Vaishnava_das108

 

i dont think u understand PARAM MURKH SWAMI is not the Gurus of the Swaminrayans. He comes from an INVENTED lineage of gurus. These are from BAPS. The neasden temple in UK is BAPS. The ppl who do anti-iskcon propoganda are baps. the swaminarayan.org site is BAPS. So basically, ur problem is with BAps and not the original Swaminarayan Sampraday.

 

 

OK I am getting slightly bored here. For the third time, it is irrelevant which sampradaya is deviated from the so-called "original line," because this does not explain why Sahajanand Swami said that he would be eternally manifest in the embodiments of his disciplic lineage. He himself directly said this. As a result, his guru-disciples are worshipped on the level of God regardles of whether it is BAPS or original. Why?

 

And please don't say that this belief is not there in the original sampradaya because I happen to have contacts who are followers of all the schools and they have verified the truth of it.

 

You are digressing. You should perhaps start a new thread to deal with this orthogonal topic.

 

 

With all due respects, it is only you who are digressing here. This is a discussion about Swaminarayan, in which Caitanya was slightly mentioned and you have used the opportunity to mount one of your well-recognised and tedious attacks on the Gaudiya sampradaya, which itself is a digression from the thread's topic. I suppose this is partly my fault since I challenged you to provide explanations, but the digression must come to an end and we must stay on subject. As for starting a new thread, are you kidding? This topic has been discussed many times before here on this forum. And frankly, I have discussed the issue of Caitanya's avatarhood with many more intelligent and knowledgeable scholars from all religious backgrounds, so I'm not particularly interested in devoting time to a discussion on the Internet which will most probably never be understood.

 

 

In reply to:

--

 

Your obvious strong bias against ISKCON/Gaudiya Vaishnavism is clearly evident in your words. I wonder if you have even analysed even a few of the scriptural proofs that predict the Caitanya-avatar?

 

 

--

 

Happily enough, yes.

 

 

Good, so have I.

 

 

To put it mildly, it is a very poor article, thrown together in an ad-hoc fashion by someone who along with lacking writing skills, lacks basic knowledge of sanskrit.

 

 

We are not debating the writing skills of the webmaster, so this is a completely irrelevant point that only holds needless criticism. Not a very good way to hold a dicussion. How could the article have any writing skills anyway? The whole point is simply to produce scriptural verses. This is not a theological paper we are discussing here.

 

 

We will deal only with authoritative sources for they can be verified easily. When these pieces of evidence are shown to be incorrect, it will by itself show that the rest of the alleged evidence is just as worthless.

 

 

Wowwwww... you mean to say,... that ONLY the Chandogya and Shvetasvatasa Upanishad are authorised? Then,... this means that... the Bhagavat Puran | Adi Puran | Kurma Puran | Garuda Puran | Narasimha Puran | Padma Puran | Narada Puran | Brahma Puran | Bhavisya Puran | Agni Puran | Matsya Puran | Vayu Puran | Markandeya Puran | Varah Puran | ..and so on... are all fake, right? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

Sarcasm aside, I find it highly deplorable that you have focused ONLY on two given verses and chosen to ignore the rest. But anyway, let us go on ..

 

 

I select the chaandogya upanishad and the shvetaashvatara upanishad. I eagerly browse your list to see evidence in the chaandogya and what do I find? [...] Why don't you explain the *chaandogya evidence* to me and other readers here ? [point #1]

 

 

I clearly asked you to refute ALL the verses AND provide alternative contextual translations. It is not for you to "select" which ones suit you to reply to. And why should I explain the Chandogya evidence? I asked you to do that. To pass the buck back to me is not a very good way of settling an argument. You are the one challenging the evidence, so you can disprove it. Simple.

 

Also, isn't it convenient of you to select ONLY the Chandogya and Shveta. verses to reply to? These happen to be veritably the ONLY two texts in the whole 2-part article that seemingly does not refer directly to Caitanya, and yet every other verse clearly mentions either the avatar directly or pertaining facts related to the Caitanya-avatar. This is not a very good way to have a debate, shvu, and frankly I expected a much more intelligent argument. It seems I have been sorely disappointed. I was actually expecting you to make an issue with the "krishnavarnam tvisakrsnam" verse as that is the most controversial, but never mind...

 

Sorry, but you failed the challenge.

 

So now let us get back to discussing the authenticity of the Swaminarayan sampradaya. I would like to see someone furnish sastric evidence that clearly shows that Sahajanand Swami is an avatar.

 

Is there a mistake?

 

You should be talking to Vaishnava dasa and team for criticizing the Swaminarayan sampradaya, who ironically happen to be fellow Vaishnavas. I am merely pointing out that his arguments are baseless.

 

 

I have already stated twice that here in the UK, the Swaminarayan followers actively preach anti-ISKCON propaganda for no reason at all. They are the ones picking the quarrels, and we should sit back and take it? If they preach against the authenticity of the Gaudiya sampradaya and attack it's core beliefs, we have every right to do the same in return and analyse them in the light of sastra. Is there any objection to this?

 

To sum up the issue of the Swaminarayan propagandists here in the UK; if they can give it, they must learn to take it also.

 

My arguments are hardly baseless since the article by my friend quoted directly from Siksapatri. If you refute the post you will be refuting Siksapatri, as I have already stated.

 

 

Unless, you think iskcon people can criticize swaminarayan folks, but no one should criticize iskcon?

 

 

In case it escaped your attention, the title if the thread is "Lord Swaminarayan is God," and this idea is the one being debated. No more, no less. Therefore your anti-ISKCON comments are not only a childish display, but out of place. Kindly stick to the thread of discussion please.

 

VDas I do feel you have formed strong opinions of the Swaminarayan faith which I think are unnecessary. i have had a lot of contact with the Swaminarayan followers and was unaware of the sects within. Having read a recommended study on the following it is now clear of how distinct the divides really are.

 

 

OK I accept this, as I have already admitted to not knowing about the differences in the Swaminarayan sampradaya. In fact, the first time I found out about such differences was in this very forum. I don't think it's fair to say that I have formed strong opinions when I clearly have not. I am ready to change my opinion if you can explain any points referring both to your Swaminarayan scriptures and commonly-accepted scriptures.

 

 

The worship of Pramukh Swami is part of the Bochasanwasi Akshar Purshottam Swaminarayan Sanstha which is a breakaway group from the original (authentic?) Swaminarayan fellowship. Many of the original Sampraday followers claim that Swaminarayan never sanctioned the worship of another being alongside God.

 

 

OK, I am prepare to accept that the lineage of Pramukh Swami are a breakaway sect. I have no knowledge of this and I am just relying on your words for this. This still does not explain why Sahajananda Swami allegedly stated that he will remain on earth through his lineage of gurus. This I have read in Swaminarayan literature, and this was also displayed in big letters at the world-famous marble temple in Neasden, UK. How do you explain Sahajanand's comments, then?

It naturally follows, that if Sahajanand is worshipped as an avatar, then his followers will worship his lineage of gurus too, believing each and every guru in the lineage to be a veritable avatar of Sahajanand.

 

 

With respect to your question surrounding 'scriptural evidence' stating Swaminarayan as an avatar, I too was corrected when given extracts from various purans stating the avatar of Swaminarayan.

 

 

Would you be kind enough to produce some of them, please?

 

This is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. There is no scriptural proof beyond the skewed and brazen misinterpretations of the Gaudiya folks to prove that chaitanya was an 'authorized avatar' [sic]. You are sitting in a glass house and throwing stones at others.

 

 

Your obvious strong bias against ISKCON/Gaudiya Vaishnavism is clearly evident in your words. I wonder if you have even analysed even a few of the scriptural proofs that predict the Caitanya-avatar?

 

I challenge you to both refute and provide an alternative contextual translation for EVERY verse given on the following page:

 

http://acbspn.com/godhead/gaura_1predictions.htm

 

And please don't forget to read "Part 2" of that page. I wonder why you refer to such interpretations as "skewed and brazen?" Don't you know that every sampradaya has their own interpretations and commentaries on the main shastras, like for example Vedanta-sutra? And that these interpretations are perfectly bona-fide for each school and understanding?

I am also aware that you may post alternative translations to a few of the verses mentioned on the page above, and this just proves my point. Each sampradaya is perfectly authorised to interpret shastra in their own way, and examples of this are evident in the Tattvavadi, Sri and Advaitin commentaries on Vedanta-sutra, to name just one example. Therefore your criticism of the Gaudiya interpretation as being skewed and brazen is highly unfair and unjust, not to mention extremely callous and biased. Such a selective opinion is useless.

 

 

People who are unaware of the misinterpretations I am alluding to, can read,

 

 

Yes, we are all familiar with these pages long back when these pages first appeared on the official Dvaita website. Are you aware that the people behind the website have not presented the full story?

 

This issue has been discussed many times, and in fact I replied at length to it on another forum, so I will just repost that here. It is sufficient to note that the Dvaita arguments have been soundly defeated and are still in the process of being defeated. Herein follows the repost:

 

I believe that I referred to two major sites of this argument, the Dvaita site and the Narasingha Math site, so here goes:

 

Dvaita:

 

FAQ - http://www.dvaita.org/dvaita_faq.html

Criticism of Srila Prabhupada's BG - http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/gita/prabhupada_review.html

Position paper on ISKCON - http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml

Pejavara's denial - http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/iskcon.pdf

Response to critics - http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/critics.shtml

 

It's also interesting to note that in this very same 'Postscript section,' there was a statement about the Pejavara video that left the Dvaita people "speechless." Conveniently, this statement has been removed.

 

Narasingha Matha:

 

Madhva response index - http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/index.html

 

List of pages -

http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/Madhvacarya-Gaudiya.html

http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/Caitanya.html

http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/Brahmana-Vaisnava.html

http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/srimad-bhagavatam.html

 

Madhva leaders of Udupi show their support for Gaudiyas - http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/srimad-bhagavatam.html

 

Pejavara Swami speech - http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/pejavara.html

 

Pejavara video - http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/udupi/videos.html

 

Letters from critics - http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/html/letters.html

 

Cheers! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

So are you suggesting your only problem with the Swaminarayan Sampraday is that they accept Sahajanand Swami as Krishna or as a manifestation of Krishna?

 

 

I have many problems with the swaminarayan sampradaya based on what I have heard from their followers, but I have not checked it out with authentic references so I am not obliged at this point in time to pass any opinion on it. Needless to say, collecting such arguments will be a matter of ease.

 

 

I find it very difficult to believe that 'your friend' wrote that article - but quite frankly I am not surprised, because its the typical attitude of certain ISKCONites. Too narrow minded to accept anything else.

 

 

Why would I lie about my friend writing it? The article was posted online. I could even give you a link to that exact message, but you will have to be a member of that group first and I am not sure that you will be granted access. As for being narrow-minded, why don't you say the same of the Swaminarayan followers who started the whole affair? At the risk of sounding childish, they are the ones who started the whole hullabaloo. Their followers systematically make propaganda that preach specifically against the tenets of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and they hold classes to preach their ideas. I know this because I attended one. Also, my friend does not happen to be narrow-minded. In fact, he happens to be one of the most broad-minded person I have ever had the fortune of meeting. His research comes directly from the Shikshapatri which is a text that the swaminarayans follow, so if you try to refute any of his arguments, you will be arguing against your own scriptures.

As for "accepting anything else," the Swaminarayan standard - based only on what I know at this point in time - does not fit with the Vedic standard, so at this point in time I do not accept it as a bona-fide faith.

 

One of their main ideas is that the guru is to be worshipped as God. This is true of Pramukh Swami Maharaj, his followers worship him as God simply because the original Sahajanand Swami allegedly said that he would remain on earth in the form of his disciplic lineage.

 

 

I would then pose to you - why did Swaminarayan install His own images in His temples if they were not to be worshipped?

 

 

Isn't the answer to this question self-evident?

 

 

And any negative propoganda the so-called Swaminarayan people have been spreading is most likely to be from the BAPS followers (the richer, more affluent sect) and not the original Sampraday followers.

 

 

OK I am not knowledgeable about the internal sectarian politics of the different Swaminarayan sampradayas. My concern is mainly with the lineage headed by Pramukh Swami Maharaj, whether he is BAPS or whatever I do not know. As far as I know, the lineage headed by PSM is the most popular/authentic one. Or do you disagree with that?

 

"Also, if Sahajanand was Krishna, then why does he explicitly tell his followers to worship Krishna? What is the logic here? Shouldn't he rather tell his followers to worship him, which they do anyway?"

 

 

Also, if Lord Chaitanya was Krishna, then why does he explicitly tell his followers to worship Krishna? What is the logic here? Shouldn't he rather tell his followers to worship him?

 

 

Very clever, but you're forgetting one important fact. Caitanya is an authorised avatar who has been predicted in the sastras to preach the yuga-dharma. Can the same be said of Sahajanand Swami?

 

You speak as if you have the authority to decide what is a Sampradaya's philosophy. Please rid yourself of this arrogance.

Previous subjects on this discussion a few months ago clearly showed what Swaminarayan's beliefs were. So dont be so ignorant and make foolish claims like

"The Swaminarayan Movement erroneously holds that Sahajanand Swami, founder who was born in in the 1780s is Purna Purushottam Bhagawan and is the source of Krishna"

 

 

Perhaps you did not read my post correctly. I clearly stated that I was reposting a small article written by a good friend of mine, who HAS done the research into the Swaminarayan sampradaya. I am confident that his research was fruitful.

As for authority to judge other sampradayas, I never claimed to be in such a position, but if I see certain propaganda that I want to question, who or what is there to stop me? This is the purpose of a discussion board.

 

 

Swaminarayan was given three names when he was a child. Hari, KRISHNA and Harikrishna.

 

 

Many Indian people have a religious name. Does that mean that they are avatars of those respective deities too?

 

And no, I haven't read Vacahanmritam or Shiksapatri. The translations produced by my friend are probably present in his copy. Also, the text is in Gujurati, so any Gujurati person can re-translate the text adequately.

 

 

Don't draw conclusions based on incomplete information. You believe Krishna is Lord. Fine. Some believe Swaminarayan is Lord. Fine. Lord is one and appears in many forms. Krishna has said to Arjuna himself that his forms are infinite.

 

 

The Swaminarayan sampradaya followers here in the UK produce systematic propaganda against ISKCON, thus inviting investigation into their own theological belifs and practices, as well as their traditions.

 

Yes, Krishna's forms are infinite, but there is no scriptural record of a prediction of a "prominent" avatar such as Sahajanand Swami. Also, if Sahajanand was Krishna, then why does he explicitly tell his followers to worship Krishna? What is the logic here? Shouldn't he rather tell his followers to worship him, which they do anyway?

rAdhA-kR^iSNa-guNAn eva

gAya.m gAyam aki~ncanaH

ashrubhiH pa.nkilI-kurve

kadA vR^indAvana-sthalIm

 

"When will I drench the land of Vrndavana with tears from my eyes while singing the transcendental qualities of Sri Sri Radha-Krsna like a beggar?" - Sri Vrndavana-mahimamrta 10.35

Well now you seem to be getting your knickers in a twist. British expression, don't worry.

 

Nobody is harassing you. I am aware of your earlier post. My comments were meant to "Guest" posters in general, not just you.

No one is criticising your ID. I'm sure we would all prefer if you could take the time to login before you write. This is hardly an impossible task.

 

Many people have asked (on this and other threads) various "Guest" posters to use an ID. It is annoying that many guests come here (although they are welcome) and talk a lot, and we cannot tell which guest is which.

 

That said, how about responding to the rest of my points?

OK, first I would like to ask all the "Guests" to try and log in instead of iridiscently mentioning "shvu here" or "shashi speaking" and things like that. This is kind of annoying.

 

 

After running out of the usual stock of arguments, I see you are trying the patriotic angle. So is this the actual, hitherto unmentioned reason why Prabhupada disliked to be called hindu? Where did he disclose this? Or will you admit you are now making up your own wild reasons?

 

 

This fact about "Muslim invaders" is accepted by most Indological scholars, not just endorsed by Srila Prabhupada alone. Not that I have any quick references for the same, but I have personally spoken with many Indologists and they say the same thing.

 

 

I see you disapprove of hindu because it is not a vedic [sic] word. Which veda defines the label Vaishnavism? Or 'Gaudiya Vaishnavism'?

 

 

OK, fair point. The labels 'Vaishnavism' or 'Gaudiya Vaishnavism' are a westernisation naming of a predominantly Indian-based system of philosophy. There are many Puranas etc that mention 'Vaisnava,' so an extension of this word (even if a Western one) is perfectly alright.

 

I think it is wonderful that you are chanting as you dream.

 

 

I recall reading some statements of Srila Prabhupada to the effect that it is possible with practice to chant in dreams, and we must try to do so. Are you in posession of such references, and would you kindly post them here, please? I have been looking all over the net and couldn't find any.

 

 

You basically set up a trigger in your mind. Like say, looking at your right hand. If you think you may be dreaming you look at your right hand and then back at the surroundings of your dream. If you are dreaming the whole atmosphere suddenly changes. Colors are much brighter and there is an accompanying sense of heightened joy. You become lucid.

 

 

Yes, I recall briefly reading about the right-hand trigger in one of Carlos Castaneda's series of books.

 

 

The Tibetians have a whole yoga system dedicated to this practice. They try to enter sleep awake. Get that. They try to maintain a conscious state of self awareness as the body drifts off into slumber. And then continue it through the various phases of sleep and then watch as the body and brain awaken in the morning. Very cool. Imagine how many more rounds one could chant.

 

 

LOL!!! I like your idea!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

And this is also a perfect example of Krishna-consciousness. Some people reading may be bewildered and take off to read about lucid dreaming, and try to initiate all sorts of nonsensical and self-aggrandising dreams, but Theist prabhu here would use the opportunity to chant some more rounds. Congratulations! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

Irrespective of it's etymology, the word Hindu has come to have a clear and standard meaning, at least for the last 400 years. It is being used on a daily basis, worldwide, with no ambiguity, by millions. This being the case, what is incorrect about it?

 

 

What is "unambiguous" or "clear and standard" about the definition of the word 'Hindu'? Even casual observers note that any two average "Hindus" worship different "gods" and employ different modes of worship. It is a fact that especially in the last 400 years, the religion of Hinduism has become more and more corrupted, and the dividing lines have been blurred more and more until it all becomes one tangled mess.

 

And this is clear?

 

 

To avoid the problem of the poor state of India, it was also necessary to say something like "Indian religion was terrific once upon a time, but has deteriorated now. What we are preaching is the untainted, original form of Sanathana dharma -- a universal religion, which is not what is known as hinduism". This of course, is a prevarication, but then, all is fair in love, war and preaching religion. Anyone who has to market a new product has to invariably stretch the truth a little. Otherwise he will get nowhere. This was his reason for avoiding the label Hindu, a sales pitch. It is actually fine, for most people like to think that they are part of a univeral, high form of religion vis-a-vis plain, boring, parochial hinduism.

 

 

Well you have spoken correctly, that this is only your opinion. Never mind if it is wrong or right, but it is simply your opinion. To suggest that Srila Prabhupada's "Marketing" of Gaudiya Vaishnavism independently of "Hinduism" was simply a preaching strategy is not only ridiculous, but sheer falsity. Everyone who even has the faintest contact with "Hinduism" in it's many forms has an idea of exactly how heterogenous it is.

 

 

It does not matter that your postion is correct. SP has said so and his words are axioms to his followers. If SP said Americans did not land on the moon, then they did not land on the moon. If SP said, HKs are not hindus, then HKs are not Hindus. No amount of evidence will help, for their position is "Prabhupada said so...". There is nothing one can do beyond that.

 

 

I suppose sarcasm is being employed here, where it seems to achieve no purpose except to smirk.

 

It is interesting to note that Srila Prabhupada quoted Vedic evidence at the time to backup his idea that Americans did not land on the moon. Funnily enough, the idea that there was a government-masterminded conspiracy by NASA, and that the Americans relaly never went to the moon, is being accepted by more and more people every day. And there is scientific evidence to prove as such, and documentaries have been filmed on the subject.

 

It is only a matter of time before other assertions of Srila Prabhupada are proved by modern science. It will be of no consequence anyway, because those who believe in and follow the words of the spiritual master will look sympathetically on the rest of those who will "catch up," and they would be so very bored by then. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

[Ek Onkar] SAT NAM KARTHA PURAKH NIRBHAY NIRVER AKAL MURATH AJONI SAIBHANG GURU PRASAD

 

 

This is the Mool-mantra that is regularly chanted by the Sikhs, the followers of Guru Nanak.

 

The Mool-mantra is to the Sikhs what the Hare-Krishna mantra is to Vaishnavas.

First of all, I have many friends who are members of the Swaminarayan sect, and I have also visited the world-famous marble temple here in the UK many times. I have bought a couple of their literature, so I will give my viewpoint here now.

 

 

The original Swaminarayan sect, formed by Swaminarayan Himself accepts there to be only one God. From Him, all incarnations manifest and merge back into Him. It would therefore be an error to claim Sahajanand or Vasudev Krishna are separate entities - they are the same God.

 

 

And what is the proof for the truth of this statement? Where does it explicitly state that Krishna is nondifferent from Sahajanand Swami?

 

In this connection, one of my dear friends wrote this small essay about the Swaminarayn sect. I reproduce the same here in full:

 

The Swaminarayan Movement erroneously holds that Sahajanand Swami, founder who was born in in the 1780s is Purna Purushottam Bhagawan and is the source of Krishna! They hold the Shikshapatri, the commandments written by Sahajanand Swami as the supreme instruction on religion. The Shikshapatri on the other hand clearly instructs the followers of Swaminarayan to worship only Krishna. Verse 108 says that Krishna is para-brahma-bhagawan-purushotam, but yet follwers of Swaminarayan falsely say that Sahajanand Swami is purna-purushottam.

Verse 115 says that ONLY Lord Krishna is worthy of worship, and one shall not worship men and other deities. I have enclosed a copy of the relevant verses from Shikshapatri on Lord Krishna for the pleasure of the vaisnavas assembled here. This proves beyond doubt that the present day Swaminarayan followers have deviously deviated from the path of pure devotion to Krishna that Swami Sahajanada

propounded. How blind can one be?

 

These verses may also help you if you are debating the divinity of Sahajanda Swami with Swaminarayan followers.

 

Shikshapatri (The Book of Divine Commandments)

 

I meditate in my heart on Lord Shri Krishna who has to his left Radha, in whose bosom resides Laxmi and who sportively plays in Vrandavan. (1)

I, Sahajanand Swami, address this Shikshapatri from Vrittalaya (Vadtal) to all my followers residing in various parts of the country. (2)

 

Except at Jagannathpuri, neither cooked food nor water even if it be remains of an offering to Lord Krishna shall be accepted, which are served by others who are not approved by age-old conventions to do so. (19)

 

None shall listen to discourses on religious subjects from such persons whose teachings may lead to deviation from Devotion to Lord Krishna or detraction from one's own Dharma. (25)

None shall ever believe in such scriptures which by spurious arguments refute and strike at the very root of the existence of Lord Krishna and His incarnations. (29)

None shall do Lord Krishna's devotion devoid of Dharma. None shall give up worship of Lord Krishna out of fear of censure by ignorant people. (39)

When my followers go to the temple of Krishna either on days of celebration of festival or any other day, they shall keep themselves completely apart from the persons of the opposite sex and shall be careful not to touch them. (40)

All my twice-born (Brahmin, Kshatriya, and Vaishya) followers who are initiated into Lord Krishna's devotion by a spiritual master descended from the family of Dharmadev shall always put on round their neck a double kanthi (rosary) of Tulsi beads and shall make a vertical Tilak mark on their foreheads, chest, and on both the arms. (41)

This Tilak shall be made of Gopichandan or with Sandal paste mixed with Saffron and Kumkum left over after having been offered to Krishna. (42)

Within this vertical Tilak a full-moon shape mark shall be made of the same substance or Kumkum which is offered to Radha and Laxmi. (43)

Sat-Shudras (shudras of a higher order) who are devoted to Lord Krishna and who scrupulously and sincerely follow their Dharma shall also put on a kanthi and a vertical Tilak like the twice-born. (44)

Those devotees who belong to other than the Sat-Shudra group shall put on a double Kanthi of Sandal beads and make on their forehead only a round mark leaving out the vertical Tilak. (45)

All my followers shall every day rise from bed before sun-rise. After meditating on Krishna they shall attend the call of nature. (49)

The widows shall abstain from placing on their forehead both a vertical Tilak and a round symbol. Thereafter all my followers shall mentally render devotional service to Lord Krishna. (53)

After reverently bowing down before the pictorial image of Radha and Krishna and completing repetition of "mantra" according to one's capacity, my followers shall attend to daily pursuit of worldly duties. (54)

Even the devotees like Ambarish who have totally surrendered their self to the Lord shall strictly follow a course of religious practice up to mental worship in the chronological order as laid down above. (55)

These Atmanivedi i.e. dedicated devotees shall worship Shri Krishna's image made of stone or metal or Saligram (Vishnu) with offerings like Sandal paste, flowers, fruits, etc., which are procurable at the time according to their respective capacity and then shall recite eight-lettered holy mantra of Shri Krishna. (56)

They then shall read hymns or study text of religious scriptures according to their capacity. Those who do not know Sanskrit shall recite songs and holy names of Shri Krishna. (57)

They shall then offer food to Lord Krishna and partake of "prasad" from the offerings to the Lord. They shall ever engage themselves with love in the eternal devotional service of Lord Krishna. (58)

These devotees shall never even drink water or take roots or fruits without offering them to Lord Krishna. (60)

All our devotees who are out of old age or in great adversity are not able to offer worship to the image of Lord Krishna shall hand over the image to other devotee and shall offer mental worship so much as health permits. (61)

Only that image of Lord Krishna which is given for worship or installed by the Acharya of Dharmakul shall be worshipped. The other images may be only bowed down but not worshipped. (62)

All my followers shall go to the temple of the Lord daily in the evening and shall engage themselves in singing loudly praises and reciting names of Lord Krishna. (63)

Discourses on the Lord Krishna's life and teachings shall be delivered and listened to with great respect. On festival days, songs of Lord Krishna shall be sung in accompaniment with musical instruments. (64)

Shri Vithalnathji, son of Shri Vallabhacharya who is king among all Vaishnavas, has prescribed the days of Vratas, shall be followed by my followers, who shall observe fasts and festivals accordingly and shall adopt the mode of worship of Lord Krishna as enjoined by him. (81-82)

A Pilgrimage of holy places, chief among which is Dwarka, shall be made by our followers in the prescribed manner and as their means permit them. All shall be kind and charitable towards the poor according to their resources. (83)

When the solar or the lunar eclipse takes place,---all of my followers shall leave aside every other activity and after purified shall engage themselves in the chanting of the Mantra of Lord Krishna. (86)

The four Vedas, Vyas-Sutras, Shrimad Bhagavat, Vishna-Sahasranama from Mahabharat, Shri Bhagavat Gita, Code of conduct named Vidurniti, Shri Vasudeva-Mahatmya from Vishnu-Khand in Skand-Purana, and Yajnavalkya-Smriti which are chief among scriptures are eight favorite scriptures held high by us as authentic. (93,94,95)

The Tenth and the Fifth Skandas of Shrimad Bhagavat shall supremely serve the object of realizing the majesty and the glory of the Lord's greatness. (98)

The Tenth Skanda, the Fifth Skanda of the Bhagavat ; and Yajnavalkya Smriti shall be esteemed respectively as our Science of Devotion, Science of Yoga, and Science of Dharma. (99)

The commentary on Vyas-Sutras, and on Bhagavat Gita by Shri

Ramanujacharya shall be given recognition as our Science of the Spirit. (100)

The texts contained in these scriptures, which uphold utmost the divine concrete form of Lord Krishna, the importance of Dharma, the supremacy of Devotion, and the necessity of detachment, shall be given superior authority to the rest of the utterances. The secret of the matter is that Bhakti of Lord Krishna shall indissolubly be wedded to Dharma. (101-102)

Dharma is right conduct authenticated by Sruti and Smriti. Bhakti (devotion) is extreme profound love for God coupled with the knowledge of the majesty and magnificence of Lord Krishna. (103)

Vairagya (detachment) means non-attachment towards all other objects except Lord Krishna. Jnana is right realization of the nature and content of Jiva, Maya, and Ishwar. (104)

Who is Ishwar? He is Shri Krishna who is Para Brahma Bhagwan Purushottam and our most cherished Deity. He is worthy to be worshipped by us all. He is the cause of all manifestations and incarnations. (108)

Lord Krishna when He is with Radha, shall be known as Radha-Krishna ; with Rukmini, as Laxminarayan ; with Arjuna, as NarNarayan. When He is together with Balabhadra and other devotees, He will be spoken of by such names being placed before His name. (109-110)

Devotees such as Radha and others are at times by the side of the Lord and at other times, they become absorbed in His body, being overwhelmed with love and devotion. He then remains one and single and all alone. (111)

Therefore no distinction or discrimination shall be made between one and the other of these manifestations. Lord Krishna is permanently two-armed. It is only out of His sweet will that he assumes the different forms like the four-armed, the eight-armed, or the thousand-armed. (112)

All men on earth shall always engage themselves in the devotion of Lord Krishna, with the full understanding that there is no other superior way for achieving the Summon bonum of life except the path of devotion to the Lord. (113)

Bhakti coupled with Satsang is the most coveted reward of all accomplishments of all virtues and learning of the virtuous and scholarly persons. Even the most learned scholars go down without devotion to Lord Krishna and communion with the Saints (Satsang). (114)

It is only Lord Shri Krishna, His incarnations, and His images that alone can be meditated upon. But no man or Deity shall be meditated upon even though he may be a devotee of God or a knower of Brahman. Therefore the latter kind of meditation shall not be done by any of our followers. (115)

Our followers shall respectfully listen to the Tenth Skanda of Shrimad Bhagavat daily or at least once in a year. The learned persons shall read it daily or at least once in a year. (117)

Our followers shall perform reverently repeated readings

(Purascharan) of the Tenth Skanda of Bhagavat and Vishnu---

Sahasranama in a holy place ; for such performances fulfill the desires of the cherished objects. (118)

They (followers and acharyas) shall perform the celebration of the conclusion of Vratas like Ekadashi and others as prescribed in the scriptures according to their capacity. The performance of this ceremony yields desired objects. (148)

When householders undertake a journey to have a Darshan of the image of Lord Krishna, a preceptor, or a saint, they shall not eat meals of others either during the journey or at the respective places of the temple of Lord Krishna, preceptor, or a saint ; for 'partaking of others' food deprives one of one's merits. They shall, therefore, take their meals at their own cost during such journey. (151)

Our followers, both men and women, who shall act in conformity with the commandments of this Shikshapatri shall surely attain the fulfillment of all the four Purusharthas ; Dharma (Ethics), Artha (Wealth), Kama (Desires), and Moksha (Liberation). (206)

Those men and women followers who shall transgress the precepts contained in this Shikshapatri shall be deemed by our loyal followers to be outside the fold of our fellowship. (207)

Our Satsangi followers shall daily engage themselves in the reading of Shikshapatri. Those who are illiterate and incapable of reading shall reverently attend to the listening of Shikshapatri. (208)

When there is none who can read out Shikshapatri, they shall do daily worship of it. All shall pay reverent respect to Shikshapatri as our words are concrete and manifest form. (209)

Our Shikshapatri shall be given only to persons endowed with righteous virtues of the Divine and Godly wealth and not to those who possess unrighteous vices of the Dark and devilish powers. (210)

We have written this Shikshapatri on the fifth lay of the bright half of the month of Maha of the Vikram Samvat year One Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Two. Shikshapatri is one which will yield the highest welfare of all human beings. (211)

May Lord Krishna, destroyer of total miseries of His devout votaries, protector of Bhakti (devotion) coupled with Dharma, fulfiller of His devotees' desires for cherished happiness, shower the integral beneficence on us all without exception. (212)

 

The conclusion is clear.

 

There are plenty of Advaitins who are perfectly happy with Advaita with no confusion, whatsoever.

 

 

I was also relatively happy when I was an Advaitin, what does that prove? I grew a brain and used it to think. They may think that they are happy, but one day ... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

 

Perhaps, you did not get to learn Advaita in a proper way.

 

 

I learnt Advaita from the texts of numerous Advaitic leader including Sankara.

 

 

Coming to iskcon, the simple point that iskcon claims a reverse order [Vishnu emanates from Krishna], thus directly contradicting the Mahabharatha and the Vishnu Purana is enough for me to reject it's validity. Other spurious claims such as the divinity of Chaitanya, etc only strengthen my case. btw, I am not out to start a fresh argument on these topics, for they have already been discussed here more than once.

 

 

Right, then don't. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

There are plenty of Advaitins who are perfectly happy with Advaita with no confusion, whatsoever.

 

 

I was also relatively happy when I was an Advaitin, what does that prove? I grew a brain and used it to think. They may think that they are happy, but one day ... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

 

Perhaps, you did not get to learn Advaita in a proper way.

 

 

I learnt Advaita from the texts of numerous Advaitic leader including Sankara.

 

 

Coming to iskcon, the simple point that iskcon claims a reverse order [Vishnu emanates from Krishna], thus directly contradicting the Mahabharatha and the Vishnu Purana is enough for me to reject it's validity. Other spurious claims such as the divinity of Chaitanya, etc only strengthen my case. btw, I am not out to start a fresh argument on these topics, for they have already been discussed here more than once.

 

 

Right, then don't. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

And your denigration of Advaita is what? A proven fact? I am playing your game here.

 

 

Well, for me it is a proven fact. I used to be an Advaitin and I realised it's inherent fallacies by direct experience. I discovered that belief in Advaita simply confounds confusion, and brings up more questions than answers.

 

 

You can check out the 'is advaita a geuine tradition?' thread started by Karthik a few months back. It will save us a lot of redundant typing.

 

 

I did read it, and found nothing in there that could change my opinion.

 

And your denigration of Advaita is what? A proven fact? I am playing your game here.

 

 

Well, for me it is a proven fact. I used to be an Advaitin and I realised it's inherent fallacies by direct experience. I discovered that belief in Advaita simply confounds confusion, and brings up more questions than answers.

 

 

You can check out the 'is advaita a geuine tradition?' thread started by Karthik a few months back. It will save us a lot of redundant typing.

 

 

I did read it, and found nothing in there that could change my opinion.

 

Anyone can make such sweeping statements. Please allow me to demonstrate.

 

ISKCON philosophy is not bona fide. It is based on wild and fanciful concoctions by the early goswamis and has been passively accepted by a credulous section of people, who are generally ignorant about the Vedas.

 

 

Well, this is only your opinion. You have not produced even one single example of the "wild and fanciful" concoctions of the Goswamis, neither have you explained how such followers are ignorant of the Vedas.

 

Are you knowledgeable about Vedas? If so, please demonstrate.

 

Anyone can make such sweeping statements. Please allow me to demonstrate.

 

ISKCON philosophy is not bona fide. It is based on wild and fanciful concoctions by the early goswamis and has been passively accepted by a credulous section of people, who are generally ignorant about the Vedas.

 

 

Well, this is only your opinion. You have not produced even one single example of the "wild and fanciful" concoctions of the Goswamis, neither have you explained how such followers are ignorant of the Vedas.

 

Are you knowledgeable about Vedas? If so, please demonstrate.

 

I was a dvaitin converted to an Advaitin.

 

 

I really don't see how this can be possible...

 

Isn't Dvaita the mere opposite of Advaita?

 

Such misperception is one of the reasons why some reject the use of 'Dvaita' to refer to the doctrine of Tattvavâda. While it is true that Advaita and Tattvavâda have had many debates over hundreds of years, and that the latter denies the jagan-mithyatva (illusory nature of the universe) that is one of the fundamental tenets of Advaita, it is certainly not the case that there is disagreement everywhere, nor is it the case that one can derive Tattvavâda merely by taking the opposite of everything claimed by Advaita. But it can be said with full certainty that on most fundamental issues such as the nature of Îshvara, jîva, attainment of mukti, etc., the two have total and irreconcilable differences.

 

Isn't Dvaita the first step towards learning Advaita?

 

If it is, then it is a quite large, reverse, first step! While adherents of Advaita say that by nature and everyday experience one believes in the reality of the universe, etc., and that such belief must be got rid if one is to attain complete union with the nirguNa-Brahman, no serious scholar of Advaita claims that studying Tattvavâda is a first step towards learning Advaita. For one thing, it is a rule of all learning that things learned first must not contradict things learned later; for another, Tattvavâda specifically examines and denounces many Advaita concepts, and hence, one who has learned Tattvavâda first cannot possibly accept Advaita later. In fact Advaita has not built up a credible system of analysis where the pûrva paksha or the initial proposition of Tattvavâda is examined and rejected thereby establishing Advaita. The exact reverse obtains today. - http://www.dvaita.org/faq.shtml

 

...but each to their own.

 

 

In Advaita mukti is synonymous with Brahman. As a famous Upanishad saying goes- The Knower of Brahman becomes Brahman.

 

 

Well this is exactly my point. Different sampradayas have different definitions of mukti. Mukti does not necessarily mean a merging of individuality into the "Supreme Source."

 

Also, this Upanishadic saying that you have quoted, it's highly interesting how the FAQ on the official Advaita website insists on a metaphorical treatment of this verse. this suggests that even Advaitins do not take their own precepts seriously.

 

 

There is no fall for Brahman into the material world. Brahman is the Supreme, and so an Advaitin who achieves mukti does not come back to the world as Gaudiyas seem to think.

 

 

You are forgetting that mergence in God is not approved of by God. Besides that, you have quoted no scriptural proof to suggest that an achiever of mukti will not fall, while there are ample references that indicate that they do fall.

 

 

To say that mukti is possible only for a devotee of Krishna, and that too only if Krishna is worshipped in the Gopi style is incorrect. That is a myth being spread by ISKCON.

 

 

Well, where did you get this information? Nobody said that mukti is possible only for devotees of Krishna, and especially those in gopi-bhava. I have already stated above that each sampradaya has a different definition of mukti, and further to this we can even say that there are different states of mukti. The "mukti" that is attained by a Gaudiya Vaishnava in madhurya-rasa is indeed the topmost, and there are numerous shastric quotes to this effect.

 

 

The hindu dharma is called Sanatana Dharma.There are innumerable ways to attain God in that.

 

 

With all due respect, you have spoken incorrectly here. There is only Sanatana-dharma, not "Hindu dharma." There is no such thing as Hindu-dharma. Only in the watered-down corrupt form of "Hinduism" that we see all around s today can it be said that there are innumerable ways to attain God, and this is factually incorrect in itself. Bhagavad-gita makes it clear that the Lord is attained by devotion alone.

 

 

The Gaudiyas are after all nothing but a small sect in hinduism. Iskcon people may not call themselves as hindus, but no one really takes that seriously as all their concepts are borrowed from hinduism alone.

 

 

Well, perhaps only you may not take that seriously, but many others do. If many Gaudiya concepts are borrowed from "Hinduism," then how do you explain why no demigods are worshipped? Why are sraddha ceremonies not performed? Why is there no tantrik rituals?

 

I gather you understand my point.

 

Furthermore, allow me to remind you that we are discussing Meerabai here. If it is required, we can open a new discussion thread and discuss the topic of Dvaita or whatever, there.

 

I was a dvaitin converted to an Advaitin.

 

 

I really don't see how this can be possible...

 

Isn't Dvaita the mere opposite of Advaita?

 

Such misperception is one of the reasons why some reject the use of 'Dvaita' to refer to the doctrine of Tattvavâda. While it is true that Advaita and Tattvavâda have had many debates over hundreds of years, and that the latter denies the jagan-mithyatva (illusory nature of the universe) that is one of the fundamental tenets of Advaita, it is certainly not the case that there is disagreement everywhere, nor is it the case that one can derive Tattvavâda merely by taking the opposite of everything claimed by Advaita. But it can be said with full certainty that on most fundamental issues such as the nature of Îshvara, jîva, attainment of mukti, etc., the two have total and irreconcilable differences.

 

Isn't Dvaita the first step towards learning Advaita?

 

If it is, then it is a quite large, reverse, first step! While adherents of Advaita say that by nature and everyday experience one believes in the reality of the universe, etc., and that such belief must be got rid if one is to attain complete union with the nirguNa-Brahman, no serious scholar of Advaita claims that studying Tattvavâda is a first step towards learning Advaita. For one thing, it is a rule of all learning that things learned first must not contradict things learned later; for another, Tattvavâda specifically examines and denounces many Advaita concepts, and hence, one who has learned Tattvavâda first cannot possibly accept Advaita later. In fact Advaita has not built up a credible system of analysis where the pûrva paksha or the initial proposition of Tattvavâda is examined and rejected thereby establishing Advaita. The exact reverse obtains today. - http://www.dvaita.org/faq.shtml

 

...but each to their own.

 

 

In Advaita mukti is synonymous with Brahman. As a famous Upanishad saying goes- The Knower of Brahman becomes Brahman.

 

 

Well this is exactly my point. Different sampradayas have different definitions of mukti. Mukti does not necessarily mean a merging of individuality into the "Supreme Source."

 

Also, this Upanishadic saying that you have quoted, it's highly interesting how the FAQ on the official Advaita website insists on a metaphorical treatment of this verse. this suggests that even Advaitins do not take their own precepts seriously.

 

 

There is no fall for Brahman into the material world. Brahman is the Supreme, and so an Advaitin who achieves mukti does not come back to the world as Gaudiyas seem to think.

 

 

You are forgetting that mergence in God is not approved of by God. Besides that, you have quoted no scriptural proof to suggest that an achiever of mukti will not fall, while there are ample references that indicate that they do fall.

 

 

To say that mukti is possible only for a devotee of Krishna, and that too only if Krishna is worshipped in the Gopi style is incorrect. That is a myth being spread by ISKCON.

 

 

Well, where did you get this information? Nobody said that mukti is possible only for devotees of Krishna, and especially those in gopi-bhava. I have already stated above that each sampradaya has a different definition of mukti, and further to this we can even say that there are different states of mukti. The "mukti" that is attained by a Gaudiya Vaishnava in madhurya-rasa is indeed the topmost, and there are numerous shastric quotes to this effect.

 

 

The hindu dharma is called Sanatana Dharma.There are innumerable ways to attain God in that.

 

 

With all due respect, you have spoken incorrectly here. There is only Sanatana-dharma, not "Hindu dharma." There is no such thing as Hindu-dharma. Only in the watered-down corrupt form of "Hinduism" that we see all around s today can it be said that there are innumerable ways to attain God, and this is factually incorrect in itself. Bhagavad-gita makes it clear that the Lord is attained by devotion alone.

 

 

The Gaudiyas are after all nothing but a small sect in hinduism. Iskcon people may not call themselves as hindus, but no one really takes that seriously as all their concepts are borrowed from hinduism alone.

 

 

Well, perhaps only you may not take that seriously, but many others do. If many Gaudiya concepts are borrowed from "Hinduism," then how do you explain why no demigods are worshipped? Why are sraddha ceremonies not performed? Why is there no tantrik rituals?

 

I gather you understand my point.

 

Furthermore, allow me to remind you that we are discussing Meerabai here. If it is required, we can open a new discussion thread and discuss the topic of Dvaita or whatever, there.

 

TRANSLATION

Arjuna inquired: Which are considered to be more perfect, those who are always properly engaged in Your devotional service or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?

-------------------

so yes, advaita is a valid path.

for some it is hard to understand

and it really could confuse some dvaitis.

 

 

I don't see how you have drawn your conclusion that Advaita is a valid path from the above verse. Just because Arjuna asked about it's veracity does not necessarily mean that it is bona fide. Actually the very fact that Arjuna even brought up this question to Krishna proves that he was in doubt about this issue, and thus brought it up for Krishna's clarification. And Krishna's conclusion is clear:

 

Chapter 12, Verse 2.

The Blessed Lord said: He whose mind is fixed on My personal form, always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith, is considered by Me to be most perfect.

 

Chapter 12, Verse 3-4.

But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, fixed and immovable--the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth--by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me.

 

Chapter 12, Verse 5.

For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.

 

Chapter 12, Verse 6-7.

For one who worships Me, giving up all his activities unto Me and being devoted to Me without deviation, engaged in devotional service and always meditating upon Me, who has fixed his mind upon Me, O son of Prtha, for him I am the swift deliverer from the ocean of birth and death.

 

Chapter 12, Verse 8.

Just fix your mind upon Me, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and engage all your intelligence in Me. Thus you will live in Me always, without a doubt.

 

Also, I don't see how dvaitins would find it hard to understand Advaita, because Advaita is not bona fide. Advaita is based on a speculative and exaggerated interpretation of the Vedanta-sutra. It is not at all confusing to those who are knowers of the truth. It is only confusing for those who follow it, perhaps.

 

 

current time is such dangerous for all the vedic people (HK's included) that it is really not smart to argue dvaita-advaita or this vs that sampradaya. unity is needed when the non-vedic enemy is at the door.

 

 

Yes we have seen that you have been repeating this same sentiment time and again with vague references to the "Islamic enemy," but nobody else sees an immediate threat, especially from Islam.

The topic of Dvaita vs. Advaita has been going on from time immemorial and will continue to do so.

 

Also, please remember that this is not a thread about Dvaita or Advaita. This is about Meerabai. If you would like to discuss the rivalry between Dvaita and Advaita, then please open a new thread and we will discuss it there instead of deviating this thread.