dhaa

Personally I believe Jesus is God Almighty as the Bible says. And my knee bows to him, my tongue confesses and I account to Him. He is all. Absolutely everything. The alpha and omega, beginning and end. All that existed, exists and yet to come. What else is there save Jesus?

Narayan or Goddess Narayani - same Bhagavat Puran or Devi Bhagavat Puran - same

It's the fundamentals of any religion to be respectful. I'm clueless how a practitioner of any religion for decades like Prabhupada can disrespect anyone, moreso clueless how he can consciously choose to spend his time to disrespect another holy person. This behavior isn't holy or religious. Bottom line its not Vaishnavism. He accomplished many great things but this duplicitious behavior of his is rather peculiar.

The claim that its best and most appropriate is subjective. In contrast meditation has extensive scientific research behind it for its benefits. Any research on hare krishna chanting? What are its benefits? And how do the numbers of hare krishna compare to meditators? The best should be the natural choice of spiritual aspirants.

Iskcon & their leaders and members have a history of irresponsibility followed with excuse-justifications, very similar to the politics of a corrupt developing nation. Iskcon/GBC always had a lot of problems. At their current rate of progress nothing will improve. But hey, miracles happen everyday all over the World! It is my personal desire to see all spiritually progress and I wish for them all the best. First step is acceptance. Time to take responsibility gbc lest be responsible for more of their own and all Iskcon's spiritual regress. Peace & Creativity

What are the ramifications for advocating their fairy-tale? Maybe if Iskcon understood the consequences they wouldn't do it. Well, hopefully. I got a paycheck, now I'll rip it up and dispose. I'm not mad! I'm not envious, Radha and the gopis are! It is Vaishnava & Shastra aparadha and consequently self aparadha literally. Unbeneficial for any. My dear jivas - time for a new plan! Keep moving forward with spiritual progression. No more one step forward, one step back.

Subtle ways, services, wrong or right...what's Iskcon's official position now? Updated their policy on Hinduism?

No Contradiction in Teachings of Srila Prabhupada on the Fall of the Jiva - Or lack thereof I don't know what Prabhupada taught on this. Prabhupada alone knows his teachings. None can speak for him. Everyone can speak for themself only. Some say he taught X, some Y. Both parties using logical justification, both parties incapable of concluding as they are not the judge of this case. Though part of we-the-Jivan issue is conclusive and final. In the Vedic community there is no ambiguity about we the Jivas. Yet for some unreasonable and insane cause some insist incorrect and mistaken ideas about we the Jivas. To these some I still extend my love anyway and always. Some claim the fall-theory occurs in Bhagavatam. In 4.25 - 4.28 Sri Narada narrates an allegorical story about the living entity and his friend whom he doesn't know, named Avijnata. Avijnata means the unknown one. According to the Vedic Acaryas, the story speaks of the living entitiy leaving the dormant state with Mahavisnu, the Supersoul, or Avijnata in the story. In the fall theory (mis)interpretaion of the story, the living entity in Vaikuntha, leaves his friend Hari, Whom he doesn't know. {Must have been a similar situation to Myspace. Where you know - or not - there are friends who you add, but you don't know them} The fall theory has the Bhagavatam saying that in Vaikuntha there is sambandha ajnana. Proponents of the Myspace theory also have it that Srila Prabhupada misinterpreted the Bhagavatam in this way. Or gave apasiddhanta in other equivalent words. With no regard for siddhanta(they must be pranking), some supporting the fall theory also invalidly claim that their supposedly 'literal' interpretation of the Bhagavatam story has the living entity falling from Vaikuntha. Not saying their interpretation is literal but, since more importance is given to being literal than to siddhanta; from other verses in the same said story, when taken literally are impersonalism. Since they claim to have 'literal' interpretation, they have subjected themselves to supporting impersonalism occuring in the Bhagavatam. In other words more apasiddhanta. This Myspace fall theory is not very nice to the Srimad Bhagavatam. It has it teaching sambandha ajnana, impersonalism, and being inconsistent with other sastras (sastra asangati.) And not nice to Srila Prabhupada neither.

Right on the main page of iskcon.com > Heart of Hinduism They accept it now?! http://hinduism.iskcon.com/ Then what about all the sanatana dharma and story about Sindu etc... Updating the policies?

Didn't Prabhupada say people can't meditate well in this age? In this age millions are meditating in Buddhism & TM. How do the numbers of hare krishnas compare? And if I'm not mistaken...meditation and yoga are recommended in the Bhagavat for THIS age.

Vaishnava Aparadha. Everyone is a Vaishnava. Even all in Hell. Nobody is perfect. Not even Prabhupada he did it too. The God informs in shastra not to criticize anyone. Than criticizing there are more beneficial acts to perform.

Iskcon isn't exclusive. Anyone can be Krishna Conscious without Iskcon. Peace & Creativity

He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination. (bhagavad-giitaa 16.23) CC Adi 17.166 Caitanya: Cow-killers are condemned to rot in hellish life for as many thousands of years as there are hairs on the body of the cow. http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/showflat/cat/hinduism/48772/0/collapsed/5/o/2 yaavanti pashuromaaNi taavatkR^itvo ha maaraNam | vR^ithaapashughnaH praapnoti pretya janmani janmani || MS 5.38 || As many hairs as the slain beast has, so often indeed will he who killed it without a (lawful) reason suffer a violent death in future births (manu smR^iti 5.38). maa.m sa bhakShayitaa'mutra yasya maa.msamihaad myaham | etatmaa.msasya maa.msatva.m pravadanti maniiShiNaH || MS 5.55 || Me he (mam sah)' will devour in the next (world), whose flesh I eat in this (life); the wise declare this (to be) the real meaning of the word 'flesh' (mamsah) (manu smR^iti 5.55)

EDITORIAL, Jun 14 (VNN) — Q & A with Swami B. V. Tripurari "There are many manifestations of the Divine and all of them have their purpose and sentiments in the grand scheme of the life of God. <font color="red">The beautiful and appropriate thing to do is to honor all of them for what they are, not to inordinately merge them together."</font color> Q. The raga-marg, or path of spontaneous love, requires that the Godhood of Krsna be obscured in order to cultivate a special relationship with him. In Christianity we see that Mother Mary has a special relationship with Jesus in the parental mood (vatsalya rasa) and it seems that Catholic saints like Faustina and Theresa experienced a conjugal mood (madhurya rasa) of love for Jesus. Might then one cultivate a particular raga marg sentiment for Jesus as is done in Gaudiya Vaisnavism for Krsna? A. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura specifically rejected this notion. He said that Jesus is the son and guru figure, not the Personality of Godhead. While there are certainly other ways to view Jesus, we follow his opinion and those of the Gaudiya parampara regarding the raga-marg. The raga marg is defined as being in relation to the residents of Vrndavana, who love Krsna primarily in four spiritual sentiments such that his Godhood is obscured. Those sentiments are that of a servant (dasya rasa), friend (sakhya rasa), parent (vatsalya rasa), and lover (madhurya rasa). The residents of Vrndavana are known as ragatmikas, or devotees who have spontaneous love for Krsna. The path of raga means following the ragatmikas in their mood of love for Krsna. If we stretch this concept to make it generic, we must ask who are the ragamikas of Jesus that one is supposed to emulate and what particular pastimes, moods, feelings, and so forth do they exhibit on the eternal, transcendent plane of perfection. Furthermore, making raga-marg universal and applicable to any manifestation of God is in a sense unnatural and defeats its purpose. There are many manifestations of the Divine and all of them have their purpose and sentiments in the grand scheme of the life of God. The beautiful and appropriate thing to do is to honor all of them for what they are, not to inordinately merge them together. This kind of merging is usually done to bolster one's faith, but with regard to the raga-marg, faith in the uniqueness of the Vraja-lila of Krsna is central to its practice. Ultimately, I think that under scrutiny it is apparent that the bride of Christ concept posited by Theresa and others is really not supposed to be taken as an ontological reality but as a psychological perspective from which to approach Christ. That is, I do not know of any Christian saint who taught that the goal of Christianity is to reside in the spiritual world as the eternal bride of Christ. [...] In comparing this idea to the raga-marg of Sri Caitanyadeva, the question again is who are the ragatmikas of Jesus that one must emulate to attain perfection in the parental mood of Mother Mary? If one replies that Mary herself is a ragatmika in vatsalya bhakti, we must inquire further into the childhood lila of Jesus, for it is the childhood of Krsna that is central to Yasoda's parental love for him. However, such information does not exist. Also, what sadhana has been established in the Catholic Church or otherwise in Christianity that teaches how to shed one's material conception of self and enter into this mood? All considered, the Mother Mary or bride of Christ concepts are not the goal of Christianity and relate only vaguely to the raga-marg of Gaudiya Vaisnavism. I believe any Catholic theologian who is familiar with Gaudiya Vaisnavism will agree with this statement.

Christian: Can you explain the Vaisnava viewpoint of Christianity? Srila Sridhara Maharaja: Christianity is incomplete Vaisnavism; not fullfledged, but <font color="red">the basis of devotional theism.</font color> We find the principle of "Die to live" there to a certain extent, at least physically. The Christians say that the ideal shown by Jesus is self-sacrifice. In our consideration, however, that is not fullfledged theism, but only the basis. It is an unclear, vague conception of Godhead: "We are for Him." But how much? And in what shape, in what attitude? All these things are unexplained and unclear in Christianity. Everything is hazy, as if seen from far off. It does not take any proper shape. The cover is not fully removed, allowing us to come face to face with the object of our service. The conception of service to God is there, and a strong impetus to attain that, so the foundation is good, but the structure over the foundation is unclear, vague, and imperfect. [...] Only a general idea of our relationship with God is given there, but when we have to define in detail the characteristics of God, and in which relationships to approach Him, Christianity gives us only a hazy idea. Once some Christian priests told our guru maharaja that madhurya rasa (conjugal relationship with God) is also found within Christianity. In the middle ages, there was a fashion amongst the Christians to consider Christ as a bridegroom, and some parable is also given where Lord Jesus Christ is considered as a bridegroom. So, they said that madhurya rasa, the consort relationship, is also found within Christianity. Prabhupada told them, "That is with His Son, with His devotee; not with God." Son means guru, the deliverer. [...] To conceive of God as our Father is an incomplete understanding, for parents are also servitors. He must be in the center; not in any extremity of the whole...I am speaking about Jesus, who has given the ideals of Christianity. I am speaking about the principles of Jesus. He has given some understanding by installments, but not full knowledge. We agree about the strong foundation of theism. Jesus was crucified because he said, "Everything belongs to my Father. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is His." So, the foundation is very good; it is laudable, but that is only the first installment of the theistic conception. [...] We must cross the threshold given by Jesus. He has declared, "Die to live." The Lord's company is so valuable to us that we must risk everything for Him. This material achievement is nothing; it is all poison. We must have no attraction for it. We must be ready to leave everything, all our material prospects and aspirations, including our body, for Him. God is great. But what is His greatness? What is my position? How can I engage myself in His service twenty-four hours a day? Here, Jesus is silent. We receive no specific program from the Christians at this stage, so Vaisnavism comes to our heart's relief, to satisfy our inner necessity, whatever it may be. Our inner thirst will be quenched there. ~The Search For Sri Krsna Reality The Beautiful~ Bhaktivinoda: Why do they say that animals have no souls? Why do birds and beasts not have souls like human beings? Why do the human beings have only one life, and, because of their actions in that one life are rewarded in eternal heaven or punished with eternal hell? Any person who believes in a truly kind and merciful God will find this religion completely unacceptable. The followers of this religion have no power to worship God selflessly. In general their idea is that by cultivating fruitive work and speculative philosophy one should work to make improvements in the material world and in this way please God. By building hospitals and schools, and by doing various philanthropic works, they try to do good to the world and thus please God. Worship of God by performing fruitive work (karma) and by engaging in philosophical speculation (jnana) is very important to them. They have no power to understand pure devotional service (suddha-bhakti), which is free of fruitive work and philosophical speculation. Worship of God done out of a sense of duty is never natural or unselfish. "God has been kind to us, and therefore we should worship Him." These are the thoughts of lesser minds. Why is this not a good way to worship God? Because one may think, "If God is not kind to me, then I will not worship Him." In this way one has the selfish, bad desire to get God's kindness in the future. If one wishes that God will be kind by allowing one to serve Him, then there is nothing wrong with that desire. But the religion under discussion does not see it in that way. This religion sees God's kindness in terms of one's enjoying a happy life in this material world. (From Tattva-viveka commentary) Pancadravida: ...that these Old and New Testament and Koran, they are the sastras of the (sic:) yauvanas. They are not the same as the Vedic sastras. They are not as... <font color="red">They are not bona fide like that.</font color> Prabhupada: Yes. Pancadravida: Does this mean they are not authentic or... How did they come here? Prabhupada: Who? Pancadravida: These Bible and Koran, how did they get here? They were just inventions or what? Prabhupada: Convention means they are partially good for the time being, that’s all. They are not eternally... Just like in the Bible it is said, “Thou shalt not kill.” (chuckles) But this is not, does not come within the category of eternal religion. People were so corrupted that they were forbidden, “No, don’t do this.” “Thou shalt not covet,” a little moral instruction. That also, they could not follow. There is no religion. And <font color="red">little God consciousness, “There is God, kingdom of God,” little idea for the persons who could understand.</font color> Otherwise, do you think that if somebody says, “Thou shalt not kill,” is that any religious principle? It is ordinary thing. Where is the question of God? ~Morning Walk April 20, 1974~ Prabhupada: So on the principle that God is Supreme, God is Great, I do not think there is any difference of opinion between us and the Christians. But the Vedic literatures being older and disseminated by many, many <font color="red">superior acaryas</font color> we can find out how God is great, how the creation took place one after another. These details are not found in any other scriptures in the world ~Letter to Tosana Krsna, June 23 1970~ Prabhupada: "There is no difference between chanting and hearing or remembering or worshiping in the temple. Çravaëaà kértanaà viñëoù smaraëaà päda-sevanam, arcanam [sB 7.5.23]. The temple worship is called arcanam. Vandanam, offering prayers. The Christians, the Muhammadans, they offer prayer. Of course, <font color="red">not to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but impersonal feature or some idea. But that prayer is also one of the processes of bhakti.</font color> Anyone who accepts the supremacy of God, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, his process of worship has to be considered in the category of bhakti-yoga (740422sb.hyd) Prabhupada: If you think that “I shall read scriptures and I shall understand God,” no, that is also not possible. srutayo vibhinnah. Scriptures are also different. Because scriptures are made according to time, circumstances, people. Just like Bible. Bible Lord Jesus Christ preached in the desert, Jerusalem. Or where it is? People who were not so advanced. Therefore his first instruction is “Thou shall not kill.” That means they were very much engaged in killing affairs; otherwise, why is this instruction? And actually, it so happened that they killed Jesus Christ. So that society was not very enlightened society. So a scripture for a society which is not very enlightened and a scripture for a society which is very enlightened must be different. Just like a dictionary. For the schoolboy, a pocket dictionary. And for a college student, international, big dictionary. <font color="red">Both of them are dictionaries. But the small pocket dictionary is not equal to the big dictionary.</font color> Because it is different made for different classes of men. So scriptures are made according to different classes of men ~Lecture September 23, 1969~ Prabhupada: Caitanya Mahaprabhu informs us that in every country and in every scripture there is some hint of love of Godhead. Unfortunately no one knows what love of Godhead actually is. The Vedic scriptures, however, are different in that they can direct the individual in the proper way to love God. Other scriptures do not give information on how one can love God, nor do they actually define or describe what or who the Godhead actually is. <font color="red">Although they officially promote love of Godhead, they have no idea how to execute it. But Caitanya Mahaprabhu gives a practical demonstration of how to love God in a conjugal relationship.</font color> (TLC Intro)

Christian: Can you explain the Vaisnava viewpoint of Christianity? Srila Sridhara Maharaja: Christianity is incomplete Vaisnavism; not fullfledged, but <font color="red">the basis of devotional theism.</font color> We find the principle of "Die to live" there to a certain extent, at least physically. The Christians say that the ideal shown by Jesus is self-sacrifice. In our consideration, however, that is not fullfledged theism, but only the basis. It is an unclear, vague conception of Godhead: "We are for Him." But how much? And in what shape, in what attitude? All these things are unexplained and unclear in Christianity. Everything is hazy, as if seen from far off. It does not take any proper shape. The cover is not fully removed, allowing us to come face to face with the object of our service. The conception of service to God is there, and a strong impetus to attain that, so the foundation is good, but the structure over the foundation is unclear, vague, and imperfect. [...] Only a general idea of our relationship with God is given there, but when we have to define in detail the characteristics of God, and in which relationships to approach Him, Christianity gives us only a hazy idea. Once some Christian priests told our guru maharaja that madhurya rasa (conjugal relationship with God) is also found within Christianity. In the middle ages, there was a fashion amongst the Christians to consider Christ as a bridegroom, and some parable is also given where Lord Jesus Christ is considered as a bridegroom. So, they said that madhurya rasa, the consort relationship, is also found within Christianity. Prabhupada told them, "That is with His Son, with His devotee; not with God." Son means guru, the deliverer. [...] To conceive of God as our Father is an incomplete understanding, for parents are also servitors. He must be in the center; not in any extremity of the whole...I am speaking about Jesus, who has given the ideals of Christianity. I am speaking about the principles of Jesus. He has given some understanding by installments, but not full knowledge. We agree about the strong foundation of theism. Jesus was crucified because he said, "Everything belongs to my Father. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is His." So, the foundation is very good; it is laudable, but that is only the first installment of the theistic conception. [...] We must cross the threshold given by Jesus. He has declared, "Die to live." The Lord's company is so valuable to us that we must risk everything for Him. This material achievement is nothing; it is all poison. We must have no attraction for it. We must be ready to leave everything, all our material prospects and aspirations, including our body, for Him. God is great. But what is His greatness? What is my position? How can I engage myself in His service twenty-four hours a day? Here, Jesus is silent. We receive no specific program from the Christians at this stage, so Vaisnavism comes to our heart's relief, to satisfy our inner necessity, whatever it may be. Our inner thirst will be quenched there. ~The Search For Sri Krsna Reality The Beautiful~ Bhaktivinoda: Why do they say that animals have no souls? Why do birds and beasts not have souls like human beings? Why do the human beings have only one life, and, because of their actions in that one life are rewarded in eternal heaven or punished with eternal hell? Any person who believes in a truly kind and merciful God will find this religion completely unacceptable. The followers of this religion have no power to worship God selflessly. In general their idea is that by cultivating fruitive work and speculative philosophy one should work to make improvements in the material world and in this way please God. By building hospitals and schools, and by doing various philanthropic works, they try to do good to the world and thus please God. Worship of God by performing fruitive work (karma) and by engaging in philosophical speculation (jnana) is very important to them. They have no power to understand pure devotional service (suddha-bhakti), which is free of fruitive work and philosophical speculation. Worship of God done out of a sense of duty is never natural or unselfish. "God has been kind to us, and therefore we should worship Him." These are the thoughts of lesser minds. Why is this not a good way to worship God? Because one may think, "If God is not kind to me, then I will not worship Him." In this way one has the selfish, bad desire to get God's kindness in the future. If one wishes that God will be kind by allowing one to serve Him, then there is nothing wrong with that desire. But the religion under discussion does not see it in that way. This religion sees God's kindness in terms of one's enjoying a happy life in this material world. (From Tattva-viveka commentary) Pancadravida: ...that these Old and New Testament and Koran, they are the sastras of the (sic:) yauvanas. They are not the same as the Vedic sastras. They are not as... They are not bona fide like that. Prabhupada: Yes. Pancadravida: Does this mean they are not authentic or... How did they come here? Prabhupada: Who? Pancadravida: These Bible and Koran, how did they get here? They were just inventions or what? Prabhupada: Convention means they are partially good for the time being, that’s all. They are not eternally... Just like in the Bible it is said, “Thou shalt not kill.” (chuckles) But this is not, does not come within the category of eternal religion. People were so corrupted that they were forbidden, “No, don’t do this.” “Thou shalt not covet,” a little moral instruction. That also, they could not follow. There is no religion. And <font color="red">little God consciousness, “There is God, kingdom of God,” little idea for the persons who could understand.</font color> Otherwise, do you think that if somebody says, “Thou shalt not kill,” is that any religious principle? It is ordinary thing. Where is the question of God? ~Morning Walk April 20, 1974~ Prabhupada: So on the principle that God is Supreme, God is Great, I do not think there is any difference of opinion between us and the Christians. But the Vedic literatures being older and disseminated by many, many <font color="red">superior acaryas</font color> we can find out how God is great, how the creation took place one after another. These details are not found in any other scriptures in the world ~Letter to Tosana Krsna, June 23 1970~ Prabhupada: "There is no difference between chanting and hearing or remembering or worshiping in the temple. Çravaëaà kértanaà viñëoù smaraëaà päda-sevanam, arcanam [sB 7.5.23]. The temple worship is called arcanam. Vandanam, offering prayers. The Christians, the Muhammadans, they offer prayer. <font color="red">Of course, not to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but impersonal feature or some idea. But that prayer is also one of the processes of bhakti.</font color> Anyone who accepts the supremacy of God, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, his process of worship has to be considered in the category of bhakti-yoga (740422sb.hyd) Prabhupada: If you think that “I shall read scriptures and I shall understand God,” no, that is also not possible. srutayo vibhinnah. Scriptures are also different. Because scriptures are made according to time, circumstances, people. Just like Bible. Bible Lord Jesus Christ preached in the desert, Jerusalem. Or where it is? People who were not so advanced. Therefore his first instruction is “Thou shall not kill.” That means they were very much engaged in killing affairs; otherwise, why is this instruction? And actually, it so happened that they killed Jesus Christ. So that society was not very enlightened society. So a scripture for a society which is not very enlightened and a scripture for a society which is very enlightened must be different. Just like a dictionary. For the schoolboy, a pocket dictionary. And for a college student, international, big dictionary. <font color="red">Both of them are dictionaries. But the small pocket dictionary is not equal to the big dictionary.</font color> Because it is different made for different classes of men. So scriptures are made according to different classes of men ~Lecture September 23, 1969~ Prabhupada: Caitanya Mahaprabhu informs us that in every country and in every scripture there is some hint of love of Godhead. Unfortunately no one knows what love of Godhead actually is. The Vedic scriptures, however, are different in that they can direct the individual in the proper way to love God. Other scriptures do not give information on how one can love God, nor do they actually define or describe what or who the Godhead actually is. <font color="red">Although they officially promote love of Godhead, they have no idea how to execute it.</font color> But Caitanya Mahaprabhu gives a practical demonstration of how to love God in a conjugal relationship. (TLC Intro)

Also Swami Narayan agrees in Shikshapatri 47: Ekatmyameva Vigneyam Narayanamaheshyoha | Ubhyorbrahmanrupera Vedeshu Pratipadanat ||47|| No distinction shall be made between Narayan and Shiva, as they are both proclaimed as Brahmanswarupa by the Vedas Shatanand Muni's Bhashya to 47: Those who think of God differently to this, where Narayan or Shiva are defamed in some way are insulting God. Shatanand says that such people should have their eyes removed. Such a person is blind to the truth and can never be enlightened to that truth. Many Shastras speak of the oneness of Narayan and Shiva. Our ancient Shastras in some instances speak of Narayan as supreme and in other instances speak of Shiva as supreme. Both views should be accepted as correct, hence they should be accepted as the one and the same. The following Veda scriptures are Shaiva in context as they speak of Shiva as Brahman: Atharvashikha, Atharvashisha, Shetasvataria, Mantropanishad, Kaivalyopanishad. The following speak of Vishnu as the supreme Brahman: Mahanarayanopanishad, Narayaropanishad, Mahopanishad, Shubhalopanishad. Thus the four Vedas sing only the oneness of Shiva and Narayan. Shrimad Bhagwat’s Fourth Chapter explains, ‘Those who find indifference in Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva and recognise the oneness in them obtain eternal peace.’ The Eighth Chapter adds, ‘Shiva Brahma and Vishnu are thy manifested forms, which create, maintain and destroy the universe at thy will. Thou is Ishwara who delivers Moksha (Salvation). Thou is Parabrahman (the Supreme Lord).’ Narad Pancharatra succinctly states: Shivo Harirhariha Shakshatchiva Eva Nirupitaha | Shivadveshi Haridrohi Vishnum Nityam Bhajanapi || ‘Shiva is Hari and Hari is none other than Shiva. An enemy of Shiva is an enemy of Hari, even though he may daily worship Vishnu.’ Bhattacharya has said, ‘I have looked in the Puranas, Upapuranas, Vedas, Smrutis and all other such Shastras, but have not come across anything to suggest a difference in Shiva and Vishnu.’ God himself has said, ‘Those who find difference in the two of us fall to the Hells.’ Shree Dhar Swami prays, ‘I humbly bow before Vishnu and Shankar who are one, who revere one another and who provide for all.’ Vallabhacharaya, a famed Vaishnava, in similar fashion says, ‘Glory to thee, who is honoured as Brahman in the Vedanta - Lord of the three worlds - Mahadev.’ Lord Swaminarayan has gone out of his way to glorify both Vaishnav and Shaiva Sampradais in order to get back to the true Vedic teachings. We must conform to this dream of Lord Swaminarayan’s by never uttering a word contrary to the Lord’s standpoint. We must always, with love, observe the Vratas of Lord Shiva and bow respectfully to the icons of Shiva. It does not in anyway fault our devotion to Lord Vishnu by doing so - indeed it strengthens devotion for Vishnu. Narayan and Shiva are one and the same. They are, if you like, two sides of the same coin. That coin being the Supreme Godhead source: http://swaminarayansatsang.com/scriptures/scriptureexplanation.asp?ScriptureDetailsID=48&ScriptureID=1

Valmiki ramayan Yuddha-khanda 18.33: 'It is My vow that if one only once seriously surrenders unto Me, saying "My dear Lord, from this day I am Yours," and prays to Me for courage, I shall immediately award courage to that person, and he will always remain safe from that time on. CC Adi 3.104 Sri Krsna, who is very affectionate toward His devotees, sells Himself to a devotee who offers Him merely a tulasi leaf and a palmful of water CC Adi 5.208 Because He is intoxicated by ecstatic love and is an incarnation of mercy, He does not distinguish between the good and the bad Adi 7.23 in distributing love of Godhead, Caitanya Mahäprabhu and His associates did not consider who was a fit candidate and who was not, nor where such distribution should or should not take place. They made no conditions. Wherever they got the opportunity, the members of the Panca-tattva distributed love of Godhead Adi 7.145 The Supreme Lord, who is greater than the greatest, becomes submissive to even a very insignificant devotee because of his devotional service. It is the beautiful and exalted nature of devotional service that the infinite Lord becomes submissive to the infinitesimal living entity because of it. In reciprocal devotional activities with the Lord, the devotee actually enjoys the transcendental mellow of devotional service Adi 8.21 Sri Caitanya Mahäprabhu, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself, is fully independent. Therefore, although it is the most confidentially stored benediction, He can distribute love of Godhead to anyone and everyone without consideration Adi 17.226 This is the incident concerning the Kazi and the Lord’s mercy upon him. Anyone who hears this is also freed from all offenses Adi 17.264 I must certainly deliver all these fallen souls who blaspheme Me and do not offer Me obeisances Madhya 1.30 In this way, Srila Nityananda Prabhu introduced the cult of Sri Caitanya Mahäprabhu to everyone without discrimination. Even though the people were fallen souls and blasphemers, they were delivered by this process Madhya 12.29: "Although You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead and are completely independent, still You are dependent on the love and affection of Your devotees. That is Your nature." Madhya 15.1: While Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu was taking prasadam at the house of Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya, Amogha criticized Him. Still, the Lord accepted Amogha, thereby showing how much He was obliged to His devotees. Madhya 17.75: "Krishna is an ocean of mercy. He is especially merciful to the poor and fallen. Without His mercy, there is no possibility of happiness." Madhya 20.62: Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu continued, "My dear Sanatana, please hear from Me. Krishna is very merciful, and He is the deliverer of all fallen souls. Madhya 24.195: "'The power of these five principles is very wonderful and difficult to understand. Even without faith in them, a person who is offenseless can awaken his dormant love of Krishna simply by being a little connected with them.' Madhya 24.196: "If a person is actually liberal and intelligent, he can advance and become perfect in devotional service even if he has material desires and serves the Lord with some motive Madhya 24.205: "Everyone is eligible to receive Krishna's mercy -- including Vyasadeva, the four Kumaras, Sukadeva Gosvami, lowborn creatures, trees, plants and beasts. By Krishna's mercy they are elevated and engaged in His service. Tulsi Ramayan Uttar Khand 129.4.1-3: Listen, my stupid soul: who has not been saved by adoring Sri Rama, the purifier of the fallen? The harlot (Pingala), Ajamila, the hunter (Valmiki), the vulture (Jatayu), the elephant and many other wretches have been delivered by Him. Even Abhiras (a hilly tribe inhabiting the south-west coast in the ancient times), Yavanas, Kiratas (Bhilas), Khasas (another hill-tribe found in Assam), Candalas (the pariah) and others, the very embodiments of grievous sin, are hallowed by merely uttering Your name even once : I adore You, O Rama Uttar Khand 122.4 Ponder in your heart, Garuda, and see for yourself whether I am competent in anyway to worship the Hero of Raghu’s line. The vilest of birds and impure in everyway as I was, the Lord has made me known as a purifier of the world. 123.A Though vile in everyway, I am blessed, most blessed today, in that Sri Rama has acknowledged me as one of His own servants and therefore vouchsafed to me the fellowship of a saint (like you). 123.4 Yogis (mystics), and valiant heroes, great ascetics and wise men, pious souls and men of erudition and even men who have realized the Self—none of these can cross the ocean of mundane existence without adoring my lord, Sri Rama, to whom I bow again and agan and yet again. I bow once more to that imperishable Lord by approaching whom for shelter even sinful souls like me get purified. CC Antya 1.108: "The Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is known as Purusottama, the greatest of all persons, has a pure mind. He is so gentle that even if His servant is implicated in a great offense, He does not take it very seriously. Indeed, if His servant renders some small service, the Lord accepts it as being very great. Even if an envious person blasphemes the Lord, the Lord never manifests anger against him. Such are His great qualities CC Antya 10.1: Let me offer my respectful obeisances unto Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who is always pleased to accept anything given with faith and love by His devotees and is always ready to bestow mercy upon them. Antya 10.18: Since Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He extracts the purpose from everything. He accepted Damayanti's affection for Him, and therefore He derived great pleasure even from the dried bitter leaves of sukuta and from kasandi [a sour condiment].

Origin of the Jiva - Tatastha Shakti - Marginal Plane - Falldown from Spiritual World? - Krsna Talk 53 JIVAS and the MARGINAL PLANE by Swami B.G. Narasingha According to the OOP book A.C. Bhaktivedanta Svami Prabhupada sometimes says the jiva falls from association with Krsna and sometimes he says the jiva does not fall. This then becomes a paradox. A paradox is a statement, proposition or situation that seems to be absurd or contradictory, but in fact is or may be true. OOP therefore suggests that the jiva falls and doesn't fall simultaneously. But when A. C Bhaktivedanta Svami Prabhupada himself states the conclusion, then the so-called 'paradox' created by some of his followers, vanishes. According to the Bhaktivedanta purport on Srimad Bhagavatam 3.16.26: "The conclusion is that no one falls from the spiritual world, or Vaikuntha planet, for it is the eternal abode." This conclusion, which completely negates the so-called paradoxical view created in the OOP book, is also upheld by sastra and previous acaryas such as Jiva Gosvami, Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, and all bona fide devotees in the Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya. The conclusion is that the jivas, that are now conditioned by the modes of material nature and originate in the 'tatastha' or the marginal plane of existence, did not fall from the spiritual world. Ignoring the conclusion of their spiritual master, the authors of the OOP book insist that the jiva falls from the spiritual world. Thus their opinions are taken simply as faulty interpolations ....... OUR CONCLUSION From sastra and the opinions of acaryas as quoted above it is quite clear that there is no possibility of fall down from the spiritual world, Vaikuntha or Goloka Vrndavana. That Iskcon leaders continue to preach the apa-siddhanta (false conclusion) of the fall of the jiva from the spiritual world (as they have done in the OOP book) is indeed unfortunate and misleading. In 1981 Iskcon leaders challenged the wisdom of Srila Sridhara Deva Gosvami when he tried to help them with a correct understanding of the marginal position of the jiva, but they returned his kindness with insult and offense. Having offended such a pure Vaisnava and calling him a 'mayavadi' for upholding the position of the jiva as marginal, Iskcon has now adopted the 'fall philosophy' that is tantamount to impersonalism (because such a 'fall philosophy' suggests the fallibility of the spiritual world) as their institutional doctrine. This is clearly an anartha (bhrama-tattva) that results from Vaisnava-aparadha. In 1987 Iskcon leaders made an official apology to Srila Sridhara Maharaja for their offensive behavior towards him but then they continued to neglect his instructions and guidance in the matter of properly understanding Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy.

Origin of the Jiva - Tatastha Shakti - Marginal Plane - Falldown from Spiritual World? - Krsna Talk 53 JIVAS and the MARGINAL PLANE by Swami B.G. Narasingha According to the OOP book A.C. Bhaktivedanta Svami Prabhupada sometimes says the jiva falls from association with Krsna and sometimes he says the jiva does not fall. This then becomes a paradox. A paradox is a statement, proposition or situation that seems to be absurd or contradictory, but in fact is or may be true. OOP therefore suggests that the jiva falls and doesn't fall simultaneously. But when A. C Bhaktivedanta Svami Prabhupada himself states the conclusion, then the so-called 'paradox' created by some of his followers, vanishes. According to the Bhaktivedanta purport on Srimad Bhagavatam 3.16.26: "The conclusion is that no one falls from the spiritual world, or Vaikuntha planet, for it is the eternal abode." This conclusion, which completely negates the so-called paradoxical view created in the OOP book, is also upheld by sastra and previous acaryas such as Jiva Gosvami, Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, and all bona fide devotees in the Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya. The conclusion is that the jivas, that are now conditioned by the modes of material nature and originate in the 'tatastha' or the marginal plane of existence, did not fall from the spiritual world. Ignoring the conclusion of their spiritual master, the authors of the OOP book insist that the jiva falls from the spiritual world. Thus their opinions are taken simply as faulty interpolations ....... OUR CONCLUSION From sastra and the opinions of acaryas as quoted above it is quite clear that there is no possibility of fall down from the spiritual world, Vaikuntha or Goloka Vrndavana. That Iskcon leaders continue to preach the apa-siddhanta (false conclusion) of the fall of the jiva from the spiritual world (as they have done in the OOP book) is indeed unfortunate and misleading. In 1981 Iskcon leaders challenged the wisdom of Srila Sridhara Deva Gosvami when he tried to help them with a correct understanding of the marginal position of the jiva, but they returned his kindness with insult and offense. Having offended such a pure Vaisnava and calling him a 'mayavadi' for upholding the position of the jiva as marginal, Iskcon has now adopted the 'fall philosophy' that is tantamount to impersonalism (because such a 'fall philosophy' suggests the fallibility of the spiritual world) as their institutional doctrine. This is clearly an anartha (bhrama-tattva) that results from Vaisnava-aparadha. In 1987 Iskcon leaders made an official apology to Srila Sridhara Maharaja for their offensive behavior towards him but then they continued to neglect his instructions and guidance in the matter of properly understanding Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy.

Praises to Lord Jesus Christ and the grand work he has done! EDITORIAL, Jun 14 (VNN) — Q & A with Swami B. V. Tripurari "There are many manifestations of the Divine and all of them have their purpose and sentiments in the grand scheme of the life of God. The beautiful and appropriate thing to do is to honor all of them for what they are, not to inordinately merge them together." Q. The raga-marg, or path of spontaneous love, requires that the Godhood of Krsna be obscured in order to cultivate a special relationship with him. In Christianity we see that Mother Mary has a special relationship with Jesus in the parental mood (vatsalya rasa) and it seems that Catholic saints like Faustina and Theresa experienced a conjugal mood (madhurya rasa) of love for Jesus. Might then one cultivate a particular raga marg sentiment for Jesus as is done in Gaudiya Vaisnavism for Krsna? A. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura specifically rejected this notion. He said that Jesus is the son and guru figure, not the Personality of Godhead. While there are certainly other ways to view Jesus, we follow his opinion and those of the Gaudiya parampara regarding the raga-marg. The raga marg is defined as being in relation to the residents of Vrndavana, who love Krsna primarily in four spiritual sentiments such that his Godhood is obscured. Those sentiments are that of a servant (dasya rasa), friend (sakhya rasa), parent (vatsalya rasa), and lover (madhurya rasa). The residents of Vrndavana are known as ragatmikas, or devotees who have spontaneous love for Krsna. The path of raga means following the ragatmikas in their mood of love for Krsna. If we stretch this concept to make it generic, we must ask who are the ragamikas of Jesus that one is supposed to emulate and what particular pastimes, moods, feelings, and so forth do they exhibit on the eternal, transcendent plane of perfection. Furthermore, making raga-marg universal and applicable to any manifestation of God is in a sense unnatural and defeats its purpose. There are many manifestations of the Divine and all of them have their purpose and sentiments in the grand scheme of the life of God. The beautiful and appropriate thing to do is to honor all of them for what they are, not to inordinately merge them together. This kind of merging is usually done to bolster one's faith, but with regard to the raga-marg, faith in the uniqueness of the Vraja-lila of Krsna is central to its practice......

i thought it was a regular encyclopedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavata_Purana The Bhagavata Purana is a narration of a conversation. King Pariksit of India, who has been cursed to die in seven days by a Brahmin, decides to give up his kingly duties to learn about the goal of life. As he prepares for his impending death, the saint Shuka (Shukadeva Goswami), who has been searching for a suitable disciple to whom he might impart his great knowledge, approaches the king and agrees to teach him. Their conversation goes on uninterrupted for seven days, during which the king does not eat, drink or sleep. During this time the saint explains that one's goal in life is understanding the supreme absolute truth defined as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna (1.3.28, etc.).

there are some suddha advaita texts here http://www.pushtimarg.net/English/download/Book.htm

vedas mention suddha advaita. not kaival advait and its anirvacaniya maya & 'brahma satyam jagan mithya' vedas cant be wrong, kaival advait is wrong when it disagrees with vedas