Justin

The point is that Gaudiyas are spreading a fairy tales about Sri Vaishnavism. They have been spreading false stuff against Bhagavad Ramanujacharya and his disciple succession. Did you guys read the OP.

[There is one more confidential story. Ramanujacharya once came to

Puri and pleased the Lord with many prayers. Jagannatha appeared

before him and said, `Go and see Navadvipa-dhama, for I will soon

appear there in the house of Jagannatha Misra.

"With folded hands, Ramanuja submitted to Jagannatha, `In Your

narration You have mentioned Gauranga, but exactly who He is, I do

not know.'

"The Lord mercifully replied to Ramanuja, `Everyone knows Krishna, the

Lord of Goloka. That Krishna, whose vilasa-murti is Narayana, is the

Supreme Truth, and He resides in Vrndavana. That Krishna is fully

manifest in the form of Gauranga, and that Vrndavana is fully

manifest in the form of Navadvipa-dhama. I eternally reside as Lord

Gauranga in Navadvipa, the topmost abode in the universe.

"Hearing this, the sober-minded Ramanuja was agitated with love for

Gauranga. He said, `Lord, Your pastimes are truly astounding. The

scriptures cannot know Your opulences. Why isn't Gauranga-nama-lila

clearly described in the scriptures? When I closely examine the sruti

and Puranas, now I can see the verses about the Gauranga-tattva.

After hearing Your instructions, my doubts are gone and the sweet

mellows of Gauranga's pastimes have arisen in my heart. If You order

me, after going to Navadvipa I will preach Gauranga-nama-lila

throughout the three worlds. I will give people evidence from the

hidden scriptures and establish devotional service to Gauranga

throughout the universe and make all the three worlds into Gauranga-

bhaktas and make them chant Gauranga's Name. Please instruct me.'

"Seeing Ramanuja's eagerness, Jagannatha said, `Ramanuja, do not

broadcast like this. Keep the confidential name, pastimes and abode

of Gauranga secret. Only after Gauranga has finished His pastimes

will the general public receive them. For now, preach dasya-rasa,

while in your heart worship and chant the name of Gauranga

constantly.'

"Taking the Lord's advice, Ramanuja secretly cultured his attraction

for Navadvipa. So that Gauranga's pastimes were not revealed

prematurely, Lord Narayana then led Ramanuja here to Vaikunthapura

and mercifully showed Ramanuja His transcendental form served by Shri,

Bhu, and Nila. Ramanuja considered himself fortunate to obtain

darsana of his worshipable Lord, when suddenly he saw the Lord assume

the enchanting form of Gauranga, the son of Jagannatha Misra.

Ramanuja swooned at the brilliance of the form. Then Gauranga put His

lotus feet on the head of Ramanuja, who was thus divinely inspired

and recited prayers of praise. `I must see Gauranga's actual lila on

earth. I can never leave Navadvipa!'

On his death bed Shri Ramanuja is said to have articulated some

statements to his disciples.]

Here is the truth: Gaudiyas had no authenticity of disciple succession. So they made it up. Laxmi never taught Sri Ramanuja and Brahma never taught Sri Madhva. This is all made up. Then they plagiarized the works of Sri Ramanuja, Sri Madhva, Sri Vallabha, and Sri Sankara. They put all their great works in a pool and christened it gaudiya vaishnavism. They poured some of their own concoctions in the pool. Replaced Shriman Narayana with Krsna so to make this cocktail appear as original.

The Sri Vaishnavas were envious and wanted the Gaudiya Vaishnavas to be given the boot so that they could gain royal patronage, hardly an ethical motivation for questioning the authenticity of the Gaudiya parampara. They claimed that because the Gaudiya's didn't have a commentary to the Brahma Sutra that they shouldn't be accepted as authentic. Baladeva Vidyabhusana informed them that the Gaudiya's accepted the Bhagavat Purana as the natural commentary on the Brahma Sutra. The Sri Vaishnavas did not accept, so Baladeva composed the Govinda Bhasya.pdf as a Gaudiya commentary on the Brahma Sutra. The Sri Vaishnavas were astounded (Baladeva was a former leading scholar and teacher in the Madhva sampradaya before becoming a follower of Sri Chaitanya) and the Gaudiyas kept their royal patronage.

Are you guys know what you are talking? From where are you recording events that say the envious Sri Vaishnavas wanted gaudiyas to get the boot? Bhagavad Ramanujacharya's are far better than your cocktail mixture philosophy. You guys plagiarize the works from all the great acharyas and then say you are the most pristine. What a confused lot

deleted

Here is another fabricated tale:

Around this time, the members of the Sri sampradaya (Ramanujacharya's followers) began to raise some arguments in the court of the king at Jaipur. They complained that as the Gaudiya Vaishnavas had no commentary on the Vedanta sutra, they were not qualified to worship the Deity and therefore the worship should be turned over to the Sri sampradaya. They also objected to the worship of Srimati Radharani along with Sri Sri Govinda-Gopinatha as not being authorised anywhere in the shastras.

Bringing the commentary with him, Sri Baladeva again came to the assembly of the Ramanandi scholars. After reading the commentary they were simply speechless. Thus the victory of the Gaudiya sampradaya was announced far and wide and the king, as well as the other devotees, began to float in the ocean of bliss. The scholars then bestowed upon Sri Baladeva the title 'Vidyabhusana'.

This assembly took place in the year 1628 Sakabda, at Golta near the present city of Jaipur. Baladeva Vidyabhusana installed the Deity of Vijaya Gopala there at Golta Mandira, but the whereabouts of this Deity are at present not known. From this day the Maharaja of Jaipur announced that Sri Govinda's arati would be performed first and then the other temples could perform their aratis.

After accepting defeat, the Sri Vaishnava scholars expressed their desire to accept initiation from Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana. However, he declined their request by stating that amongst the four authorised sampradayas, the Sri sampradaya was highly respectable and the foremost adherent of dasya-bhakti (devotion in servitorship). If there was any cause of loss of respect to the sampradaya this might be considered an offense.

After seeing all the discussions in another thread I am exited to present a Gaudiya version of Bhagavad Ramanujacharya's education. According to the gaudiyas this is a confidential story that is not known to anyone but took place only between Gauranga and Bhagavad Ramanujacharya. Somehow today it is a well known secret

[There is one more confidential story. Ramanujacharya once came to

Puri and pleased the Lord with many prayers. Jagannatha appeared

before him and said, `Go and see Navadvipa-dhama, for I will soon

appear there in the house of Jagannatha Misra.

"With folded hands, Ramanuja submitted to Jagannatha, `In Your

narration You have mentioned Gauranga, but exactly who He is, I do

not know.'

"The Lord mercifully replied to Ramanuja, `Everyone knows Krishna, the

Lord of Goloka. That Krishna, whose vilasa-murti is Narayana, is the

Supreme Truth, and He resides in Vrndavana. That Krishna is fully

manifest in the form of Gauranga, and that Vrndavana is fully

manifest in the form of Navadvipa-dhama. I eternally reside as Lord

Gauranga in Navadvipa, the topmost abode in the universe.

"Hearing this, the sober-minded Ramanuja was agitated with love for

Gauranga. He said, `Lord, Your pastimes are truly astounding. The

scriptures cannot know Your opulences. Why isn't Gauranga-nama-lila

clearly described in the scriptures? When I closely examine the sruti

and Puranas, now I can see the verses about the Gauranga-tattva.

After hearing Your instructions, my doubts are gone and the sweet

mellows of Gauranga's pastimes have arisen in my heart. If You order

me, after going to Navadvipa I will preach Gauranga-nama-lila

throughout the three worlds. I will give people evidence from the

hidden scriptures and establish devotional service to Gauranga

throughout the universe and make all the three worlds into Gauranga-

bhaktas and make them chant Gauranga's Name. Please instruct me.'

"Seeing Ramanuja's eagerness, Jagannatha said, `Ramanuja, do not

broadcast like this. Keep the confidential name, pastimes and abode

of Gauranga secret. Only after Gauranga has finished His pastimes

will the general public receive them. For now, preach dasya-rasa,

while in your heart worship and chant the name of Gauranga

constantly.'

"Taking the Lord's advice, Ramanuja secretly cultured his attraction

for Navadvipa. So that Gauranga's pastimes were not revealed

prematurely, Lord Narayana then led Ramanuja here to Vaikunthapura

and mercifully showed Ramanuja His transcendental form served by Shri,

Bhu, and Nila. Ramanuja considered himself fortunate to obtain

darsana of his worshipable Lord, when suddenly he saw the Lord assume

the enchanting form of Gauranga, the son of Jagannatha Misra.

Ramanuja swooned at the brilliance of the form. Then Gauranga put His

lotus feet on the head of Ramanuja, who was thus divinely inspired

and recited prayers of praise. `I must see Gauranga's actual lila on

earth. I can never leave Navadvipa!'

On his death bed Shri Ramanuja is said to have articulated some

statements to his disciples.]

firstly , for your understanding , i said that i believe all religions do have some elements of fault in them . mine own is also not an exception but i follow it because i feel that it is closest to my heart and i can directly relate to its veiws and theories.

You may speak for yourself and admit your religion is faulty. But please do not speak for everyone else. Have you studied any other school of thought other than Vivekananda's politically correct opinions? Out of many religions you cannot preclude the possibility that one among them is the correct one. When you have no knowledge of different schools of thought within Hinduism itself, you obviously cannot say for sure that every philosophy/religion has flaws. Reading some new age illogical stuff taught by modern godmen obviously leads to such world views and does not promote any logical thinking.

no , im not . its only that you did not get the right understanding of my first posts .

Here are your quotes in the previous posts (see post # 71 and the rest) as a refresher. You seem to have a knack of contradicting yourself each time:

"i dont tolerate those who have never been educated on how to tolerate .

infact 'tolerate' is again a derogatory term . when i say 'i tolerate ' it automatically implies that although i dislike other religions i dont raise a voice."

"but at the same time i dont want anybody to criticise other peoples much cherished beliefs ."

"how can a religion ( or belief ) that creates sectarianism and rifts in the society be of any collective benefit to the mankind ?"

most defintely , i condemn them in my mind but not publically .

Keeping quiet against criminals (whether religious or not) only encourages them even more. There will no law and order in your kind of society. you have said all religions are equally valid and you respect them. And then you criticise other religions saying other religions are sectarian. You say you do not tolerate people who criticise. Is this not a criticism of people who criticise? I must say that you lack scientific and rational logic.

ha ha !!!!! youre badly confused here..............

in the begining i just mentioned some points or features that i personally dislike of iskcon . its then that you came up defending iskcon's stand . then you said the if you feel that there are several loopholes in a theory you have to condemn it . reading this i wrote back thats exactly what i did in the begining . i personally thought that there are some loopholes in this 'food for life' thing and mentioned my thought . so this is completely in accordance with your own ideals . so wouldnt your ideal be equally applicable all over and to everyone ?

Who is confused here ha ha!!! I am not from Iskcon and am not defending your attacks against them. You have thrown many stones at them and condemned other religions before. I was just having a debate and tried to show the loopholes and the lack of logic in your posts particularly post #71 and the rest that followed from Vivekananda's cookbook.

no ! obviously !!! no faith is free from faults and its your own wish to find it out and reflect upon it . freedom of thought !!!

Why are you following your religion when you yourself say it is faulty?

do you feel that 'criticising' and 'fault finding' are synonymous terms ?

You are backtracking on your earlier posts. You said that you cannot tolerate criticism and now you are trying to put a different spin on it.

one is free to mentally speculate the faults and leave the religion aside for others to follow in case it doesnt suit to his taste but publicly criticising it is not good.

Person A tries to fool people by doing magic tricks in the name of religion and takes away their hard earned money. B tries to preach new age rubbish and calls it absolute religious truth. C has decided to kill others in the name of religion. He believes he will achieve liberation by doing so.

Do you mentally speculate their faults and leave them aside or do you step up to the plate and condemn them?

oh !!!!!!!!! so is that what you believe ? then why get angry ? thats exactly what i did in this thread . surely your ideals are universally and not selectively applicable ??

What happened to your tolerance on my beliefs! Now you are going against your own funda and started calling my ideals as 'not applicable'. Can't you accept my flawed thinking and mentally speculate instead of writing against my belief in public in this forum?

what may look like deception to you may not be deception to others . and what may not be deception to you may be verily the worst deception to others.

True what appears to be deception to one may not appear for others. So if I find something to be deceptive you suggest I keep keep my mouth shut, mentally speculate and wear bangles?

no ---- if you merely think , realise , believe in your own ideas.

yes---- if you publicly go about proclaiming the inferiority of some paricular religion and attempt to convert its followers into your belief.

REading the posts from the begining, no one tried to push their beliefs to you and tried to convert you. Yet you started writing that you do not tolerate their views. By striking against their beliefs and writing in this forum you have publicly proclaimed the beliefs of others as illogical. Next time do not say yes or no. Just keep it inside and let it go. Otherwise you will end up contradicting yourself.

You asked,

....

I responded, and

....

if you still did not get the hint,

....

let me make it easy for ya and write that

....

its a waste of time having any sensible discussion on your posts

....

you are a loose cannon in this forum

....

a mischievous post like yours deserves a michievous response

Cheers.

Could it be that advaitins mean oneness in the sense of mathematical equality? We don't say rice=rice or wheat=wheat, but if they both weigh 3 kg, we equate rice and wheat on the basis of a common factor, weight in this case. Does it not follow that only distinct entities can be equated on a common factor? So wouldn't the advaitin argue that Brahman and Jiva are one in this way, and not in the rice=rice sense? Just speculating, like to hear your thoughts on this.

Their concept of oneness is rice=every other grain. Wheat is the ego. We goofs think it is wheat. Once Wheat vanishes you will discover that it was originally rice. It was only because of your foolishness you were thinking it was wheat, barley, oats, maida, etc. Once their stupidity evaporates and they obtain realization they will find that they cannot even put a certain attribute such as weight, width etc. to the rice (because it is nirguna). Whats even worse is they do not even call it 'rice' after their pigheadedness dissolves because they cannot even describe what it is. So they spin it up as anirvachInIya (cannot express THAT).

In order to explain this unreasonable philosophy they take support of quackery and cloak it in analogies (rice is not wheat but 3 kgs is the common factor), or develop illogical 'scientific models', or use word jugglery such as real-unreal, etc

Why are you drawing distinctions between us when we are all ONE?

His model seems to be broken, thats why

Justin, I don’t think you understand this correctly. It’s really quite simple. The ‘scientific method’ would consider a theory that postulates only one entity to explain an observed phenomenon to be a better theory than a theory that needs two or more entities to explain the same observed phenomenon, provided that both theories fully explain the observed phenomenon. Thus, a monist theory would be considered better than a dualist theory, provided that both theories fully explain human conscious experience. You simply can’t disagree with that. Yet, this is what the foregoing discussion was all about..

Primate, science has not yet defined consciousness. No one in this world has any knowledge of consciousness except as described by the scriptures. No scientist has any evidence or an inkling of consciousness to even explain it using a model. Models can be drawn to suit ones purpose and can be twisted any which way you want it to be. There is no point in trying to describe 'scientifically' something that you have absolutely no idea about.

But does this mean you accept my proof that monism is, in principle, a better scientific theory than dualism?

you didnt understand me at all ................when i said 'collective' i didnt mean for each and every individual on this planet . vedic philosophy is meant or written for everyone but it also recognises the diversity in beliefs and religions across the world. of course every individual cannot follow a same path !! but by recognising this fundamental truth of human behaviour vedic thought has outshone other contemporary religions.

 

now you might say that im glorifying vedic thought above the rest . yes thats true , its my faith and this is also a hindu spiritual forum . but that doesnt imply that im degrading other faiths.

Forget about Vedic religion vs. other religion which you are trying to divert the conversation to. Let me clarify again - if I find flaws in your belief do you feel disgusted? (which you said you would if anyone criticizes). If there are several loopholes in a faith I may have to condemn it for it is pointless in following a lovely religion that has elements of deception that some will never find out. Will you label me as sectarian in the above cases? If the answer is 'Yes', then you are consistent with your earlier posts and also you become a sectarian by your very logic. If the answer is 'No', then you have self-contradicted yourself.

I am confused by your posts. You are providing a personal opinion explaining the purpose of the Vedic religion. Personal opinions differ from individual to individual. So if anyone disagrees with you, does that make that person a sectarian? You consider anyone who does not follow Vedic religion to be sectarian. You wrote that you get irritated when someone points out flaws. Why not be tolerant towards those people and give them respect instead of denouncing people who disagree? Are you sure that Vedas can be practiced by every Tom, Dick and Sally!!?

also i never want to force any thought on anybody . but at the same time i dont want anybody to criticise other peoples much cherished beliefs . its just when some people blasphemise other beleifs that i feel irritated . its not necessary nor practical to think that everyone would support or like other faiths . but its definately desirable to keep atleast silent if you cannot have respect for them .

 

i would like to have another answer from you .......

 

how can a religion ( or belief ) that creates sectarianism and rifts in the society be of any collective benefit to the mankind ? can any such narrow belief that creates social differences be termed as true religion?

Vedic religion was not purposed for the collective benefit of mankind. It talks about God and how an interested individual can attain Him. There are people who do not believe in God or have wrong notions about God. Vedic religion was not meant to and will not benefit such people.

Sectarianism is created automatically. Those who do not believe in a religious path have their own sect. E.g. there are people who said humanity is greater than divinity. They formed their own sect and are now throwing stones at anyone who practices Godliness. Those who believe in a particular path are already sectarian in a sense. For e.g. you said that when people blaspehemize others beliefs, you get irritiated and you DO NOT want them to criticize. This itself indicates that you are intolerant towards people who do not share your world view. Unknowingly you are criticizing those people who do not agree with your opinion.

You never know,on internet people have different IDs,he may be here but with another id!

Of late I have many problems with my insights. If I don’t use reason and just go by my experience alone I have no conflict between science and religion and between monism and dualism. But when I use reason I do have conflict in many of the insights and positions that I institutively take. The problem is one of reason and Language.

 

and you are reasoning that reason is a problem! I have seen you trying to give reasons for every non-dualistic belief of yours and now you say you do not use reason.

You say you are like a scientist. Science is strongly based on reason. In the posts you have used the keyword scientific "reason" for all your experiences. Are you fighting some tremendous conflicts within yourself that seems to confuse you between science and experiences?

Who was God teaching Advaita to? Just want to know who listened or received it, thats all.

Uddhava

Ok, let me explain for those who did not understand my original question. So in this scenario, there was the Lord Sri Krishna and then there was Uddhava who he was teaching to. This doesn't sound right for non-dualism. 'Teaching' consists of a 'Teacher' and the 'taught'. If Sri Krishna is God and nothing else exists other than Him, who was he teaching to? to a person? or to Himself?

Read again. Again I repeat,

 

1. Take a favorite bhajan of your choice.

Bhaja Govindam and mahishasura mardhini

2. Sing the same bhajan for just 10 times. Your enjoyment the 10th time with not be the same of the 1st time. Why? If it were God, then why do you get lesser enjoyment the 10th time and not multiplied by 10.

Amazing! You might have got this sixth sense because of your meditation!

Sri Krishna teaches Advaita philosophy in Srimad Bhavavat 11.28.19.

Who was God teaching Advaita to? Just want to know who listened or received it, thats all.

If Shankara changed his mind about Advaita on his deathbed, then why do we still have Advaita 1300 years later? Why is it that only Hare Krishnas know about this change of heart and not Advaitins or anyone else?

 

Cheers

He exclaimed "I got it, finally, yoohoo!" and then kicked the bucket

Dearest Bart,

I see you really were lying when you said I wasted your time

Love and kind regards,

Justin.

Dearest Bart,

I don't know why you ask me to argue with you each time. As I said earlier I stopped arguing against your posts long time ago and it does not matter anymore. After reading and refuting your posts on quantum entanglement, it is quite clear that you are not a quantum scientist. There is no point in continuing discussion with someone who has a bit of knowledge of quantum physics and scriptures and does not know what is the difference between the two fields.

Please do yourself a favor. The next time if you get frustrated with my posts, do not spend time criticizing my behavior.

Since you were so concerned at one point in time about off-topic posts, the best you can do to contribute is to ignore my posts, turn a blind eye, and refrain from making condescending remarks.

Love and kind regards,

Justin.

Dearest Bart,

Enough counter arguments were presented to you earlier and in other threads by me as well as many others. You have only a bit of knowledge in both science and scriptures as your responses reflect that. You are no scientist.

Now if you keep wanting people to constantly argue against a strawman proposal all the time, it is a waste of their time. Counter arguments are placed when there is a good enough argument in the first place. So far you have been repeating the same personal theory for each counter argument. The response is usually in fashionable words like quantum entanglement and mandelbrot to describe this universe and God.

It is clear that you have already assumed you are right and any contrary opinion to yours is wrong. So any number of counter arguments presented is a waste of time.

With love and kind regards,

Justin.