cbrahma

And you fail to understand me. Need some vitamins to up your brain function?

 

The inadequacy is your misrepresentation. Vitamins will not help - only character reformation. I never said Saivites are Vaisnavas. I said Siva is a Vaisnava. Prove otherwise.

I am not about to re-debate everything I've said on other threads. Your desperate attempts at evasion are painfully obvious - you are grasping at non-existent straws.

So tell me, do you still think Vishnu is different from Krishna, or that Lakshmi was not in the Rasa Lila?

 

Pathetic.

Where do you get the idea that I thought Vishnu is different from Krsna?

It is not I who claims Lakshmi did not participate in Rasa Lila.

prabhu kahe,----dosa nahi, iha ami jani

rasa na paila laksmi, sastre iha suni

SYNONYMS

prabhu kahe--the Lord replied; dosa nahi--there is no fault; iha ami jani--this I know; rasa na paila laksmi--Laksmi, the goddess of fortune, could not join the rasa dance; sastre iha suni--we get this information from revealed scriptures.

TRANSLATION

Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu replied, "I know that there is no fault on the part of the goddess of fortune, but still she could not enter into the rasa dance. We hear this from revealed scriptures.

 

 

 

Madhya Lila

 

<CENTER>Chapter 9 </CENTER><CENTER> </CENTER><CENTER> </CENTER><CENTER class=MsoPlainText>Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's Travels to the Holy Places</CENTER></SPAN>

cBrahma, you and logic are just as far apart as chalk and cheese.

 

I said, you take things out of context. Not the Gita. Quoting that one sloka without understanding what context Krishna was employing it in is what I meant.

 

Even atheists are following Krishna and He rewards them accordingly. An atheist accepts the reality of the Universe, and appreciates its grandeur. Hence, the Universe is the body of the Lord, and so, in a round-about fashion, even the atheist is unknowingly acknowledging the Lord.

 

Vishnu is always optimistic. He looks at the glass as half full, rather than half empty. That is why He is karuna sagara.

 

In any case, if anyone wants to know more about cBrahma's bloopers, refer to the older Jesus thread where he argued with me. After about a 100 posts, he was essentially reduced to an inane blabberer.

 

He ended his argument by saying, if Jesus was a Shaivite, he is a Vaishnava, because Shaivas are Vaishnavas, as Shiva is a Vaishnava. Golden words. Comedy material.

 

How can a person be so incredibly stupid? Real talent it takes, to refrain from using your brain.

Now you misquote me out of context. I said Shiva is a Vaisnava. Not Shaivas. That would be begging the question- like you do.

Your language of course is so specific. "Things out of context" and the sweeping 'again'. I am not intimidated by the claims you make for yourself. Nor your unsupportable personal attacks. They are completely beside the point and prove nothing - they are truly 'out of context'.

In spite of your childish attempts at flaming you haven't addressed the point that Krsna makes. "Everyone follows my path in all respects".

cBrahma knows no Veda, nothing at all...just ajnana, and a blind dependence on Srila Prabhupada's translations

Depending on a qualified Brahamana's translation is not blind. It is what is called intelligence. Your rejection of them is blind. There are so many translations. Are we supposed to blindly accept your advice as to which is correct? Are you bona fide guru?

Taking things out of context, again, cBrahma?

 

Yes. Even Shaivites who mistakenly worship Shiva as supreme are in reality surrendering to Krishna. Because, He is the only one who takes care of everyone.

 

However, such surrender is without jnana, and hence, will not fetch moksha. Krishna clearly says Men of less intelligence worship demigods.

 

He rewards them in whatever way they approach Him. Vaishnavas who approach Him directly have the chance to ge moksha. Shaivites and Nastikas will get better births, but not moksha.

 

Same goes for Nastika religions. Even if a devotee sincerely prays to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, his prayer reaches Vishnu. Doesn't mean the religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is authentic.

 

cBrahma knows no Veda, nothing at all...just ajnana, and a blind dependence on Srila Prabhupada's translations.

 

 

 

 

Got anything useful to say?Or are you simply going to prattle on about Universal Religion and the Transcedental Pastimes of the Krsna, Father of Jesus and the Supreme Personality of Godhead?

 

Gotta admit, I love making fun of Theist's style.

How is Bhagavad Gita out of context? I am very careful to keep things in context, logical - there is no 'again;.

Theist, plainly put, you are a prize idiot. So, Vyasa is small minded?

 

 

Anybody can see the pseudo-reasoning here, called begging the question. The hidden presumption that Vyasa actually claimed that Vaisnavism is only for Indians.

Of course there is no sastric support for that. A vedic axiom is that we are not the body. Why would God limit himself to a race of men? Is he tricked by his own Maya?

As Srila Prabhupada pointed out, the Indian culture is a shadow of it’s former glory, and not much evidence of it remains:

 

Devotee: Yes. Only thing, at least here [india] there is Indian culture

 

Prabhupada: What Indian culture? They are killing cows. What is Indian culture? Their Indian culture is that some of them speak Hindi, that’s all. This is their Indian culture.”

 

 

 

So therefore the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna, what He is speaking, mam ekam saranam vraja, that is dharma. All other things are cheating. And when Krsna says, mam ekam saranam vraja, He does not say it to any particular community or any country or any nation. He speaks to everyone.

 

 

sarva-yonisu kaunteya

sambhavanti murtayo yah

tasam mahad yonir brahma

aham bija-pradah pita

 

He says, "I am the seed-giving father of all forms of life." Krsna does not say that "I am speaking to Indian or the Hindus." No. Krsna is speaking to everyone, to His every son. It doesn't matter whether he is white or black or blue or... It doesn't matter. These are skin disease. Krsna says that we don't take this body as yourself. Asmin dehe. Dehino 'smin yatha dehe kaumaram yauvanam... This transformation of the body, that is natural. But within the body, the part and parcel of Krsna is there. That you have to understand, that is the beginning of Bhagavad-gita. We have to understand what is there within the body. That is the beginning of spiritual education. Unfortunately, the whole world is going on under the impression that "I am this body.I am Indian,I am European..." That is condemned in the sastra.

 

 

yasyatma-buddhih kunape tri-dhatuke

sva-dhih kalatradisu bhauma ijya-dhih

yat-tirtha-buddhih salile na karhicij

janesu abhijnesu sa eva go-kharah

 

Go, go means cow, and kharah means ass. So yasyatma-buddhih kunape tri-dhatuke. This bag of three dhatus—kapha, pitta, vayu—if one takes it that "I am this body,I am Indian,I am American," so sastra says, "He is not even human being." Sa eva go-kharah. This Krsna consciousness movement is very, very important from this angle of vision, that everyone is thinking this body as he is. Nobody understands that he is within this body. Just like we are within this dress. I am not this dress. This is the primary education of spiritual life. Unfortunately, it is very much lacking. And now you can see practically that these European and American boys, they are all young men, but they have forgotten the bodily relationship. We have got in our institution Africans, Canadians, Australians, Europeans, Indians, but they do not consider with reference to this bodily concept of life. They live as eternal servant of Krsna. That is the instruction given by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, jivera svarupa haya nitya krsna dasa

Idiocy is to practice dharma on the bodily platform - the practice the Vedic principles as though they only benefited those of a particular race of men, in a particular kind of body.

Since Vedas is spiritual knowledge, it is not only idiocy, it is a contradiction in terms.

ye yathā māḿ prapadyante

tāḿs tathaiva bhajāmy aham

mama vartmānuvartante

manuṣyāḥ pārtha sarvaśaḥ

SYNONYMS

ye — all who; yathā — as; mām — unto Me; prapadyante — surrender; tān — them; tathā — so; eva — certainly; bhajāmi — reward; aham — I; mama — My; vartma — path; anuvartante — follow; manuṣyāḥ — all men; pārtha — O son of Pṛthā; sarvaśaḥ — in all respects.

TRANSLATION

As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Pṛthā.

 

It seems mudane religiosity is actually the bastard child of politics, because it's about control and power. Birds of a faux feather flock together.

Its because they have not let go of their attachments yet. And with this, I end further participation in this thread

I said I felt sweetness in chanting. Of course if I were free of all material attachments I would be a pure devotee. DW has an attachment to Vedic rites and rituals to all the varieties of dharma that Krsna tells us to abandon. This platitude that one has to 'let go of' Jesus, a bona fide guru, to make progess in Vaisnavism is sectarian wishful thinking , a kind of religionist philosophical masturbation fantasy.

There are more than those two. Sri Parasara Bhattar, Sri Pillai Lokacharya, Sri Manavala Mamunigal, etc.

 

For that matter, I highly respect Sri Madhva as well. His works are certainly superior to Bhaktivinoda's anyday.

 

Oh wait, Chaitanya came in Madhva's dream as well, right?

 

Don't think I am disrespecting Bhaktivinoda. Since you say he was a great devotee, I have taken your word for it(I don't know, really) and haven't said anything offensive. I am merely saying though, that he may have been a devotee who strayed off the beaten path.

Beaten by what? Traditional religiosity?

I know Kaumadaki from New Dwaraka when she was Rameswara's secretary. She is a Prabhupada disciple who has managed to stay in ISKCON all these years - she is indeed a loyal devotee of the Lord. I will pray for her.

Obviously, a Vaishnava would consider all Christians as following a wrong faith. Did you expect Sri Ramanuja to say that Shiva or Brahma can give moksha? Nope. In fact, Sri Ramanuja went so far as to say Shaivites have tamo guna.

 

And obviously, a Christian would say Vaishnavism is false.

 

So, all I am saying is, choose a faith, or remain non-committed. Don't say you are a Vaishnava who believes that Jesus will save you, or that all Vaishnavas should accept Christianity.

No you are not talking faith, or moksa.

You are not qualified to speak on the behalf of Christians or any other religious sect. There are Christians who do accept Vedanta and Vedic mystical path. This is not surprising since Vaisnavism is not a religion.

You are talking religion, mundane and material - nothing else.

“The principle that only Indians and Hindus should be brought into the Vaishnava cult is mistaken idea. There should be propaganda to bring everyone to the Vaishnava cult. The Krsna Consciousness movement is meant for that purpose. There is no bar in propagating the Krsna Consciousness movement even among people, who are born in candala, mleccha or yavana families. Even in India this point has been enunciated by Srila Sanatana Goswami in His books Hari-Bhakti-Vilasa, which is smrti and is the authorized Vedic guide for Vaishnavas" (32) HDG AC Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada

 

Srimad-Bhagavatam 1-1.1.14

Living beings who are entangled in the complicated meshes of birth and

death can be freed immediately by even unconsciously chanting the

holy name of Krsna, which is feared by fear personified.

 

 

Now, I guess non-Hindus are not living beings? I guess being freed immediately can be accomplished without being a Vaisnava? Right.

My dear friend, I was simply saying that Vaishnavas do not consider Christianity as a true path. If you feel Christianity is the truth, please follow it.

Well you're one self-proclaimed Vaisnava speaking on behalf of those you have decided are the only 'true' Vaisnavas. That is already suspicious.

Haridasa Thakura said, “I am the most sinful and lowest among men. Later I shall eat one palmful of prasadam while waiting outside.”

PURPORT

Although the Hindus and Muslims lived together in a very friendly manner, still there were distinctions between them. The Mohammedans were considered yavanas, or lowborn, and whenever a Muslim was invited, he would be fed outside of the house. Although personally called by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Nityananda Prabhu to take prasadam with Them, still, out of great humility, Haridasa Thakura submitted, “I shall take the prasadam outside of the house.” Although Haridasa Thakura was an exalted Vaisnava accepted by Advaita Acarya, Nityananda Prabhu and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, nonetheless, in order not to disturb social tranquility, he humbly kept himself in the position of a Muslim, outside the jurisdiction of the Hindu community. Therefore he proposed to take prasadam outside the house. Although he was in an exalted position and equal to other great Vaisnavas, he considered himself a papistha, a most sinful man, and adhama, the lowest among men. Although a Vaisnava may be very much advanced spiritually, he keeps himself externally humble and submissive.

HDG Srila Prabhupada

 

Nityananda dasa: A new caste has emerged in Baragachi consisting of people who refer to themselves as descendants of Vaisnavas. Kanistha-adhikari householders invite them and feed them in the name of Vaisnava seva. How is this to be viewed?

Babaji: Have these descendants of Vaisnavas taken up suddhabhakti?

Nityananda dasa: I don’t see suddha-bhakti in any of them. They only call themselves Vaisnavas. Some of them wear kaupinas (loincloths).

Babaji: I cannot say why is this type of practice is in vogue. It should not be done. I can only surmise that it is going on because kanistha Vaisnavas have no ability to recognize who is a true

Vaisnava.

Nityananda dasa: Do the descendants of Vaisnavas deserve any special regard?

Babaji: Honor is due for those who are actually Vaisnavas. If the descendants of Vaisnavas are pure Vaisnavas, they should be honored in proportion to their advancement in bhakti.

Nityananda dasa: What if the descendant of a Vaisnava is only a worldly man?

Babaji: Then he should be considered as a worldly man and not as a Vaisnava; he should not be honored as a Vaisnava. One should always remember the instruction given by Sriman Mahaprabhu (Siksastaka 3):

 

Christianity is not an authentic path.

 

The sectarian prouncement of the Yuga.

Thakura also said Chaitanya appeared in Sri Ramanuja's dream and told him to preach 'dasya rasa', so I don't feel inclined to take the words of a 19th century guru over my acharyas.

And who are these illustrious acaryas?

Wow. Somebody actually called on Dark Warrior?

'There is no difference between a pure Christian and a sincere devotee of Krsna.' Room Conversation, Bombay, 5, April 1977.

ACB Prabhupada

Now maybe Prabhupada doesn't know what Vaisnavism is really.

"Vedas means the books of transcendental knowledge. Not only the Bhagavad Gita, even the Bible or the Quran, they are also."? (lecture 29-7-68) 4. Srila Prabhupada:No, no. Christianity is Vaisnavism.

 

Dr. Patel: Vaisnavism? Absolutely Vaisnavism.

 

Srila Prabhupada:Islam is also Vaisnavism.

 

Dr. Patel: Mohammedanism is not Vaisnavism.

 

Srila Prabhupada:No, no. Caitanya Mahaprabhu had talked with the Pathanas.

 

He proved that "Your religion is Vaisnavism."? (February 17, 1974, Bombay) 5. "Chaitanya Mahaprabhu proved devotional service from the Quran.

 

So, it requires a devotee who can explain God from any Godly literature"? ( Morning Walk, June 6, 1974, Geneva)

 

It seems that Vaisnavism is far more universal than Dark would like to hold on to. Yes there are traditions, especially religious traditions. But Vaisnavism is not a religion and not specific to India.

What this person knows about Vaishnavism can fit into the surface area of a pinhead. Christianity, which is not even close to Vedanta, is Vaishnavism, but a classical Vedantic tradition is apparently 'Demonic' to him.

 

He was very taken by Christian theology, and regarding it more interesting, and less offensive than Hindu monism, 'advaita-Vedanta of Sankaracarya'. He would spend many hours comparing the writings of Channing, Theodore Parker, Emerson and Newman. At the British-Indian Society he gave a lecture on the evolution of matter through the material mode of goodness.

 

Srila Sac-Cid Ananda Bhaktivinoda Thakura Prabhupada.

Chronology of His life:

Appearance Day lecture by HDG Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad:

The 'pinhead' is in good company.

And that was the point of copying it to here. I thought it was a fine article and worthy of consideration. I would like to see the similarities between Western and Eastern mono-theistic devotion explored thoughtfully but I see the usual suspects have all jumped in to spoil the party. Dark Warrrior must be sleeping. Fortunately I have them all on ignore.

I think I will follow in your wise footsteps. It also occurs to me that Kula interpreted it positively because he thinks its ironic that 'these guys' are trying to reconcile Christianity and Vaisnavism yet distance themselves from their 'Indian cousins' , like the Shaivites etc...

what I find really strange is that these people heap praises on Christianity and go out of their way to bridge the gaps between themselves and Christians, yet they staunchly rebuke their closest cousins, like the Shivaites or thaditional Hindus, deriding their beliefs and philosophy...

Bhatkivinode Thakur was more attracted to Christian teaching than he was to Sankaracarya's teachings.

Its not? I thought there was something about slaughterhouses which appears to be criticism.

 

But iIf it is not criticism why do you think our "broad minded" theist started this thread?

The article on the whole speaks very positively in praise of Jesus. That is enough.

How is this article criticizing Christianity?

a. Part and Whole Bhedābhedavādins understand the relation between Brahman and the individual souls to be a relation between a whole and its parts. They frequently employ stock examples to illustrate this relation. Some of the most common are a fire and its sparks, the sun and its rays, a father and his son, and the ocean and its waves. Each of these is an example of a part-whole relation, which is also a variety of difference and non-difference (Bhedābheda). So, to take one example, the sparks that come off of a fire are both the same as that fire and different from it. They are the same insofar as they came from the fire, and are constituted by the same substance as fire. But they are also distinguishable from the original fire, as occupying a separate point in space. Although these four examples each seem to illustrate a different relation (and it may seem to make no sense at all to understand a son as a “part” of his father), Bhedābhedavādins cite these familiar examples from the physical world in order to shed light on the true metaphysical relation between Brahman and the individual selves. While each might capture some aspect of that relation, inevitably they are mere approximations, requiring further commentary and philosophical analysis.

Advaita Vedāntins object to the characterization of the individual self as a part, and characterize Brahman as partless. All schools of Vedānta understand the Veda as the ultimate epistemic authority, and arguments from scripture play a large part in intra-Vedāntic disputes. Advaitins point out that both the Upaniṣads and the Brahma Sūtras say that Brahman is partless (niravayava, niṣkala). Furthermore, the assertion that Brahman has parts seems to defy logic. It is inconceivable that Brahman could be made up of parts, for things that are made up of parts are dependent on those parts, and impermanent. Advaitins offer their own stock examples to show that Brahman cannot be divided up, and that any such division is purely an artificial limitation on an indivisible entity. For example, Advaitins commonly liken Brahman to the element called “space” (ākāśa). According to traditional science in India, space is an element that is omnipresent in the world, just as all Vedāntins agree that Brahman is omnipresent. Although we can talk about space as being delimited (the space inside a room, the space inside a pot), such limitations of space are purely accidental, not essential to the element itself. It may appear to an observer that the space inside a pot and the space outside the pot are two different entities, but this is a misunderstanding of the fundamental nature of space.

The Bhedābhedavādins can themselves appeal to textual authority for the idea that the relation between Brahman and the individual self is a relation between a whole and its parts. In Brahma Sūtra 2.3.43, The individual self is referred to as a “part” (aṁśa), and Bhedābhedavādins cite this passage whenever they require a textual support for their views. However, Advaitins take this description of the relation as a figurative, and not literal description of the status of the individual self. Otherwise, this passage will conflict with Brahma Sūtra 2.1.26, which says that Brahman is “partless” (niravayava). For Advaita, the world appears as if to be made of parts. But when it is understood correctly, all of the many entities in the world are seen to be false, and only one entity, a single, partless Brahman remains. Bhedābhedavādins, in their assertion of the world’s phenomenal reality, insist that multiplicity is real. Brahman is simultaneously one and many, depending on the perspective from which it is viewed, just as the ocean can be described as one or many, depending on the perspective from which it is described. Bhedābhedavādins maintain that Brahman’s being made up of parts in no way diminishes the perfection of Brahman, just as the existence of waves in the ocean in no way diminishes the amount of water therein.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/bhed-ved.htm

 

 

 

Thanks to everybody for your encouraging and kind responses. I guess I needed to see such words in black and white, since I have heard so many words that seem designed to make one fail.

Sri Nama is a beautiful and wonderful life boat that Lord Caitanya and Srila Prabhupada have given those individuals like myself who are going down for the third time in the ocean of material distress.

In my personal daily practice...I simply chant, read, and take prasadam

Well then you are more devoted than I who have no devotion at all, if that can even be considered praise.

That is absurd. be careful who you listen to. Sahajiya means they have no real attraction but think and act like they do.

 

One sahajiya reportedly dressed up like a gopi or Radharani and went running around Vrndavan crying "Krishna Krishna where are you?", like he was in the mood of separation or something.

 

You are a pretty levelheaded guy and are nothing like a sahajiya. Krishna is giving you some inkling of a taste to let you now you are on the right path and to encourqage you to chant more You are fortunate.

 

Be very careful who you tell these inner things to. The envious will try to sabotage your good fortune by calling you a sahajiya or something. It is very rare for someone to come into our lives who only want the best for us. Best to keep your pearls in your vest pocket close to your heart and feign poverty if pressed then to let the envious walk all over your gems.

he Golden Volcano of Divine Love

by Srila Bhakti Raksaka Sridhara Maharaja

At the same time, we must guard ourselves from an insincere conception of our own devotion; this is our enemy. To think, "I do not have the least liking or taste for the Lord," is all right. But to think, "I have some taste, some earnestness, some devotion for the Lord," is dangerous.