matarisvan

You asked this of me and I already answered it with links. In any case if your opppoents in this thread quote a matha sampradaya and guru it will not make you change your mind. So way are you asking the question??? can you answer this question for me? why is it important for you to label jesus as a vaishnava? what happens if he was not one? I fail to understand this need. Do you see non vaishnava devotees as lesser people who are incapable of devotion? please explain so we can understand your real need a little better. For now I cannot understand why you are dragging this on in spite of all the clear evidence laid out on this thread. If it is just an emotional need for you I understand and will not challenge your belief. But if it is anything else it would be good to know.

the two are very very different. if everything was the same then only advaita would be existing as there was no need for other Acaryas to break away and create new doctrines.

more nonsense from you as usual. shvu is not criticizing prabhupada. he is criticizing your nonsense about prabhupada haters. You conveniently cut out the rest of his response to distort his words. When you resort to cunningness it is sign you have nothing valid to say. some excellent posts have been made above to clear up the issue of Jesus being vaishnava. let us hope that is enough and the christians have enough good sense to stop running in circles trying to catch their own tails.

Big surprise there. If you understood what I am saying you would not be a Hare Krishna. Something useful can only come from truth. Apparent usefulness that is drawn from false sources is an illusion and is in reality useless.

The problem is you are doing more than that. You are coming to a general sprituality forum and trying to show this new definition down the throats of everyone. What makes you think that this alternate definition should be accepted by people who are not linked to your Gurus in any way? Let us take an example. A disciple of Sai Baba comes on this forum with a new meaning for Vaishnava (worshipper of Sai Baba) and say this is the correct meaning instead of dictionary meanings and should be accepted by the entire world even if you never heard of Sai Baba. How will you react to that? And try to understand if you can that the same reaction should b expected by you and your Guru for rejecting traditional meanings accepted over thousands of years and creating your own. If you still want to carry on with your Guru's definition you should confine your discussions to people who accept your Guru. Stop trying to pull this off with others. A hundred people can do the same then each with their own new meanings.

You will have to do better. Point out where he made such a statement. If he made such a statement, he would be an idiot for writing something that he knew was imperfect wasting his time and everyone else's time. And just for your information the context is your christian friends are claiming part of the bible is false and part if it is correct based on no evidence other than their own intelligence.

If you really believe that you do not know anything, then you would not be saying anything. You would stop right there. Stop pretending to be humble by making such meaningless statements.

As of now the only person blustering on this thread is you. Without jumping in half cocked take the time to read what your friends are writing. Your christian friends tried to defend their position by claiming part of the bible was false ...the part which the biblical God as an ill-tempered, unstable entity. By your logic, your friends were making "blustering assertions". Raghu on the other hand has always held that the bible is a uniform text and since its God has no characterestics of Vishnu including his name, it follows that this God is *not* Vishnu. There is no evidence to support the position that part of the Bible is acceptable and not the rest. Do you want to be more careful about what you post in future or do you want to join the line of mumbling idiots consisting of GHari and Theist who make inconsistent and incorrect statements and cover them up by throwing insults? The choice be yours.

Liar liar, pants on fire! Funny then, that you would drag a thread onto pages sticking to the Vaishnava designation? You time and again continue to demonstrate inconsistencies in your position by contradicting yourself and then changing tracks to hurl abuses at others to cover up your mistakes.

Prabhupada's quotes in this regard are without merit. He is the reason why Christians on this forum have a false understanding of Vaishnavism. Only a blatant hypocrite will selectively interpret the bible. Will they accept selective interpration of the Gita or the Bhagavatam? If you say the Gita was authored by a divinely empowered soul then the same claim is made by Christians about the bible. The bible has merit to the christians because it was written by empowered souls and not just anyone. No Christian will say parts the bible were written by divine direction and other parts were wholly human created. When Jesus said worship the Lord in heaven it was Yahweh and no one else. This goes back to the careless, ignorant view of scriptures taught to them in iskcon. Their misinterpretation of the varna system is another example. The varna system of the Hindus is controlled by Krishna who assign the appropriate varna to a soul at the time of birth which remains the jiva's varna till death. The individual should perform duties prescribed for his varna for sportiual advancement. Now consider Prabhupada's misinterpretation of the system. Prabhupada incorrectly imagined himself to be qualified enough to play the role of Krishna by assigning Varnas to people. He thought he was capable determine a persona's varna not by birth but by externally displayed qualities.He assigned Brahmin varnas to mlechchas who eventualy turned out to be pedophiles and worse. Such a blunder by Prabhupada and yet you find iskcon people in their ignorance thinking varna can be determined by characterestics. So what was the character of a pedophile disciple of Prabhupada? He was a shudra before he met Prabhupada, then he became a Brahmana, then he became a shudra again. How many varnas does not one go through in a life by this logic? One can change varna on a daily basis acording to iskcon! This kind of confusion is rampant in that organization and I doubt they have the ability to see things clearly. Eve nif they did sometimes, I highly doubt they have the courage to accept it. We have seem Ghari and friends avoid incriminating questions and take resort to abuse on these threads over and over. The saying “if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” is perfect in this context. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p>

Does it occur to the Christians on this thread that their beliefs flow in the opposite direction? You start with a self created image of God and using that as the baseline you are working your way backwards into the bible. Take this self created image and compare it with each reference to God in the bible. If the two are compatible, then it is the real message of God. If incompatible, then it is written by man and it is incorrect. Ultimately you are selectively interpreting the bible to pick what you like and reducing everything else as the words of man. What is the value in that? Is Truth a function of personal preferences as the Christians here are making it out to be?

No one responded because it fell off the front page. Raghu will answer for himself. Here is a link to learn about Sri Vaishnavism or Vishishtadvaitam http://www.ramanuja.org/ Here is a link for Sad Vaishnavism also known as Tattvavada or Dvaita http://www.dvaita.org Vishishtadvaitam, Dvaita and Advaita are two of the three major traditions of Vedanta alive to this day. The first two are Vaishnava traditions and the latter is a Smarta tradition.

You are saying Prabhupadas translation is literal and Maharishis translation is poetic, but the poetic translation is more faithful than the literal translation? How is that? A literal translation has a better chance of being faithful.

Are you now saying people who do not accept chaitanya charitamrita should not post on the forum? If you can look beyond your myopic view the number of vaishnavas from bengal are only a tiny fraction of the number of vaishnavas. I am from the line of srivaishnavas where happily we are aware of other brances of vaishnavas..something you seem to be unaware of. Your usage of vaishnava for gaudiya vaishnava specific concepts are not only confusing but incorrect too. If you were to specifically say gaudiya vaishnav aparadha then you will not have people like me raise objections. But when you simply say vaishnava then other vaishnavas like myself will take notice.

If you mean your own brand of vaishnavism where you are confused to the point where you cannot separate social concepts from religious concepts then you are correct. Otherwise you are wrong. where is vaishnava aparadha described in the gita? where is the phrase found in the Srimad bhagavatam?

Judging by your posts I would have never guessed. Aparadha is a social concept applicable to competing religious factions in Indian society like the Pashupatas shaktas vaishnavas and shaivas. They were always fighting each other about authenticity and competing for royal patronage. A King inclined towards shaivas would not be interested in supporting vaishnava mathas and they would fall into decline. It was common to scare others using threats of aparadha.

Sattva is one of the three gunas and has to be explained in that context. If this is not taken into account when commenting on this verse then the commentary is inaccurate. The advice to Arjuna is not to give up the three gunas but to give up the two lesser Gunas only. Ramanujacharya's comments on this verse (translated by Dr Sankaranarayan) 2.45 The word Traigunya means the three Gunas --- Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. Here the term Traigunya denotes persons in whom Sattva, Rajas and Tamas are in abundance. The Vedas in prescribing desire-oriented rituals (Kamya-karmas) have such persons in view. Because of their great love, the Vedas teach what is good to those in whom Tamas, Rajas and Sattva preponderate. If the Vedas had not explained to these persons the means for the attainment of heaven etc., according to the Gunas, then those persons who are not interested in liberation owing to absence of Sattva and preponderance of Rajas and Tamas in them, would get completely lost amidst what should not be resorted to, without knowing the means for attaining the results they desire. Hence the Vedas are concerned with the Gunas. Be you free from the three Gunas. Try to acquire Sattva in abundance; increase that alone. The purport is: do not nurse the preponderance of the three Gunas in their state of inter-mixture; do not cultivate such preponderance. Be free from the pairs of opposites; be free from all the characteristics of worldly life. Abide in pure Sattva; be established in Sattva, in its state of purity without the admixture of the other two Gunas. If it is questioned how that is possible, the reply is as follows. Never care to acquire things nor protect what has been acquired. While abandoning the acquisition of what is not required for self-realisation, abandon also the conservation of such things already acquired. You can thus be established in self-control and thereby become an aspirant after the essentail nature of the self. 'Yoga' is acquisition of what has not been acquired; 'Ksema' is preservation of things already acquired. Abandoning these is a must for an aspirant after the essential nature of the self. If you conduct yourself in this way, the preponderance of Rajas and Tamas will be annihilated, and pure Sattva will develop. Besides, all that is taught in the Vedas is not fit to be utilised by all Shankaras comments on this verse (translation: Gambhirananda) 2.45 To those who are thus devoid of discriminating wisdom, who indulge in pleasure, [Here Ast. adds 'yat phalam tad aha, what result accrues, that the Lord states:'-Tr.] O Arjuna, vedah, the Vedas; traigunya-visayah, have the three qualities as their object, have the three gunas, [Traigunya means the collection of the three qualities, viz sattva (purity), rajas (energy) and tamas (darkness); i.e. the collection of virtuous, vicious and mixed activities, as also their results. In this derivative sense traigunya means the worldly life.] i.e. the worldly life, as the object to be revealed. But you bhava, become; nistraigunyah, free from the three qualities, i.e. be free from desires. [There is a seeming conflict between the advices to be free from the three qualities and to be ever-poised in the quality of sattva. Hence, the Commentator takes the phrase nistraigunya to mean niskama, free from desires.] (Be) nirdvandvah, free from the pairs of duality -- by the word dvandva, duality, are meant the conflicting pairs [Of heat and cold, etc.] which are the causes of happiness and sorrow; you become free from them. [From heat, cold, etc. That is, forbear them.] You become nitya-sattvasthah, ever-poised in the quality of sattva; (and) so also niryoga-ksemah, without (desire for) acquisition and protection. Yoga means acquisition of what one has not, and ksema means the protection of what one has. For one who as 'acquisition and protection' foremost in his mind, it is difficult to seek Liberation. Hence, you be free from acquisition and protection. And also be atmavan, self-collected, vigilant. This is the advice given to you while you are engaged in your own duty. [And not from the point of view of seeking Liberation.] Both Ramanujacharya and and Shankara concur that Arjuna should give up Rajas, Tamas and develop Sattva. The context should be considered too by checking the previous instructions that lead to this instruction.

traigunyavishayaa vedaa nistraigunyo bhavaarjuna nirdvandvo nityasattvastho niryogakshema aatmavaan This is Gita 2.45. As noted by many commentators this verse has some confusing language. It tells Arjuna to be free of the three Gunas and simulatenously tells hims to be established in sattva guna. The usage of traiguna in relation to the veda is interpreted not literally as three gunas but as material life led according to vedic injunctions where all the three gunas are present. Krishna tells Arjuna to go beyond this and situate himself in only Sattva Guna which is freedom from material ties. It is not to be interpreted as Krishna telling Arjuna to be free from all the three Gunas.

You are mixing two different streams. Science says humans evolved from primates over time. Religion generally says God created humans, the details varying from religion to religion. Mixing the two would be complete speculation and it is best we do not waste time on it. Pick one.

..which is nothing considering you and your little buddies have been blowing the "Jesus was a Vaishnava/Vaishnavas are not Hindus" horn for years. Well...we are not here to entertain you and can do nothing about your boredom. We are here simply because people like yourself make distorted and incorrect claims of Hinduism and Vaishnavism with an arrogant tone. We are clearing up the false web you have ben spinning by providing objective evidence to support our corrections. Too bad for you that your little barks and other condescending remarks did not deter us as you hoped. And once again you are kidding yourself. Try saying the following things to your buddhist friend and see how he responds back. 1. The Buddha was in reality a Vaishnava 2. The Buddha was a Vishnu avatar who came to preach false philosophy 3. Buddhism is not a real religion as it is a combination of several different beliefs (you tried this little ploy with Hinduism) 4. Buddhists are atheists atheists are demons..therefore Buddhists are demons

Right conduct is not easy to ascertain. Even if some Brahmin is found wanting of Brahmin qualities there is no tradition of taking away his thread and transferring him to a different Varna. Traditionally, good or bad, the Varna we are born into is our Varna through life. Take the example of the fallen iskcon gurus. They showed enough promise initially to convince Prabhupada that they could take over the origanization and then what happened? We can offer due respect to a non-brahmin who displays brahmin qualities and condemn a brahmin for not sizing up but that will not result in changing varnas. It is funny that for someone like the gaudiyas who claim to be on a transcendaental level above Hinduism and everything else to be hung up on labels like Vaishnava and Brahmin. To me they are engaging in hypocrital doublespeak.

I think they believe this because Prabhupada told them so. He had to dangle the following carrots or people like theist would not have cared about gaudiya vaishnavism carrot #1: This is not Hinduism carrot #2: Jesus has an exalted place in our tradition carrot #3: This is the purest, most transcendental form of devotion. Or we are better than devotees from other traditions.

I do not see you as a dog, but if you see yourself as one I have no objects and I doubt anyone else will object. But yes the caravan keeps rolling in spite if your immature assertions and your bow-wows.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> There is a world of difference between mocking Jesus and accepting him as a Vaishnava knowing well that he never heard of Vishnu in his life. But based on some of the recent discussions here with your friends I doubt this difference would go into your head. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> In other words if he had not said what he had to say about Jesus, you would not have been interested in Iskcon. I already said this before. Prabhupada was smart enough to know what you people of Christian backgrounds wanted to hear and he told you exactly that. If the US was a Muslim country he would have taken a similar position about Muhammad. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Jesus is a Vaishnava or in other words a devotee of Vishnu. But wait...he is also an avatar of Vishnu which means he is a devotee of himself. Wonderful! Prabhupada must have had an incredibly easy time building Iskcon with people like yourself and theist who were ready to believe in anything as long as Jesus got his due.<o:p></o:p>

You are an embarassment to yourself and your creed.