not so much on rituals.

 

I am sure you are practising vegetarian. SO give it a go. You have more to gain than to loose.

 

Hare Krsna/Krishna

 

Jay Sirla Prabhupada

If making a mistake is nonsense then why put myself through this impractical exhausting torture?

What a silly protocol Why would God care where you washed your dishes? Why don't you just offer your food and forget about the rest?

 

 

Because of an idiotic protocol that Lord Krishna never asked for in the first place? Seems like a strange reason...

These are the 'brahminical' protocols. Ask the traditional Vaisnavas or any ISKCON member. If this is brahminism then I clearly will never become a brahmana and only a brahmana can perform such a ritual.

Lord Chaitanya has made it so easy and sublime for us to break the cycle of birth and death

The prasadam protocol is anything but easy.

The meaning changes (ironically) depending on who you're talking to.

Pramana (IAST Pramāņa) (sources of knowledge, Sanskrit) is an epistemological term in Hindu and Buddhist philosophy. Pramana forms one part of a tripuţi (trio) concerning Pramā (the correct knowledge of any object arrived at by thorough reasoning, Sanskrit), namely,

 

1. Pramāta, the subject, the knower
   
2. Pramāņa, the means of obtaining the knowledge
   
3. Prameya, the object, the knowable

In Hinduism

 

Different systems of Hindu philosophy accept different categories of pramanas.

 

Advaita Vedanta

 

In Advaita Vedānta, the following pramanas are accepted:

 

• Pratyakşa — the knowledge gained by means of the senses
  
• Anumāna — the knowledge gained by means of inference
  
• Upamāna — the knowledge gained by means of analogy
  
• Arthāpatti — the knowledge gained by superimposing the known knowledge on an appearing knowledge that does not concur with the known knowledge
  
• Āgama — the knowledge gained by means of texts such as Vedas (also known as Āptavākya, Śabda pramana)

Sankhya

 

According to the Sankhya school, knowledge is possible through three pramanas:

 

• Pratyakşa — direct sense perception
  
• Anumāna — logical inference
  
• Śabda — Verbal testimony

Nyaya

 

The Nyaya school accepts four means of obtaining knowledge (pramana), viz., Perception, Inference, Comparison and Word.

 

• Perception, called Pratyakşha, occupies the foremost position in the Nyaya epistemology. Perception is defined by sense-object contact and is unerring. Perception can be of two types:

   

  • Ordinary (Laukika or Sādhārana), of six types, viz., visual-by eyes, olfactory-by nose, auditory-by ears, tactile-by skin, gustatory-by tongue and mental-by mind.
    
  • Extra-ordinary (Alaukika or Asādhārana), of three types, viz., Samanyalakshana (perceiving generality from a particular object), Jñānalakşana (when one sense organ can also perceive qualities not attributable to it, as when seeing a chili, one knows that it would be bitter or hot), and Yogaja (when certain human beings, from the power of Yoga, can perceive past, present and future and have supernatural abilities, either complete or some). Also, there are two modes or steps in perception, viz., Nirvikalpa, when one just perceives an object without being able to know its features, and Savikalpa, when one is able to clearly know an object. All laukika and alaukika pratyakshas are savikalpa. There is yet another stage called Pratyabhijñā, when one is able to re-recognise something on the basis of memory.

   

   

 

• Inference, called Anumāna, is one of the most important contributions of Nyaya. It can be of two types - inference for oneself (Svarthanumana, where one does not need any formal procedure, and at the most the last three of their 5 steps), and inference for others (Parathanumana, which requires a systematic methodology of 5 steps). Inference can also be classified into 3 types: Purvavat (infering an unperceived effect from a perceived cause), Sheshavat (infering an unperceived cause from a perceived effect) and Samanyatodrishta (when inference is not based on causation but on uniformity of co-existence). A detailed analysis of error is also given, explaining when anumana could be false.

 

• Comparison, which is the rough transplation of Upamāna. It is the knowledge of the relationship between a word and the object denoted by the word. It is produced by the knowledge of resemblance or similarity, given some pre-description of the new object beforehand.

 

• Word, or Śabda are also accepted as a pramana. It can be of two types, Vaidika (Vedic), which are the words of the four sacred Vedas, and are described as the Word of God, having been composed by God, and Laukika, or words and writings of trustworthy human beings.

Vaisheshika

 

Epistemologically, the Vaisheshika school accepts perception (pratyaksha) and inference (anumāna) as valid sources of knowledge.

 

In Buddhism

 

Buddhism, along with hard science and classical Western philosophy, rejects many of the premises of Hindu Pramana, especially the use of religious texts (Agama) as a source of valid knowledge alone.

In Buddhism, the two most important scholars of pramana are Dignaga and Dharmakirti.

 

 

<CENTER>svatah pramana veda- pramana-siromani

lakshana haite svatah pramanata hani </CENTER>

 

The self-evident Vedic literatures are the highest evidence of all, but if these literatures are interpreted, their self-evident nature is lost. C.C. Adi 7, 139

 

<CENTER>pramanera madhye sruti pramana pradhana

sruti ye mukhyartha kahe sei se pramana

svatah pramana veda yei satya kahe

lakshana karile svatah pramanya hani haye </CENTER>

 

Although there is other evidence, the evidence given in the Vedic version must be taken as foremost. Vedic versions understood directly are first-class evidence.

 

The Vedic statements are self-evident. Whatever is stated there must be accepted. If we interpret according to our own imagination, the authority of the Vedas is immediately lost.

 

C.C.Madhya 6, 135, 137

 

The works of the Gosvamis such as the Sandarbhas and Caitanya Caritamrita of Krishna das Kaviraja are included among the anuvyakhyas. Therefore Vedas, Puranas, histories, Upanishads, Vedanta Sutras, the commentaries by the Vaishnava acaryas are all considered authoritative knowledge. These sources of authoritative knowledge are glorified in the Bhagavatam.

 

<CENTER>kalena nashta pralaye vaniyam veda samjnita

mayadau brahmane prokta yasyam dharmo mad atmakah

tena prokta svaputraya manave

yabhir bhutani bhidyante bhutanam patayas tatha

evam prakriti-vaicitryad bidyante matayo nrinam

parasparyena keshamcit pashanda-matayo'pare </CENTER>

 

(Sri Krishna speaks to Uddhava)

I first recited the Vedic message to Lord Brahma, telling him about the ultimate path of pure devotion. That message is eternal. At the time of devastation, it disappears and at the time of creation I explain it clearly to Lord Brahma. Brahma spoke this knowledge to his son Manu and others. Thereafter, the devatas, risis, and mankind all received this knowledge. The living entities and their lords are all different, receiving natures according to the three modes, goodness, passion and ignorance. According to these different natures, various philosophies have been produced by various interpretation of the meaning. O Uddhava, those who received the actual statements of the Vedas through guru parampara anuvyakhya (explanations) from Brahma have the real truth. All others philosophies have become the servants of various offensive teachings.

 

There are actually a lot more rules than that. More than I am willing and able to follow in a practical workaday regimen. You really can't wash the plates that you eat out of in the kitchen where prasadam was cooked...and there are more. No thanks. I'm just not a devotee I guess. Another reason I stopped chanting.

I never read this, so I reply to it.

 

El stupido, you are not supposed to go by ANYBODY's words on mere faith. However, if you choose a sampradaya to follow, you should read up on what the other sampradayas have said, how they have criticised your sampradaya. Then, you gain a little knowledge on your own, and find out if your acharya's words have remained true to the text or not.

 

At a glance, one can easily say that Srila Prabhupada has got many things wrong, as has Bhaktivinoda Thakura.

 

Bhagavad Gita 'as it is' is not 'as it is' because Srila Prabhupada said so. A person can be a devotee of Vishnu and still make mistakes (Mirabai, for instance was a bhakta without philosophical knowledge). It does not reduce Srila Prabhupada's stature, but we need knowledge and must seek it from the right source.

 

Vedanta is a scientific method. Research, find the truth, reject the falsities.

 

Sri Ramanuja makes an excellent point in his bhasya. He writes, 'Do not accept things just because I said so. Observe and decide the truth by your own merit'.

 

EDIT: This thread was not about whether Lord has taken avatars in other lands. It is about whether Christianity is linked to Vaishnavism.

 

And there is no link between the two faiths, because Vishnu Purana, along with the necessary criterion of philosophical strength found lacking in Christianity, rules out any chance of Jesus being a Vaishnava.

This is too repetitious and boring. Consider yourself ignored.

chanting is required in this age otherwise it's all bad as we all get implicated into bad karmic reactions.

I could eat meat under that reasoning.

Funny, you posted that just to say 'go away'? I wonder when you will ever start to post with substance.

 

cBrahma, if you were ever sincere in your spiritual progress, you would cast away all these pretenses, sit down, read Vishnu Sahasranama and divine the deep meanings from it. Sadly enough, you are wasting precious time on useless sentiments, and in complete ignorance.

At this point go away is as much substance as is warranted in your case. Now GO AWAY.

Haha..still don't understand? Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is not the 'golden avatar' for Sri Vaishnavas or Tattvavadis. He was simply a normal Krishna devotee. Only Gaudiyas call him an avatar.

 

There are 6 different schools of thought in Vaishnavism. Sri Chaitanya's school is just one of those 6. No Sri Vaishnava will ever agree to a Gaudiya's views.

 

For instance, I respect Madhva. But he and Sri Ramanuja differed on Ananda Taratamya. I do not accept Madhva's view here. That's all.

 

cBrahma's incompetence and lack of comprehension is evident here.

The statement still stands. Don't lecture me. I know there are different types of Vaisnavas. Doesn't change a thing.

Um, in case you haven't noticed, Sri Vaishnavas, Madhvas and associated sects do not consider Sri Chaitanya as an avatar of Krishna, or Achintya Bheda Abheda as true. We simply regard him as just another Vaishnava devotee.

 

Hopelessly behind, aren't you?

My comment stands. - Stepping over the Golden Avatar - nice.

You always 'note' a lot of things, unfortunately, they slip out of your head like water through a sieve.

 

In any case, its a done deal with you. Theist, of course, will continue raving over Jesus and the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as he keeps ducking arguments with others.

Don't worry, your ramblings have been documented on the internet for the posterity. Now go away.

Obviously, I never meant to discuss it with you. It was meant to educate more intelligent members and show them that its futile to argue with the likes of you and Theist, the 'true followers of the transcendental Supreme Personality of Godhead who's transcendental pastimes and transcendental doings are known only to the pure devotee Jesus who came to rescue all Vaishnavas'.

 

Oops, I did it again.

Yawn. Your mindless ad hominems have been noted.

So what? Not everybody accepts Sri Chaitanya, in case you haven't noticed. And just to clarify, he is completely wrong here.

 

Learn sastra, and decide who speaks the truth. Blindly quoting translation after translation is all that you and Theist are capable of.

Your arrogance runs roughshod even over the Golden Avatar. Nice.

The leopard shows his spots.

In which case, if Jesus was a Shaivite, Christianity is not Vaishnavism. It becomes Shaivism.

 

 

Obviously this is still sticking in your craw but it's OFF TOPIC and I refuse to discuss it here. You can and will conclude whatever you like from it. I don't care.

Everything you buy at a supermarket is contaminated karmically and physically. Unless you grow your own everything - you are open to some impurities. There recently was a salmonella scare - usually associated with animal products - this was in the tomatoes.