matarisvan

A1: Krishna tells Arjuna to give up Dharma and surrender to him A2: CBrahma believes Dharma means religion/sect in A1. Therefore Cbrahma believes Krishna told Arjuna to give up Hinduism/Vaishnavism A3: But everyone knows Krishna is part and parcel of Hinduism. Giving up Hinduism/Vaishnavism means giving up Krishna which is paradoxical with A1 as you cannot give up Hinduism/Vaishnavism/Krishna and surrender to Krishna at the same time. Therefore one of A1 and A2 is incorrect. A1 is a Gita statement and should be accepted as correct. A2 is a CBrahma interpretation and is incorrect to maintain consistency. Applying this conclusion to CBrahma's argument,his similar statement C is incorrect. Therefore the argument breaks and A continues to be true.

Yes...Prabhupada cannot make things up that are not in shastra. No Guru has the authority to do that. This is why I say people who link Jesus and Vaishnavism without basis are either idiots or hypocrites. Pick your choice.

A new word is fine. The problem here is twisting meanings of existing words.

These dimwit characters who try to link Jesus and Vaishnavism are a pain in the ***.

But he did not...and that causes the problems debated on this forum. He should have used different words to label his ideas and doctrine. Instead of using new words, he took existing words and distorted their existing meanings. Now his followers are stubbornly arguing that these new distortions are the original meanings!

Even then the Guru cannot invent something that cannot be validated in Shastra. iI the Guru says one and Shastra the other and no reconciliation is provided, then Shastra wins.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> Then it follows jesus was not a Vishnu worshipper as that is a religious rite and Jesus was against such rites. That is a wholesale assumption, derived from no meaningful analogy.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Conclusion? Jesus was not a Vaishnava by your logic. I am glad we got it all sorted out. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>

Thanks for admitting your position. Continue to keep your head buried in the sand. You have been taken for a ride by Prabhupada and it is pathetic to see you have gone too far to be able to come out.

<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> I agree. The christians on this forum have been fed too many lies by their hare krishna gurus. Now they are not able to accept that they went wrong on the subject. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> This is the danger of relying on a false position for sentimental reasons and wilfully igonring facts. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p>

Yeah...right. will you accept that your whole argument is based on the axiomatic statements of Bhakti Vinoda Takur? That will make everything simpler.

The difference (if you can comprehend it which is doubtful) is we are supported by facts and real views while you have only opinions and sales pitch statements of Prabhupada to support your position. You have that and your christian background the total adding up to a big zero.

<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Wrong. Shaivism says Shiva is supreme and Vishnu worships Shiva. Vishnu worships Shiva. He is the best Shaiva <o:p></o:p> Jesus worshipped Shiva. <o:p></o:p> Jesus is a Shaiva. <o:p></o:p>

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> That is enough for Hare Krishnas. But as we are discussing the larger group of Vaishnavas and not just the Hare Krishna flavor popular among American Christians, the individual opinions of Prabhupada or Bhakti Vinoda Takur mean nothing when they deviate from accepted standards based on personal preferences..as in this case. <o:p></o:p>

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> and everything you said about vaishnavism can be said about shaivism. See the problem now?<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p> wrong analogy. The comparsion between christianity with vaishnavism should be seen exactly the same as christianity and shaivism. If Jesus is seen as a worshipper of Vishnu then Jesus can be seen as the worshipper of shiva by the same logic. There is absolutely no difference there. <o:p></o:p>

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> I disagree. Iskcon is following the system what was laid down its founder. Prabhupada laid down the philosophy of iskcon as a viashnava system following age old vaishnava customs of India and disagreement with other forms of religion. How then is it a "universal spiritual movement"? <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Gaudiya Vaishnavism was started by Chaitanya just a few hundred years back, but Vaishnavism has been existing long before his time. It was never at any time seen as a universal spritual movement as you put it. Vaiahnavas have always been distinct from Shaivas, Shaktas, Jainas and every other system of religion or spirituality if you want call it that. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> Bhakti vinoda or Prabhupada cannot modify the meaning of the name Vaishnava which has been existing for thousands of years. Neither can you are or your other friends on this forum. How hard is that for you to understand? <o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> No two religions are compatible with one another. Try being a Shaiva and a Vaishnava at the same time or a christian and muslim at the same time. The same logic applies here. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Many people have explained how the two are incompatbile in previous posts and yet you are just repeating the same question again and again. Do this a few more times and you will be on everyones ignore list for making senseless posts. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p> Any drivel on this thread appears only in your posts. You are perfectly fine with saying Vaishnavism is compatible with Christianity because Prabhhupada said so. But anyone who rejects that claim for lack of evidence you is required to provide shastric evidence? Which planet are you from?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p> Quoting Prabhupada is the same as Prabhupada said so. Prabhupada saying something does not equate to shastric evidence. Get off your high horse and talk some sense if you want a meaningful discussion. <o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> Brahminical study is for Brahmins. Bhakti is not reserved only for Brahmins. It is open to people of all the four varnas. Study of Veda and Vedanta in a Vaishnava Tradition will provide a much superior understanding of the attributes of Vishnu and how he alone is praised in all the Vedas. This level of understanding is not available to people who do not study the Vedas. For a soul born as a Brahmin it is his duty and correct Karma to study Veda. Consult the Gita to learn how peforming the right Karma results in spiritual progress.

with all due respects to you. As everyone knows the institution is plagued with problems and that means the founder was not a pure devotee by your logic. People who were bought in and placed in elevated positions by the Founder. People who turned out to be no better than the dregs of human society. The founder was an ordinary person who was prone to mistakes which means the institution founded by him can be at fault too as it was clearly not opened by someone who was divinely empowered. If divine empowerment was behind ISKCON and Sai baba Ashram, then we would not be hearing sex molestation cases from these organizations. when you say I do you mean yourself or ISKCON as a whole? if it is the latter then you are wrong as many of your friends have taken a lot of pleasure by putting down shiva, his devotees, advaita, hinduism, and several other gaudiya groups they disagree with.

You re wasting your time trying to talk sense to someone like theist who mostly dropped out of school early and has not learnt much since then. He is simply repeating stupid comments made by others on advaita without knowing the first thing about it. Your arguments are useless. He is incapable of thinking on anything new and prefers to repeat himself as someone said even after 2020.

Typical Hare Krishna ignorance to say Advaitins consider themselves the supreme God. Get off your high american horse and stop judging india and indian religions based on your stupid christian interpretations. Your mindless ad hominem answers can only come from someone who dropped out of school and yet considers himself capable enough to pontificate on religions he never interacted with.

Another Christian Vaishnava... Why not? The two are not related. For your benefit and your education not identifying Jesus as a Vaishnava is not the same as being antichrist. Try not to go overboard as you christian vaishnavas have already made a big mockery on this forum of your knowledge and ability to think clearly. He has laid out his position point by point. Did you respond to his post without reading it?

The only reason anyone would connect Jesus to Vaishnavism is if that person has a christian background. Other than this, there is no reason at all. Prabhupada was aware that the Christians of America would have a hard time giving up Christ and switching over to a Pagan, idol worshipping belief from India. To solve these problems, he told them Jesus was a Vaishnava (with no basis in fact) and Vaishnavas were not Hindus (completely untrue). He told them what they wanted to hear and his ploy worked well. The result is we have theists and mahaks here who go on and on about Jesus as a Vaishnava and their grossly incorrect view of Hinduism which does not contain Vaishnavism.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> By "actual techings of christ" you mean how you have understood it and interrpeted it along Hare Krishna lines? Obviously anyone who does not think as you do must be a fanatic. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> What an ignorant way of interpreting the Bhagavad Gita. Do you really believe Krishna was telling Arjuna to give up Islam, Judaism and Hinduism? All of these three were not existing during the time of the Mahabharata. What other religions was Krishna talking about? <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> Yes and everyone is aware of the politics behind that. Breaking away from Hnduism is not the same as becoming free from all varieties of religion when you are still holding on it with a different name. If you give up Hinduism you give up Vaishnavism. But Krishna never told Arjuna to give up all varieties of religion to begin with...so the point is moot. How many varieties was Arjuna dabbling in anyway?<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> But you have espoused an ignorant view of the Bhagavad Gita and your holier than thou attitude and your completely bogus view of Hinduism, Vaishnavism and the relation between the two. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Not much progress for someone who has already reached semi-retirement.<o:p></o:p>

http://www.naiveinspirations.com/introduction/

The topic is not Jesus Christ or his teachings or his character. The topic is "Is Jesus Vaishnava?". some one could have started a thread titled "is mohammad vaishnava?" and the arguments would be similar.