madhav

i already answered it. those whose name was changed by muslims said it and are still say it. sri prabhupada changed your name to Babhru das, but only you can say that your original name is so and so. you will still carry on your inheritance or debt you had with your old name. is it not true?

>>If Hinduism was established by Krsna, why is there no mention of it in Bhagavad-gita or any Vedic literature? << even prabhupada has answered this. i answered it too to Babhru das just a minute ago. basically, the name change occured just 1000 years ago, where as krishna spoke gita last about 5000 years ago.

>>It is not part of some religion. << yes. teh difficulty is hat the english word religion has limited meaning. what you are really saying is that vaishnavism is sanatana dhrma or dharma. the word dharma has more meaning than the meaning contained in the world religion. my point is that whatever vaishnavism is, it is a part of sanatana dharma or vedic dharma or varnasrama dharma which krishna has described fully in Gita.

thansk guest, please pick a username. that helps.

yes leyh prabhu, i know it. i would discuss that point once the discussion on my current point is concluded. please hold on. sri prabhupada is a great aacharya, a revere him. however I also have some disagreements with him. remember, in judgeing or analysing isuses for best conclusion, we have three standard authorities: gurus, sadhus, and sastras.

>>madhav says the acharyas are their bodies, but no one will buy it.<< - Babhru das ji i have not said it. once upon a time before islamists started invading india, there was no Hindu or hinduism word. there was and still is Sindhu word. so, the invaders called the people who lived on the east side of Sindu as Hindu because they pronounce Sindhu as Hindu, and the world picked up that name. (note that xians and islamists enjoy changing vedic names to non vedic names.) So is the origin of the word Hindu and Hinduism. By the that scheme of naming people and religion, a xian is a jordanion and xianity is jordanism. only name change does not make material or spiritual change. if you call a stone divyastra, it does not become divyastra. similarly if you call a dollar bill paper trash, it does not become paper trash. try it. so my point is that 'Hindu' word actually means sanatana dharmi or varnasrami, of which vaishnav is a major group. hope you understand this. communication is not possible without willingness and sincere effort to understand other's point.

>>I think this has gone as far as we can take it for now. Prabhupada is not a Hindu. Maybe some of his disciples would like to speak up.<< ok. let me know when you understand what i am talking. Afganistan or pakistan or saudi arabia would be a better place to preach than green bay. just a thought.

thanks, dear guest, please pick a user name. that helps.

Dear begot (i do not like to address you as a begot), i understand your point. we are tangled in words. my point is that what you call beyond religions (sanatana dharma) is actually known as Hinduism currently. All the non hindus have given it a bad fame for two reasons: 1) the hindus malpracticed hinduism, and the blame was, and still is, thrown on hinduism rather than on the individual malpracticeners, and 2) they have their ulterior envious motive to wipe out hinduism from the face of the earth. they even want to take over hindu land, bharat. also note that all hindus are not vaishnavas, but all vaishnavas are hindus (sanatana dharmis). Now about the level of spiritual progress: you say religion (xian, islam, etc.) is just a stepping stone for progress to sanatana dharma (which i call hinduism). Here we need to remember that until one reaches highest stage of spritual realization, one should not speak or act like an liberated yogi or uttmama bhakta because that would be delusion or hypocrcy. Now about the target for preaching: The hindus already are non violent and victims of islam and xianity in india. they have been so for a thousand years. so, why preach them the victims when one should preach bin laden and party (the agggressors) first?

krishna says in gita that lust, anger and greed are the three gates to hell. these three reside in mind, but only if you let them live there.

>>I am a devotee of the one some call Sri Kalki Bhagavan and as some here well know he is legendary << the kalki avatar of vishnu has not happened yet in this cylce of yugas. it will take some 432 000 years before he comes. i have not seen any kalki temple. since he has not come yet but is predicted (as buddha was) in srimad bhagavatam, and may be in bhavishyat, purana it cannot be called "legendary". i have difficulty believing you had such real experience. if you say real, i would not argue. there also seems some confusionabout the word kali. kali means kali millenium that started when krishna left this earth. the personified asuric character of kali millenium is masculine and is also called kali. king parikshit shaw him. then kali means Kaali goddess. so, if you saw female, then it is Kaali goddess, the ferocious and ugnly looking and black. However, she is shiva's wife, and shiva also is vishnu. and kalki also is vishnu. so kalki is not enemy of kaali goddess which is prikriti. so chant, read gita, and I pray you will feel peace and see reality as it is.

thank you Guest ji. please pick a username and use it. it helps a lot.

>>You are trying to give right words to hinduism. I am trying to give right words to CHRISTianity. Christian means follower of Christ.<< well, when you say you are a vaishnava, then why bother to give right words to christianity? you also said all people(including christians) are vaishnvas. >>The term Christian first appeared in the city of Antioch when his followers reminded the people of that town of Christ. So they called them Christians. I do not consider anyone who does not live a life in the footsteps of Christ a Christian.<< So, you call those people christians who live a life in the footsteps of Christ. but you first said that you call everyone vaishnavas. this is confsing. >>Anyway i'm going to prove that I am not worthy of the name vaisnanva now by watching some football.<< so you conviction of being a vaishnava was that weak? or your conviction of being a christian so strong? this is not a football. we are talking in a very civilized way. this is not useless chat. >> See ya in three hours.<< may be next day. >>Go green bay << sorry, i do not know what it means. what is green bay and where it is please? how it would help if go there?

>>Hindu society was so rigid at the time of Lord Caitanya that if a Hindu were converted into a Muslim, there was no chance of his being reformed. In this way the Muslim population in India increased. << yes, no chance. That was malpractice of dharma. it is not practiced any more. but that is not a cause for increaseu muslim polulationin india, or it is just a small erason. the major reason for muslim polulation increase is mass conversion of hindus by muslims by sword. until the muslim king rules, they had no chance to re-convert, and also, the hindu society would not accept them either (which was malpractice of dharma). then other reason is that muslims keep four wives and multiply like pigs, and keep killing hindus. any soceity has people who malpractice their own religion. hindus are not an exception. (vice and virtue has no boundaries.) no one should malpractice one's own religion. but some would. therefore, one should not judge a religion by the conduct of malpracticeners. however still the action of the invader muslims to force beef into hindus' mouths in their hindu land cannot be justified.

my point is: if prabhupada was a sahatana dharmi, that means he was a hindu. hinduism and sanatana dharma are same, no difference, just as krishna and mukunda are same, or krishna and rama are same. many hindus have malpracticed dharma (hinduism), but prabhupada has practiced it well and correctly. so, i argue that he was a very good hindu. there is no effort or intent here to pull down prbhupada's status. i am trying to give right meaning to teh words hindu and hinduism. now i know he said he is not a hindu, and he is not preaching hinduism. but no one should buy it. that point will descuss next when we are done with this point.

>>As for me I am in the materialistic category with an eye to something higher, that's all. So I see vaisnavism as the goal but as yet am not an awakened or dedicated vaisnava. << thank you dear vaishnav! >>Everyone is in essence a vaisnava. A realized vaisnava is a soul awakened to its constitutional position as servant of the Supreme Person << it is good of you that you think that way. i assume you also act accordingly in your day to day life. now if you tell a shivite or an advaiti or a muslim or a xian that he is a vaishnav, he would not agree to it. every one has his ego. knowing this false ego helps to guess how one thinks and will behave. not understanding others' ego can put one in trouble. suppose you give cow's dung or urine to a muslim he would not like it. a hindu would not mind it. when a xian dies, and you tell his relatives to burn the body, they would not like it.

>>for your name is not listed in the database of Srila Prabhupada's disciples.<< who has this database please? do more than one person have it? i guess it must be secret. just curious, how many people prabhupada initiated?

yes, very good. By "hinduism" i mean sanatan dharma also known as varnasrama dharma. by "hindu" i mean one who lives by that dharma more or less and does not hate dharma. so with that definition, my statement is: Prabhupada was a Hindu. no hindu practices all the paths of hinduism. even when one practices even a small part of it faithfully, then i call him or her a hindu. no hindu scriputure has said that a non hindu cannot do any hindu practice. actually hindus have no pagans. that is the reason prabhupada has said any one can chant hare krishna mantra. even if bin laden and his party chant mantra and stop terrorism, then it does not matter if they call them selves muslims. but chanting mantra and at the same time converting hindus to xianity is nor right. i am not saying any one i know does it. so could HK's and Hindus agree that Prabhupda was a Hindu? I wish they do. If not please show where my argument logic is faulty.

i am a human being talking with another human being. i can relate better if i know more about the other. one is free to ask, and one is free to answer or not answer.

there may be more copies at some time, but the muslims who kept on invading india have kept on buring sanskrit libraires since around 900 AD. they also would kill brahmanas. to save scriputures and moortis, the hindus (brahmanas) would hide them, bury them. then over time it is forgotten. by chance some of these moortis and books are found time over time. as far as i know, what chaitanya found is the only portion of brahma samhita available at this time. the rest part is still not found, and hardly any one tries to find it. if you find full brahma samhita, please let us know where it is.

Dharma bhai, what i do not understand is: why prarmahamsa yogananda did not comment on such verses when he translted gita? in his gita translation he has supported many bible quotes. he has not said a single word against bible. why? how do other hindu gurus view this, his view of bible and xianity?

no. he found a portion it saved by some hindu at a location in south india. it is an old vedic scripture. when the musilms were destroying all vedic libraries and scriptuers, some hindu hid it so that it would not come in muslim hands. then over long time, all forgot whare some thing was saved. by chance chaitanya fonund it. it must be in possession of gaudiya matha now, i belive. when he found it, he became ecstatic. hindus do not make dharma or manufacture scriptures. dharmastu sAkshAt bhagavat katayam principles of dharma can only be given by god (because only he is perfect and has no selfish motive). the rest of brahma samhita is not found due to muslim barbarism.

>>Vaisnavas should transcend all these terroristic polytheistic hodge-podge groups << - theist are you a dedicated vaishnav?

oh, by xian i mean christian. pronounce it as christian. it is a short new word, and i have seen its use that way in informal discussons.

devotees and friends, i would like to discuss some points one by one. here is one. a) Prabhupada was a Hindu. Reasons: - He practiced and preached krishna bhakti which is a major part of hinduism. - his gaudiya-madhv-sampradaya is one of the five vaishnava sampradayas which are a major part of hinduism. - he was from india born and raised there in the land of hindus. (although this is not a requirement to become a hindu.) - he also has said he is preching varnastama dharma or sanatana dharma. (although i do not have references handy to prove it. but couldb e found in bhagavatam or gita.) this dharma's well known but incorect name is Hinduism. i would like to know how many HK's (Hare Krishnas) would agree to this point. Hare Krishnas to me are the western born and raised disciples of prabhupada. i use this rational to say to the hindus that prabhupada was a hindu and he has preached a part of hinduism to the world. this being so, the hindus need to acept him and the HK's as Hindus, and vice versa. Hindu and HK unity is needed and is natural and mutually beneficial.