Baobabtree

Sort of like how caste centered Hindus tell people who are born into shudra familys that they must always remain subordinate and humble to those born in brahmin familys, and can never gain as much self worth as the brahmins?

No, I'm simply stating there are going to be those who disagree with what your particular sampradaya teaches.

This so called "Hindu-wall" happens to be where your own religion finds it origins. Some Gujarati friends of mine have told me though one is born into a caste, he can change castes, and actually used Ashvathama as an example, claiming he had fallen from the status of a Brahmin after attempting to murder an unborn infant. Because you know, all Vaishnavas are Gaudiyas

Saraswati (though personally I don't consider her a demigod).

Pranams all. I'm certainly no Gaudiya Vaishnava, however I've always had a liking for Nityananda Prabhu. The story of how he approached Madhai and Jagai, asking them to give up their violent life styles and become Vaishnavas is of especially great significance to me.

You honestly believe people's children will suffer disease, and deformities for what their ancestors do? Now, I'm not too keen on offering meat to Maa, but I hardly see the harm in offering alchohol if one doesn't become drunk off the stuff, and I've never heard of people offering cigarettes to Maa before (well not from actual Devi devotees).

I should note I don't believe in Monism, and I think Sathya Sai Baba is both a conman and a criminal, but I find these kind of attacks on Advaita, to be down right childish and hypocritical. Would you people insult Pushtis the same way you do Advaitins? They are Monists too aren't they?

Everyone is different in regards to this. In fact I first came into this Sampraday by chanting "Jai Swaminarayan" in which I found great spiritual attachment. However, some will find attraction instead in the names of Rama, Shiva or Krishna. So? You think a saint in Prabhupada's sampraday has never fallen before? We can't base a whole sampraday based on the actions of some of its followers (may Bhagwan forgive them). Edit: I'm not even Indian

This is always such a hard question to answer, no matter how many times I've been asked (a fair bit surprisingly) my answer always seems to change to a certain extent. To me God is a being of a personal nature, and various personal qualities, though he certainly isn't a "person". He is a being who is both close and far, and one who I feel has graced me in so many ways, I can't even begin to count them. His mercy is so boundless even men or women like myself who eat meat, lust and express rage and anger towards others, are loved by him. Perhaps even saying "he" marganilizes his nature to an extent, as he has incarnations who are male, and those who are female (perhaps some who are without gender as well?). Jai Swaminarayan!

A murderer actually harms people, and takes away their lives. How is not being able to understand, or believe in God even comparable to that? I'd give you some positive rep for that, but I have to spread my reps around a bit, before I can give you anymore (sorry for the negative rep I gave you earlier, seeing this post tellls me you honestly didn't deserve that). This was exactly the stuff that initially reaffirmed my own faith in God way back when.

I don't think Mahesh and Shivaduta are telling Sanskruti to become Jain, rather they are telling him he can still worship Hindu deities, and call himself a Hindu without a formal conversion ceremony. Sanskruti if you still want to formally convert, there are various orginizations like the Chinmaya Mission, Original Shree Swaminarayan Sampradaya, BAPS, Ramakrishna Matha, ISKCON (though they don't refer to themselves as being Hindu) etc. that will give you a formal conversion (I should note, that you should probably choose an orginization which you think lines up with your own beliefs well, and not the closest one you can find).

Ok how do you know this? Have you studied Sanskrit who has told you it means manifest? And if Sambhuti means manifest what does Vinasa mean?

I stand corrected, however you still only given us verse nine. Let's see what verse 10 and 11 say Now, unless you (or someone else) knows of another meaning for Sambhuti and Vinasa, I'm going to asume they mean knowledge and ignorance, and this verse means the same as the one found in the Isa Upanishad.

First of all this quote isn't from the Yajur Veda, but the Isa Upanishad (likewise I can not find any of the other verses you quoted from the Yajur Veda, are you sure you are qouting the right scripture, as I don't recall the Yajur Veda having 40 books), and I've never seen it translated in the manner you have posted. Rather I find the verse translated as- Or of a similar variation. I'd be curious though to see if anyone has seen a translation similar to the one Mazhar posted.

Also Pujari, in regards to Varahi Devi, check out this page from Shiva Shakti Mandalam- http://www.shivashakti.com/varahi.htm

Glad to see we're all active in Shakti Sadhana again (and just after I've come to embrace Kali Mata's worship again). As for this little scuffle that's going on, I'll try and throw my two cents worth in, however being relatively new to Hinduism, I obviously can't give the same insight that the three of you could. Regarding this Kaani Maa, I noticed Bhiro spelt her name *Kaarni* in one post. There is a Mataji worshiped mainly in Rajasthan and Gujarat called Kaarni Maa, who is believed to be an avatar of Durga Maa. Are you sure you aren't refering to her. Perhaps her and Kanya Kumari's worship got mixed together over time? Now Bhiro, it is true that the lord warmly accepts most types of worship that we offer him, however for the sake of tradition and practice we should indeed try and preserve and preform rituals as our ancestors have. To put it simply, thought most types of worship are accepted by God, some help us advance in satsang, and help our connections with God grow, more then others. Hence, why we have these approved rituals which must be preformed properly, to help us strengthen this tie, and help us advance spiritually. Also, to comment on this dog incident that occured to you, though this dog that appeared to you may have been none other then Bhairava, that doesn't mean all dogs should be worshiped as Bhairava during pooja.

I'm probably going to evoke a fair amount of criticism for saying this, but perhaps you should allow your parents to continue their own spiritual path, and you your own? Personally, I'd rather your parents take up vegetarianism, but you can't really force them to do that, just keep preaching. Furthermore I must ask, if the Vedas themsleves prescribe the worship of devas, why should your parents not be able to do such. I know you believe they can't obtain Golok doing this, but perhaps they aren't ment to yet?

I should have clarified that there. I do self identify as Hindu, but the subsect of Hinduism he is refering to is Advaita.

Well, not exactly. I ultimately reject the ideas of Advaita Vedanta, and I'm leaning towards either MahaVishnu or Krishna as being the supreme Godhead, it's just I thought the verse, made it seem like Indra, Agni etc. were expansions of Vishnu/Krishna. My main objection to that though, was that I'd found a refutation to this on a Sri Vaishnava or Madhvan Vaishnava site, though I suppose this point becomes rather irrelevant considering the analogy you posted below. It still makes me wonder about the translations ISKCON puts out, especially when they constantly berate other groups for their "inaccurate" translations of certain texts. Makes sense, but in the same breath it feels kind of odd to except this, considering the Vedas constantly praise these lesser deities.

Doesn't Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya refer to Gaudiya Vaishnavism as a whole and not just ISKCON (with whom my main problem is with ). Well, considering the lack of support I have for that point at the moment (at one point there was some sort of Dvaitan website that I think tried to refute the claim that Krishna was the purusha-avatar) I will indeed drop this point. However, I'll gladly expound my knowledge of Prabhupada's movement if you still want.

Though, I've had several other objections which I've sadly forgotten another of my problems stems from Prabhupada's translation of the Srimad Bhagavatam. Where he claims that Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.6.16: says that Lord Krishna is the the origin of all other incarnations. However as another member here said Now for the most part this wouldn't be a big deal, but Prabhupada commonly stresses how one needs to follow a guru with proper understanding of Vaishnava theology, and who is reliable in his translations, the latter of which he appears to not always be as I've just demonstrated. Edit: My last objection has to do with the parampara lineage of Prabhupada. Having done some research it appears there is some considerable gaps between some of the gurus they list (eg: Narottam Das Thakura and Visvanath Chakravarti actually had three other acharyas between them) yet they emphasise an unbroken dicsiplic succesion. Don't get me wrong I respect Prabhupada and his movement for spreading Vaishnavism and bhakti all through out the world, but there are some major problems I have with what he taught. Furthermore I'm especially attracted to Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and I have no problem excepting that though Bhagavatam claims Krishna descended from Vishnu, this was only to enter the material world, and furthermore Vishnu himself was actually an expansion of Lord Krishna's cosmic form (hope I'm making sense here)

Haribol all! As I had mentioned in another thread I don't think the philosophy or works of Srila Prabhupada are without flaw. I'd like to outline my problems with his philosophical ideas here, and give a chance for any of his followers to address these problems I have. First and foremost is the demi-god concept (a concept I see in not just ISKCON, but Vaishnavism all together). Amongst the so-called demigods are Indra, and Yamaraj. However in RigVeda 1:164:46 we find This would contradict the idea held by ISKCON that these deities are seperate from Vishnu and inferior compared to him, seeming to indicate that rather they are other facets or forms of Vishnu. There's more to come, but unfortunatley I have to run at the moment. Hairbol all!

Because her name is not mentioned in the original Sabskrit text either. Listen to yourselves all this talk about so-called enlightened gurus and how Advaitans are un-vedic impersonalists. Prabhupada's philosophy isn't without its own flaws. Edit: Actually let's not derail this thread, I'll make another one on this subject.

I'm not too sure about this myself. The whole idea of whether or not marrying your cousin is acceptable or not, is an issue that extends beyond the Hindu tradition. Are there any instances in Hindu texts where cousin marriage is explicitly forbidden?

Haribol trinjersey! I've heard some people tell me she is the same deity as Siddhidatri, so you might want to google up a picture of her. There's also a picture of her here- http://shrimahakali.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=42 which looks a fair bit different from Siddhidatri Ma.