matarisvan

It's called 'reductio ad absurdum' or indirect proof.

This is the pattern.

 

A Vaisnavism is a 'variety of religon' (sect) - premise is true?

B Vaisnavism is surrender to Krsna - premise is true - (Gita)

C Krsna tell us to abandon A, ( A = B).

Therefore there is a religious sect whose god tells them to abandon religious sects. Invalid - a contradiction.

 

Since the conclusion is invalid, one of the premises, either A or B must be false.

We know B is not false because of the Gita.

Therefore A must be false.

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.

They will say 'it's not in sastra', so then Prabhupada is attacked.

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.

That's why I prefaced my comments by saying that language as a whole is constantly changing...in 1000 years, someone will be arguing that "well, sanatan dharma has been in use for over 1000 years...why a new word now?"

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

These characters who claim Srila Prabhupada was being diplomatic when he praised Christ are just so full of ****.

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

It's not a matter of "Prabhupada said it, therefore it's absolute"...more like Prabhupada was highly influential in introducing this term and the meaning into Western language.

 

He could just as easily have used another word or phrase.

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!

I'll partially agree with this point. If I accept a Guru as bonafide after appropriate scrutiny, then it makes sense that I take him at his word.

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.

Jesus is not a Siva worshipper, since that would be a religous rite and Jesus was against such rites.That is a wholesale assumption, derived from no meaningful analogy.

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.

Conclusion? Jesus was not a Vaishnava by your logic. I am glad we got it all sorted out.

Guru-sastra-sadhu makes sectarianism very difficult. Too bad for trenchant Hindus.

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.

You will learn that Vaishnava is an Indian sect just like several other sects, no matter how much some people here may try to distort the real picture. Other than sentiments and baseless statements by some Bengali Babus, there is nothing else to support the elevation of any of these sects to a non-sectarian level.

Cheers

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.

This is the danger of relying on a false position for sentimental reasons and wilfully igonring facts.

You are incredible. Dis-ing a major acarya, Bhaktisiddhanta's spiritual master.

ROFLMAO

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

That will make everything simpler.

They mean nothing to you but they mean a lot to others. Just as your opinion means nothing to me but may mean something to others.

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.

No I am tracing the logic from the assumption that Christianity is Saivism.

'Siva is a worshipper of Visnu'.

'Saivites worship Siva'

Wrong. Shaivism says Shiva is supreme and Vishnu worships Shiva.

Vishnu worships Shiva.

He is the best Shaiva

Jesus worshipped Shiva.

Jesus is a Shaiva.

This was also Srila Prabhupada's conclusion as well. That is by gaining the mercy of the Vaisnava one is sure to receive more information on the nature of the Supreme Person,

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.

In fact everything you have said about Shaivism can be said about Vaisnavism.

and everything you said about vaishnavism can be said about shaivism. See the problem now?

I on the other hand am following your analogy between Christianity and Shaivism to its logical conclusion which is that Christians worship Jesus, like Saivites worship Siva. That logically makes Jesus analogous to Siva and I'm ok with that, since Siva is a Vaisnava.

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.

I agree and disagree. Yes ISKCON has turned a universal spiritual movement into a Hindu sectarian religious institution.

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"?

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.

That does not speak to the compatibility between the major theistic religions of the world and Vaisnavism. This a serious philosophical point that was adequately addressed by Bhatkivinode Thakur and his disciples but some professed Vaisnavas don't want to admit it.

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?

Raguh is on my ignore list.

For the umpteenth time, I have asked to prove how Christianity is incompatible with Vaisnavism. You are trying to finesse your way out of it by claiming it is a negative?

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.

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.

So you can assert a negative (Christianity disqualifies one from being a Vaisnava) without proof and nobody can contradict it simply because that would be proving a negative. What drivel.

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?

Simply on the basis of 'Prabhpada said so'? I have quoted Prabhupada on the subject a number of times.

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.

This has nothing to do with Christianity. Already you are begging contention.

These knowledge claims between varying opinions about this or that Vedic text have demonstrably created more confusion and contention than spiritual enlightenment, at least on this forum.

It still doesn't explain the relevance of brahminical study to bhakti.

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.

Don't you see how many times he criticizes ISKCON? How can an institution made by a pure devotee be at fault?

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.

The fault lies in the hearts of people INSIDE the institution. But the institution itself cannot be at fault.

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.

Look here, if I am not criticizing the Shaivites then you have no right to criticize Vaishnavas.

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.

May I ask how much Brahmavada (not Mayavada) you have studied, Theistji? Before denigrating such a lofty spiritual philosophy, at least get your facts right. This simplistic but inaccurate characterisation that you have just indulged in is a common, parochial, mistaken position which Vaishnavas take. If you're interested in the true Vedic religion, get in touch and I shall direct you to places where you can have access to the sublime shiksha of highly evolved Advaitin rishis and swamis. I bet, when you come in contact with such advanced souls, you shall find the behaviour of sectarians most reprehensible and will get down to some real soul-searching of your own.

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.

You must be riding high on waves of bliss then. Coming from a self confessed advaitin you should know vaisnavas don't care a fig about the opinion of someone who condiders himself the supreme God.

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...

a vaishnava can't be vaishnava and antichrist at the same time.

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.

Can you say us what you have against Him?

He has laid out his position point by point. Did you respond to his post without reading it?

I wonder why 'Lord Jesus' enjoys so much attention among Vaishnavas, considering that he is about as far from Vaishnavism as possible.

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.

Haribol, from semi-retired-ville. I am not writing this topic starter to encourage the usual christian fanaticism. In fact, such fanatics actually hate delving into the actual teachings of Lord Jesus Christ.

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.

Hindus, Muslims, and Jews also have no need for the teachings of any Vaisnava because they refuse to follow the very rudimentary and primary instruction in regard to abandonment of all varieties of religion in favor of actually attaining spiritual life.

The following teaching of Lord Jesus Christ is not unlike the demand from Krsna that Arjuna choose His Actual Self while rejecting all varieties of religion.

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?

When Krsna advises Arjuna to abandon all varieties of religion, the reasons are plain. Religion is a watered down materialism that rejects "aham brahmasmi" that is incompatible with virtually any teaching of a Vaisnava. My own spiritual master, Srila Prabhupada, may have utilized som reflection of hindu type practices, however, he did not teach hinduism, and did not refer to his foundation as a hindu organization.

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?

Anyway, food for thought. I have not espoused christianity (anti-christian religion) here, so I hope all the anti-christs will not bother with this thread. I do not cast pearls before swine.

Haribol, hope all are well, ys, mahaksadasa

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.

Not much progress for someone who has already reached semi-retirement.

Can someone tell me whether some, if not all, of the upanishads are available online with Roman transliteration and if possible, word to word meaning? Anything will do, but it's got to be from the ten principal upanishads.

 

TIA

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

Christianity is not the topic. Jesus Christ is. Are you really thinking you are a vaisnava but Jesus Christ doesn't measure up JNdas? Surely you can't think like that.

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.