matarisvan

I am in debt to the Vaisnavas for telling me about Krsna and not the Hindus.

These little games are fooling no one. funny that vaishnava brahmins follow gotra the same way as "hindu" brahmins.

Actually the use of the word foreigner is quite telling. You are Hindu-centric or India-centric and think everything outside your own little bubble is therefore foreign.

check the dictonary for the meaning of a foreigner.

The truth is however that God is everywhere present and all souls are an intimate particle of His very Self. Considering this, who could be a foreigner?

soul and foreigner are unrelated words and you would know this if you had been to school. In the end you are just showing yourself for what you are...an arrogant and ignorant westerner who has his head stuck firmly in the sand and will not take it out at any cost.

pathetic....

We won't interfer if someone wants to accept the son of a liberated brahmana as a spiritual teacher based on birth if they wish. Of course that same son may be the town drunk and debauch but that is their business.

 

To us such a choice based on birth is about as foolish as accepting a neurosurgeons son as a neurosurgeon himself even if he has flunked out of high school.

 

I won't let him operate on me but you real Hindus feel free to go right ahead.

Was expecting something aliong these lines from the foreigner.

If it were not for these foolish Hindus there would be no Vedas, Mahabharata and you would never have heard of Krishna in your life.

The good thing is your opinions do not change anything.

In Search of the Ultimate Goal of Life

by Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada

 

http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/prabhupada/in_search_ultimate_goal/prabhupada-3.html

 

 

 

If this Ramananda was a shudra then there is no way he was a vedic Guru.

if chaitanya saw him as a master it was definitely not to study the vedas. It must have been some field of knowledge otuside the 3 vedas which are not restricted for specific varnas. Only the study of vedas was limited to the high varnas...puranas and such were not a problem.

There are many examples establishing varna was by birth only.

Karna lied to Parashurama about his varna as Parashurama hated Kshatriyas. He told him he was a Brahmin. How did Prashurama determine his varna? It was by ancestry...not through an aptitude test taken by Karna. After the bee incident again Karna's varna is correctly established by his birth. Traditional temples in India which have been existing since long ago identify Brahmins by gotra and other details which are not available to one who has converted unless he is making up a false id.

It is possible that some recent religious factions may think they understand the varna system better than Parashurama and better than what Indians have followed for thousands of years. Like some people think without evidence christians were meant to to be vegetarians though in practice christians have not been vegetarians for 2000 years.

The best thing to do is to ignore such radical views.

Here you are soundly refuted. Can you give a sastric reference to prove that ffice:smarttags" />varna is only by birth?

The four varnas come from the Vedas. The rules and regulations come from dharma, grihya and shrauta sutras. There are many sutras and each Brahmin community is affiliated to one set of dharma sutras. The Apastamba (of Yajur-veda) sutras are available on sacred texts. The first 10 verses clarify that <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<st1:place w:st=" /><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">varna</st1:place></st1:City> is by birth. It is not changeable during the course of one’s life as it is believed that one is born into a certain <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">varna</st1:place></st1:City> for a reason. Brahmins are patrilineal descendants of any of these eight Rishis. Agastya, Atri, Gautam, Jamadagni, Kashyapa, Vasishtha, Vishwamitra and Bharadvaja. The name of the Rishi is the gotra of a Brahmin as the Rishi was his ancestor.

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 7.11.35

yasya yal lakṣaṇaḿ proktaḿ

puḿso varṇābhivyañjakam

yad anyatrāpi dṛśyeta

tat tenaiva vinirdiśet

TRANSLATION

If one shows the symptoms of being a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya or śūdra, as described above, even if he has appeared in a different class, he should be accepted according to those symptoms of classification.

The Manu Smriti says molten lead should be poured into the ears of a Shudra who hears the vedas. Writing about something and practicing it in real life are two different things. In practice lead was not poured into shudra ears and varnas were not interchangable.

Mahaprabhu took two principles from each sampradaya

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu accepted two principles from each of the 4 Acaryas.

From Ramanuja:

 

• 1) He accepted the concept of unalloyed devotion untinged by karma and jyana
  
• 2) service to the vaisnavas

From Madhavacarya:

 

• 1) He accepted the complete destruction of mayavadism
  
• 2) worship of the deity form of the Supreme Lord Krishna

From Vishnu Swami:

 

• 1) He accepted total dependence on Krishna
  
• 2) the mellow of spontaneous devotional service

From Nimbarka:

 

• 1) He accepted as the truth the exalt love of the gopis for Krishna
  
• 2) the necessity of taking exclusive shelter of them

{vaisnava Vijay, page 98, Bh. Prajana Kesava Maharaj}

Some of the points described under one group like dpenedance on Krishna and worship of the diety form of Krishna can be found in other groups too.

But when ramanujacharya was calling his version of Dharma as eternal, he was not just referring to the parts that were later borrowed by chaitanya. He meant the whole srivaishnava package. In other words he did not endorse chaitanya's teachings as eternal....he was endorsing his own.

what is meant by complete defeat of mayavada? Madhva vaishnavas failed to defeat Mayavada and are a very small group today found onyl in SOuth India I think. Writing books on how their doctrine is better than others does not mean victory. Among the traditional doctrines mayavada is the most prevalent doctrine today.

No I am not evading the question I am evading you.

Because you cannot answer the question.

You have ben up and around these forums for 10000 posts and you did not get there by evading people. I have been watching you and this is not the first time you have ducked questions you cannot answer.

Therefore, sanätana-dharma does not refer to any sectarian process of religion.

It is the eternal function of the eternal living entities in relationship with the eternal Supreme Lord. Sanätana-dharma refers, as stated previously, to the eternal occupation of the living entity. Sripäda Rämänujäcärya has explained the word sanätana as "that which has neither beginning nor end," so when we speak of sanätana-dharma, we must take it for granted on the authority of Sripäda Rämänujäcärya that it has neither beginning nor end.- BG intro.

Ramanujacharya was not talking about chaitanya's "transcendantal" teachings. He was referring to his own sri vaishnava interpretation of the bhagavad gita which is significantly different from the iskcon interpetation. He did not cover other branches of vaishnavism or hinduism or christianity or islam. it was just about sri vaishnavism and highly sectarian.

If this is all you have, then you have nothing.

I disagree. That is not a vaid way to look at it. Those that think they are hindus may want to see it this way. He was trying to get anybody into Hinduism. Give it up.

I think Prabhupada had people like you in mind when he took that approach. He knew what would work for people like you and he told you what you wanted to hear...and it worked.

Beggar has it in him to admit it...unklike you and GHari who are living in a state of denial. Whatever...

And you evaded the question of iskcon rising above sectarian differences betwen shaivas, vaishnavas and shatas. More denial and more pretenses as usual of belonging to some one-of-a-kind transcendantal organization. You cannot even rise above differences inside the Hindu religion. Why talk about rising above other religions?

Empty words...

It's all about words and how you define them.

Does not answer the questions. You and I do not define words that already exist. They have been defined and universally accepted long back. Otherwise we would not be able to communicate now.

Srila Prabhupada was giving the old wine (Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's teachings) in a new bottle (ISKCON).

Unless one is pure and inspired like Prabhupada then whether it is a new bottle or not the "wine" will have a different, and displeasing taste. So what Srila Prabhupada did was that he preached Krsna Conciousness in a unique way for the unique audience of his time while keeping it's timeless universality. It takes a special devotee to do this and the extra speciality of Srila Prabhupada is that he was able to do it in the foreign lands of the Mleechas.

In other words you are saying Prabhupada did whatever he had to do to preach Krishna consciousness in foreign lands. In this case it was attracting christians in America by not getting them to feel they were entering into Hinduism which was just another religion and making it easier for them by saying Jesus was a Vaishnava.

Nope. It was very clear when Srila Prabhupada was here that the Teachings of Lord Caitanya were transcendental in nature and above such designations as Hindu Christian Islamist etc.

Was it also above desigations such as shaivism, vaishnavism, shaktism and jainism? Is there any evidence of that?

And also above sri vaishnavism, shuddha vaishnavism, gaudiya vahsnavism and other forms of vaishnavism?

How were the differences between these groups perceived within the organization?

I suppose you reserve that right for those who indiscrimnately accept your teachings as truth. Shame on me for daring to question you. Will you be issuing a fatwa now?

 

And in response to my well-supported view that the "Jesus as Vaishnava" theory is a lie, another gaudiya has only this to say:

 

 

 

It's little wonder that sensible individuals invariably get turned off to gaudiya vaishnavism. After all, if someone were really looking for a trite worldview charcterized by polarized absolutes, he would probably do better with fundamentalist Islam.

I read somewhere that iskcon was formed mostly by high school dropouts and former drug users or in other words people who could not be part of normal society.

I do not know if it is true but if yes it makes sense that it is hard for them think logically. It wil be easier for them dsicard logic in favor of sentiments.

"A rose by any other name..."

Try the name 'sunflower' and see how logical you and your team sound.

Yes, it is so humorous. The detractors, the great vaisnava poseurs claim to worship Krsna - but oops we said 'only Visnu makes one vaisnava', so I guess they're not feigning vaisnavism after all. Words, words, words - the tools and limitation of the almighty mind.

Quite a collection of pseudos we have here.

Everything is one...according to this gentleman. Then you are a shaiva and a muslim. Can you accept that? Will your iskcon friends accept that?

I know that article and I know the subject matter from various angles (Heliodorus column). The Hare Christian cross-breeds create "reality" out of their wishful thinking, disregarding reason, logic, and very solid research done on both sides of that issue. When one challenges their pet theories, they attack him for being "sectarian"... There is no science in their approach, just pure sentiment.

Even if we assume that both Heliodorus were the same how does it show evidence of Vishnu in the Bible? HerServant ducked that question and is continuing with more meaningless posts....until Kalki will arive to put an end to this pseudo christian vaishnavism.

This is supposed to prove what exactly in terms of Jesus Christ? Seems like you are still hung up on God only having sanskrit names which is beyond childish. Are you saying that Jesus Christ did not worship the Supreme Lord or something.

 

Did Hiranyakasipu have Prahlada Maharaja initiated into a vaisnava mantra? So was he then not a vaisnava?

 

How about Prithu Maharaja? Parasurama? You have to learn to judge by the qualities and not think you can tell who is a vaisnava by trying to check out the initiation ceremony pedigrees.

 

Anyway I have nothing further to say to you that isn't in my previous posts. I find Hindu fanatics to be more interesting in such disagreements then Christian fanatics but ultimately both are the same waste of time.

 

Chant the names of God. According to Lord Caitanya He has hundreds and millions of names. Pick your favorite and reconnect with Him.

You are essentially saying the Guru who quoted that definition of a Vaishnava was wrong and you are right. Juste like you said standard dictionaries are incorrect and you have the correct definition.

When you make such statements who are you expecting to take you seriously? You are making a complete fool of yourself.

The oldest historical and archeological reference of Visnu, and Krsna Baladeva worship are biblical....

I do not see Vishnu or Krishna in your post.

You appear to have some compulsive need to post incorrect material over and over again. Did you not post that genesis = Ganesha

sometime back? That says it all.

It is a waste of everyone's time. You and your partner theist can continue to push your brand of christian vaishnavism if you can find

someone who takes you seriously.

Vaishnava is an ancient word with a clear meaning and cannot be changed to accomodate your fantasies.

To solve your problem it would make more sense to say Jesus was a Hare Krishna. The usage of Hare Krishna to specify a category of Krishna worshippers is new and as you own the patent you are free to include everyone you like under this label. It does not matter if that person never heard of Vishnu or Krishna in his life as was the case with Jesus.

Mayavadi philosophy is any philosophy that detracts from worship of the Personal God and Da Vinci code is full of such inuendos.

 

Please spend some money and buy a dictionary before you engage in defining sanskrit words and making an embarassment of yourself and your group.

How can you call yourself a vaishnava when you hold such arrogance to think you can provide your own definitions of words that have been existing for thousands of years?

Dont you see how foolish you sound?

The above poster thinks Vishnu is a god for those that live in India and read sanskrit instead of the One unlimited Supreme Personality of Godhead that pervades all existence.

 

Another pseudo scholar on this board. You lack even the basic understanding of what a language is. A language is a set of words each containing an established definition. It is not for you or anyone else to just come along and change the definition because you do not like the original definition.

Are you ready to say shaivas and muslims are vaishnavas?

vaishnava, shaiva, mayavada, dvaita, advaita have been defined long back and cannot be changed by you or any other foreign born christian just because you lack sanskrit knowledge. This is a display of extreme arrogance.

Vaishnava is a sanskrit work. Do you know what it means? Please do not invent your own meanings. Learn basic sanskrit and know what you are talking about.

Jesus was not a Vaishnava. The bible does not say he was a devotee of Vishnu. If we want to call everyone we like a Vaishnava then will you call shaivas as vaishnavas? They are worshipping the supreme just like us. Then all theists in the world are Vaishnavas which is totally not what the word means.

This is what happens when people try to talk confidently without knowing simple basics.

I thought it was a very "dark" movie. It is an attack on theism and it is mayavadi for sure:

 

In the DaVinci code book it states, "Almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false,"

 

and in the movie it is watered down to: "What if the world discovers the greatest story ever told is a lie?"

 

It leads to an absurd—and damaging—conclusion. In the movie, Robert ultimately tells Sophie, "What matters is what you believe (is truth)" .

 

That is, it advocates the message of subjective non absolute Truth. It is impersonalist.

 

It does not proclaim that only the Personal God is the source of Truth, He is Absolute and the Truth can only be realized in personal relationship with Him.

 

 

Da Vinci Code is mayavadi philosophy.

 

Narada said: You have not actually broadcast the sublime and spotless glories of the Personality of Godhead. That philosophy which does not satisfy the transcendental senses of the Lord is considered worthless. - SB 1.5.8

Nonsense.

Mayavada is the name of Shankaracharyas philosophy. Where does Da Vinci code talk about Shankaracharya? If it has nothing to do with Shankaracharya it is not Mayavada.

Please learn some basics before you post ignorant and arrogant comments on discussion forums.

So, the Lord is bound by what He revealed to Vyasdev? The Lord cannot do as He wishes? If that is the case, then He is not very great, is He?

The Lord is Vyasa. He has made some revealations in his scriptures and he will go by what he said.

The Lord is doing what he wishes and he has already informed us about some of his activities like coming to Earth as Kalki at the end of KaliYuga. He would not be very great if he predicted one of his future activities and then changed his mind like you imply for the prediction will be false and he did not know the future.

Kalki will apppear at the end of Kali Yuga as clearly written down in the Mahabharata and various Puranas.

He will *not* come whenever he likes. If that were the case why did Vyasa explicitly say Kalki will come at the end of the Kali Yuga?

If he will come whenever then Vyasa was wrong. Vishnu does not break his own rules. What he has said in scriptures is what he will do. His most recent avatar was the Buddha and the next avatar is Kalki.

http://www.skepdic.com/icastones.html

This page lists different theories created by different groups using these stones as foundation. It ends with

Cabrera's story does not have the ring of verisimilitude about it, though it does have a certain charm. The story certainly has found several ready audiences who have found a niche in their own belief systems for the stones. Never mind that the belief systems not only contradict one another, but are also contrary to the preponderance of the scientific evidence. Creationists, mythohistorians, and extraterrestrialists are in a jihad against belief in evolution where apparently it is one's duty to make the preposterous seem plausible

Let's be honest, even if there would be an one voice answer - are present Vaishnava institutions considered as authoritative contact point to get answers about the Vedas? This is past and lost for the next decades. And the very fact that devotees are debating such issues although there's no light to be seen at the end of the tunnel, speaks for itself. Severe case of loss of reality, or how is this called?

There are many Vaishnava Institutions which are authoritative contact points for any of the 3 Vedas.

Melkote, Srirangam, Kumbakonam, Udipi to name a few. There are several accomplished fully qualified Gurus there who know all the answers.