A gaudiya vaishnava speaks out on christianity and other religions...

[theist 1]

 

I had such discussions many time before and ended up wit nothing..Westeners (not all) always have a superiorty complex over others especially, easteners.. This is got to do with the height of materilism seen in these parts of the world. It is difficult therefore to persuade them in anyways, something they have been revering for ages as false or different.......Partly, Indians themself are responsible for that,, they have lost their selfesteem and running behind money... Education starts from home and home is totally corrupted,,, its has become kind of confused junk,, on the one hand they cant stop themselves going to temples ,, on the other hand cant also stop themselves from going to discos,, kind a wierd catch 22,,,

 

Huh? I find the topic much more specific than the generalization you just offered.

[krishnadasa 0]

 

Wow. How do you know Jesus never heard of Visnu?

 

Well Jesus spoke Aramaic and was likely knowledgable of Greek and Hebrew.

 

"After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. - Luke 2:46-48

 

Greek was extensively used by Jewish scholars and scribes at the time of Christ. In fact, the Hebrew scriptures at the time of Christ were preserved (written in) greek. The Greek compilation of Hebrew scriptures is known as the Septuagint ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint )

 

Varios aspects of Egyptian history would have also been taught to Jesus and He may have known Egyptian dialects.

 

"Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you" - Matt 2:13

 

The Jewish temple in Cochin India dates to 700 BC (the time of King Solomon) and this fact is often referenced by scholars as proof that there existed a spice trade between India and the middle east.

 

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochin_Jews

 

Therefore, the presence of the Bible and Bible philosophy in India dates back to 700BC . It would be unreasonable and ridiculous to assume that questions of faith, discussions of faith and the nature of God were not discussed among peoples interacting in trade and commerce, or as foriegn immigrants living among a new people.

 

Regarding the Cochin Jews, "They traditionally spoke Judeo-Malayalam, a form of the Malayalam tongue, native to the state of Kerala, in India. "

 

Is it an accident that among all Indian languages, Malayalam is most "infused" with sanskrit?

 

"Influence of Sanskrit is most prominent in Malayalam in almost all linguistic areas. From Sanskrit, thousands of nouns and hundreds of verbs are borrowed into Malayalam. Some items of basic vocabulary also have found their way into Malayalam from Sanskrit." - source: Language in India http://www.languageinindia.com/may2005/girishenglishmalayalam1.html

 

Now we can look at dialects for the Name of God across language families in Africa , Summeria, Persia Greek, and India and see the following:

 

The Supreme Father God

 

OLU Niger-Kordofanian Language Family

 

HERU Nilo-Saharan Language Family

 

HELI Greek

 

SOLE Roman

 

ELI West Semitic (ALI as in Allah is related)

 

URI ARI, ORI Semitic variants

 

HURRI SERRI Hurrian and Hittite variants

 

ILU Sumerian

 

ZER HVARE Persian variants

 

SURA same as HARI, compare SURIH, SUREH, HARIH, HAREH, SURYA, HARYA etc.

 

HARI HARA Vaishnava and Shaivite Sanskrit forms

 

HRIH Buddhist Sanskrit

 

 

One of the two most used names for God among Greeks and Hebrews at the time of Christ was HELI(OS) EL, ELI

 

HARI and ELI are definitely linquistically related, and hence the Holy Name of LORD Hari was known throughout the entire civilized world.

 

Is Visnu a different God than HARI?

 

Dont trust wikepdia anyways,, I cn put my own things in here...

[krishnaleela 0]

 

Dont trust wikepdia anyways,, I cn put my own things in here...

 

The linguistics on Hari are decent, althought the malayalam business is more fishy. Suppose we accept that Hari was widely used. Whether the understanding of Hari is same with all who used that name, whether all who used that name knew of the established Vaishnava traditions in Bharata and to what detail are of course things for speculations. Each place builds from the rudiments, in accordance with their understanding. That makes the difference, even in India between advaitins and dvaitins; are advaitins also Vaishnavas (in the preferred sense) for knowing of Vishnu? You will find lots of arguments saying Jesus was really an advaitin (not Vaishnava, but Smartha:-) in final interpretations; then we can fight over them as well. Adam and Eve might have come from Atman and Jiva; some relations yes can be attached if desired, but their usage in the two religions differ considerably. As I said before, there could have been influence of thought at a preliminary level; whether we can conclude on how much Jesus or Christianity imbibed Vaishnava/Advaita thought and whether that is sufficient to label Jesus a Vaishnava or Smartha will remain for speculation.

 

(I personally don't mind thinking of Jesus as a Son of Advaita !!! but am not going to argue. I agree that Vaishnava/Smartha has more connotations than has been presented as sufficient to call Jesus either. The term is being used more liberally in order to embrace Jesus, it seems.)

 

PS who rates these threads, the admin or do members have a role? I noticed a "Reputation" button; related?

[raghu 2]

 

You defeated yourself in your very first response when you said your words were not from Paramatma, demonstrating that you had no real understanding of vaisnavism to begin with. So how can you see when you are defeated?

 

gHari, your sentences are so disconnected in relation to one another that it scares me to think how your synapses function.

[krishnaleela 0]

 

The linguistics on Hari are decent, althought the malayalam business is more fishy. Suppose we accept that Hari was widely used. Whether the understanding of Hari is same with all who used that name, whether all who used that name knew of the established Vaishnava traditions in Bharata and to what detail are of course things for speculations.

 

I am not an expert in this but it is worth noting. The linguistics people are trying to establish the prevalence of the root of Hari which I think is Hru or Hri in Sanskrit. That also is the root of Hara. The presence of this root-word does not necessarily indicate Vishnu as realized by Indian sages. The association of Hari with the Vishnu recognized by Vaishnavas and of Hara with the Shiva of the Shaivites might have come later and might be unique to India. In particular, the awareness of the word Hri may not indicate the same of Vishnu. (unless ofcourse the word Vishnu is also established being present in other parts of the world and as linked to Hri in its variant forms.)

[krishnadasa 0]

 

I am not an expert in this but it is worth noting.

Then better not give any kinda crude conclusion....

 

 

The linguistics people are trying to establish the prevalence of the root of Hari which I think is Hru or Hri in Sanskrit. That also is the root of Hara. The presence of this root-word does not necessarily indicate Vishnu as realized by Indian sages.

 

So, you think one shoould start following what these neo confused lingusits say , whose theories change over night than the realised sages...

 

 

The association of Hari with the Vishnu recognized by Vaishnavas and of Hara with the Shiva of the Shaivites might have come later and might be unique to India.

 

Ignorance!!!!

 

 

In particular, the awareness of the word Hri may not indicate the same of Vishnu. (unless ofcourse the word Vishnu is also established being present in other parts of the world and as linked to Hri in its variant forms.)

.

 

Thats the point what some people here trying to clear.. that Visnu was not followed in the Mlecha desha...

 

And by the way Hari comes in the one of 24 names one chants during morning Achamana, which Brahmanas have been doing ever since ,, I MEAN EVER SINCE ....

[krishnaleela 0]

 

Then better not give any kinda crude conclusion....

 

So, you think one shoould start following what these neo confused lingusits say , whose theories change over night than the realised sages...

 

 

Sorry. There was already a plethora of such in this discussion, and your "don't trust wikipedia, i cud put my own things here" without considering the evidence presented seemed to be automatic run-out, making the rest of us look stupid. In that case, you should not have entered the discussion in the first place.

 

The point is not whether I want to believe the neo-linguists and set the date for the Vedas and the place of origin for Sanskrit somewhere in Iran. I don't and your point is well taken here. My concern was that a certain piece of data is presented and a certain conclusion derived: to what extent can the conclusion be accepted supposing one were to entertain the evidence, i.e. what the wikipedia suggests about Hri in other cultures? The conclusion here is that Vishnu was likely known to Jesus and others and the evidence is that some variant of Hari was prevalent with similar meaning. I simply pointed out that conclusion is not necessary.

 

 

 

 

Ignorance!!!!

 

 

Again, you are mistaken about what I am saying. Not the exact truth of how it happened: I did not see any of it; rather if given that evidence of Hri being present everywhere but not along with the associated name of Vishnu/Shiva (as in India), what would be a more evidence-based conclusion to make (than what they are making at present), that's what I wanted to suggest.

 

Of course, whether one should trust this sort of evidence, to what extent such may be manipulated to hint at a preferred conclusion, etc. we cannot tell and may choose to dismiss. But the forums are entertaining all such discussion, and not everyone can simply dismiss the suggestions.

 

 

Thats the point what some people here trying to clear.. that Visnu was not followed in the Mlecha desha...

 

And by the way Hari comes in the one of 24 names one chants during morning Achamana, which Brahmanas have been doing ever since ,, I MEAN EVER SINCE ....

 

How do you intend to clear? By just stating "I MEAN EVER SINCE..." and expecting others to believe. That may not work with the people who are Wikipedia believers and whom you are fighting with. If we discuss with such people, we have to present our position and also where possible show why their analysis can be misleading.

[HerServant 0]

 

The point is not whether I want to believe the neo-linguists and set the date for the Vedas and the place of origin for Sanskrit somewhere in Iran. I don't and your point is well taken here. My concern was that a certain piece of data is presented and a certain conclusion derived: to what extent can the conclusion be accepted supposing one were to entertain the evidence, i.e. what the wikipedia suggests about Hri in other cultures? The conclusion here is that Vishnu was likely known to Jesus and others and the evidence is that some variant of Hari was prevalent with similar meaning. I simply pointed out that conclusion is not necessary.

 

Dear Krishnaleela,

 

If you are honestly researching this topic, it is important to not limit the research to the "neo linquistic" analysis.

 

I merely presented the linguistics as a starting point. If I am not mistaken, India has many languages and dialects. Is Visnu worship limited to only those who worship Him with the "correct" pronounciation and dialect of His Holy Name?

 

Beyond language, customs, culture, forms of worship, and scriptures must be examined.

 

 

There are many articles posted on indiadivine.org that expound upon this topic.

 

I suggest you start by reading the article below.

 

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/vedic-culture/187665-fwd-fw-one-father-god-one-holy-mother-one-human-family.html

[krishnaleela 0]

 

Dear Krishnaleela,

 

If you are honestly researching this topic, it is important to not limit the research to the "neo linquistic" analysis.

 

I merely presented the linguistics as a starting point. If I am not mistaken, India has many languages and dialects. Is Visnu worship limited to only those who worship Him with the "correct" pronounciation and dialect of His Holy Name?

 

 

Dear HerServant, I was not at all researching this topic. In fact I was not and am not clear on your thesis based on such evidence. Only I found you posting such evidence and thought them worth questioning and I was identifying myself with your opponents: for one thing, you had perhaps "forgotten" to give this link with the previous post and people concluded it was from wikipedia and a lot of mental energy was wasted.

 

Here is something you may like from one of my sampradaya gurus:

 

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part2/chap2.htm

 

I had read this before and am not against it, in fact quite happy at the idea. Our origins may be (let me call it) the Vedic religion that was prevalent everywhere.

 

But things add on and are developed over time. The world-religions of today obtain their identities through these developments. The same is true for the terms Vaishnava and Shaiva; they have specific connotations based on their development in India and not Africa or Jerusalem. This development includes proper interpretations of the Vedic religion and the Vedas; our acharyas have given many such on the basis of the same open scriptures and each has its place: ananda swami is pushing his evidence in one direction.

 

I would fancy that every Muslim in India and Indonesia is really a Hindu since their ancestors belonged to Hinduism (or its offshoot Buddhism). But though one may trace the roots of their ancestry in their lives and customs, it may be blasphemy (and hazardous, to both religions) to brush aside the subsequent developments and their present identifications. The same goes for Jesus and Europe: yes, perhaps the Vedic religion was prevalent 10000 years back (that your evidence points out) but to say Jesus is a Vaishnava therefore is belittling too many other factors. If you wish to identify with the Vedic roots and to Vaishnavism (let's say as it survived/developed in India) while maintaining your Christian faith, I don't have a problem: if you want Jesus to join the bandwagon, that is not something these sort of evidences may prove. Such a strategem in argument is also suspicious enough of creating long-term confusion that I will probably oppose to be safe.

 

Take off the Vaishnava link and say instead that Jesus also preached monotheism (or advaita if you wish) ultimately. That also is ok. But the use of an interconnection strategy with history, theology and philosophy to identify Jesus with Vaishnavism is mixing things in an undesirable manner and going deep into speculative lands.

 

[Anycase I am off for a while.]

[theist 1]

 

Take off the Vaishnava link and say instead that Jesus also preached monotheism (or advaita if you wish) ultimately. That also is ok. But the use of an interconnection strategy with history, theology and philosophy to identify Jesus with Vaishnavism is mixing things in an undesirable manner and going deep into speculative lands.

 

[Anycase I am off for a while.]

 

While your off try to get a grasp on what Vaisnavism actualy is. You are so hung up on Indianism that you think there is a difference in meaning between a sanskrit word and a Hebrew or english word that means the same thing. Take devotee of Jehovah for example and compare it to devotee of Vishnu.

 

Why are you talking in english if only sankrit can convey spiritual meanings? Some of you 'Indian's are superior' characters really crack me up. You really think the Lord only reveals Himself to those in Indian bodies. This is the thinking of a simpleton.

[suchandra 1]

 

You really think the Lord only reveals Himself to those in Indian bodies. This is the thinking of a simpleton.

When listening to the Vaishnava Pundits of Lord Jagannath's temple in Puri - there could be some truth to this - the Lord only reveals Himself to those in Indian bodies....

[krishnadasa 0]

 

[HerServant 0]

 

Dear HerServant, I was not at all researching this topic. In fact I was not and am not clear on your thesis based on such evidence. Only I found you posting such evidence and thought them worth questioning and I was identifying myself with your opponents: for one thing, you had perhaps "forgotten" to give this link with the previous post and people concluded it was from wikipedia and a lot of mental energy was wasted.

 

Here is something you may like from one of my sampradaya gurus:

 

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part2/chap2.htm

 

I had read this before and am not against it, in fact quite happy at the idea. Our origins may be (let me call it) the Vedic religion that was prevalent everywhere.

 

But things add on and are developed over time. The world-religions of today obtain their identities through these developments. The same is true for the terms Vaishnava and Shaiva; they have specific connotations based on their development in India and not Africa or Jerusalem. This development includes proper interpretations of the Vedic religion and the Vedas; our acharyas have given many such on the basis of the same open scriptures and each has its place: ananda swami is pushing his evidence in one direction.

 

I would fancy that every Muslim in India and Indonesia is really a Hindu since their ancestors belonged to Hinduism (or its offshoot Buddhism). But though one may trace the roots of their ancestry in their lives and customs, it may be blasphemy (and hazardous, to both religions) to brush aside the subsequent developments and their present identifications. The same goes for Jesus and Europe: yes, perhaps the Vedic religion was prevalent 10000 years back (that your evidence points out) but to say Jesus is a Vaishnava therefore is belittling too many other factors. If you wish to identify with the Vedic roots and to Vaishnavism (let's say as it survived/developed in India) while maintaining your Christian faith, I don't have a problem: if you want Jesus to join the bandwagon, that is not something these sort of evidences may prove. Such a strategem in argument is also suspicious enough of creating long-term confusion that I will probably oppose to be safe.

 

Take off the Vaishnava link and say instead that Jesus also preached monotheism (or advaita if you wish) ultimately. That also is ok. But the use of an interconnection strategy with history, theology and philosophy to identify Jesus with Vaishnavism is mixing things in an undesirable manner and going deep into speculative lands.

 

[Anycase I am off for a while.]

 

We are in agreement. There is no conflict.

 

I accept your guru's statement:

 

"The fact according to me, is that in the beginning the Vedic religion was prevalent all over the world. Later, over the countries, it must have gone through a process of change and taken different forms. These forms came to be called the original religions of these various lands which in the subsequent period- during historical times- came under Buddhism, Christianity or Islam as the case may be."

 

There remains one small problem. Many many people on this forum WILL NOT.

 

Personally, I find no offense in other opinions, however many young devotees visit this forum to "investigate carefully, and decide correctly."

 

Therefore, it is my duty to proclaim the Truth as best as I possibly can, if I am very limited.

 

Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God" - Matt. 5:9

 

Please accept my apologies if what I previously wrote was offensive to you in any way. The intentions of my posts are intended to promote peace through understanding and respect.

 

Her servant and yours

[HerServant 0]

 

My concern was that a certain piece of data is presented and a certain conclusion derived: to what extent can the conclusion be accepted supposing one were to entertain the evidence, i.e. what the wikipedia suggests about Hri in other cultures? The conclusion here is that Vishnu was likely known to Jesus and others and the evidence is that some variant of Hari was prevalent with similar meaning. I simply pointed out that conclusion is not necessary

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

Jesus throws sudarshana like a play toy and His devotees can catch it. Seeing Him Rule is millions of times better than realizing His immovable aspect in me.

 

 

In his book Sri Guru and His Grace, Srila Sridhara Maharaja said, “We may have an attraction for Vrndavana and an inner awakening for service to Krsna in Goloka, but if we associate with so many Vaikuntha sadhus, then we will be hurled down to Vaikuntha.”

 

 

What can you say of sudarshana? Have you seen it?

 

Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja:

 

Lord Nrsimhadeva protects anyone who will take shelter of Him. Sudarsana-cakra protects the devotees, and this cakra is Sri Nrsimhadeva himself. Therefore, worship of the cakra is performed by offering the prayers of Lord Nrsinghadeva. This is why we worship Lord Nrsimhadeva – because He gives protection to the devotees.

[theist 1]

 

When listening to the Vaishnava Pundits of Lord Jagannath's temple in Puri - there could be some truth to this - the Lord only reveals Himself to those in Indian bodies....

 

LOL! Yes...good example of who not to listen too. Krishna does not speak to material bodies. He knows the self in every form is His personal part and parcel and spiritual in nature. Let's please give the Lord this much credit. So why would he discriminate on the basis of race or caste?

 

Christian and Muslim fanatics are under the same ilusion. God only speaks to those in their religion. Sheesh

 

What attracts me to Krsna consciousness is that KC begins at a platform where this immature thinking is already done away with.

 

The Lord will reveal Himself to anyone and everyone that wants to know Him in sincerity. Sincerity and an eagerness to know Him are the only qualifications necessary. Everything else follows that by the Lord's grace.

 

Chant the name of the Lord as known locally to you if you wish and be happy. Or you may pick a known name prominant in another land far from your birth and body locale and chant that as many of us have done in choosing the names Krsna Rama and Hare. Follow your heart's attraction.

 

If we are instructed to abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender to Krsna then that is what we must do. To me this includes all loyalties and sentiments to religions that teach any thing less than suddha bhakti on the transcendental level.

 

This does NOT mean that one has to position themselves as anti-Christian anti-Muslim or anti-Hindu or anti anything for that matter. This is pro-Krsna as He is and everything else has more distance to travel.

 

One can appreciate the steps one took previous that lead him further along the path.

 

Philosophically we are against the conclusions taught by Buddhists. But how many of us were saved from atheism in this life or past ones by Lord Buddha's grace? That we don't know but we can see there must be many millions of people that have been benefited by this saktya-vesa avatar of Krsna.

 

So we appreciate all incarnations that have appeared for the upliftment of mankind... with discrimination. Doesn't mean we try to mix in all teachings from all quarters but if there is something of value or indentical within that teaching we respectfully acknowledge it.

 

This is the platform of the unfettered truth seeker...the transcendentalist.

[HerServant 0]

 

 

Lord Nrsimhadeva protects anyone who will take shelter of Him. Sudarsana-cakra protects the devotees, and this cakra is Sri Nrsimhadeva himself. Therefore, worship of the cakra is performed by offering the prayers of Lord Nrsinghadeva. This is why we worship Lord Nrsimhadeva – because He gives protection to the devotees.

 

Have you seen the Sudarsana-cakra directly?

 

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you" - Matt. 7:7

[raghu 2]

Krishnaleela wrote the following very reasonable points:

 

 

But things add on and are developed over time. The world-religions of today obtain their identities through these developments. The same is true for the terms Vaishnava and Shaiva; they have specific connotations based on their development in India and not Africa or Jerusalem. This development includes proper interpretations of the Vedic religion and the Vedas; our acharyas have given many such on the basis of the same open scriptures and each has its place: ananda swami is pushing his evidence in one direction.

 

I would fancy that every Muslim in India and Indonesia is really a Hindu since their ancestors belonged to Hinduism (or its offshoot Buddhism). But though one may trace the roots of their ancestry in their lives and customs, it may be blasphemy (and hazardous, to both religions) to brush aside the subsequent developments and their present identifications. The same goes for Jesus and Europe: yes, perhaps the Vedic religion was prevalent 10000 years back (that your evidence points out) but to say Jesus is a Vaishnava therefore is belittling too many other factors. If you wish to identify with the Vedic roots and to Vaishnavism (let's say as it survived/developed in India) while maintaining your Christian faith, I don't have a problem: if you want Jesus to join the bandwagon, that is not something these sort of evidences may prove. Such a strategem in argument is also suspicious enough of creating long-term confusion that I will probably oppose to be safe.

 

Take off the Vaishnava link and say instead that Jesus also preached monotheism (or advaita if you wish) ultimately. That also is ok. But the use of an interconnection strategy with history, theology and philosophy to identify Jesus with Vaishnavism is mixing things in an undesirable manner and going deep into speculative lands.

 

 

To which Theist had this to say:

 

 

While your off try to get a grasp on what Vaisnavism actualy is. You are so hung up on Indianism that you think there is a difference in meaning between a sanskrit word and a Hebrew or english word that means the same thing. Take devotee of Jehovah for example and compare it to devotee of Vishnu.

 

Why are you talking in english if only sankrit can convey spiritual meanings? Some of you 'Indian's are superior' characters really crack me up. You really think the Lord only reveals Himself to those in Indian bodies. This is the thinking of a simpleton.

What does this glib, tangential, and off-topic response have to do with anything that Krishnaleela wrote? It should be fairly *obvious* to anyone who can read English what was being discussed here. "Her Servant" brought up some very loose lingustic associations and tried to draw a very oblique conclusion on that basis. She was obviously not concerned with the scientific validity of such reasoning (even though she was appealing to a scientific discipline), which is why "Krishnaleela" very reasonably questioned it.

 

The validity of linguistic analysis, or even of any science, has nothing to do with whether the participants are Indian or Hindu. I don't really know if Krishnaleela is Indian or not, and frankly I do not care when discussing the merits of the arguments he made. But the other hand, Theist could not tolerate letting him have the last word, and lacking anything even remotely intelligent to contribute himself, chose to resort to ad hominem attacks. Is he really so deluded as to believe that calling his opponent's ethnicity into question has actually addressed any one point of substance in the posting?

 

This is becoming a recurring theme in the iskcon/gaudiya community and Theist and others like gHari are prime examples of this. They frequently question the validity, and sometimes even the right, of other posters and their opinions based solely on the poster's background. In their eyes, no Hindu or Indian is qualified to articulate a valid point about spirituality, religion, or Vaishnavism unless he already agrees with the myopic concept of Vaishnavism that Theist and gHari already to.

 

The fact of the matter is that neither Theist nor Ghari have any qualification to speak on the subject matter of Vaishnavism. They simply have no clue on the subject. Numerous times I have caught them saying things that are contradicted by the spritual leaders of their sampradaya with nary an explanation from them as to why they disagree with their own gurus. One can only conclude that they have no gurus, or that their so-called gurus are bogus.

 

Who are these people to criticize *anyone* on the subject of spirituality? Have they accepted a guru, which is one of the cornerstones of any Vaishnava tradition? Have they sacrificed their pride and false ego in the fires of the initiation ritual? Have they worshipped with their intelligence (gita 18.70) the revealed sastras and developed the humility that comes with true devotional knowledge? Apparently, these principes are only good enough for them to use against those they dislike, but not sufficiently important for them to actually follow.

 

Any "mental speculator" can mouth words like "devotion,bhakti,soul," and how it is different from the body, and speak about Sri Krishna in a very general way, but at the end of the day his so-called knowledge is meaningless if he does not at least belong to any sampradaya. Theist and gHari are not Gaudiya Vaishnavas. They aren't Vaishnavas at all, period. They have not even begun the process of becoming Vaishnavas, which begins with the humbling process of accepting a qualified guru. And yet, the entire bulk of their so-called "arguments" rests on the implicit premise of their being "Vaishnavas" and having correct spiritual knowledge on "transcendental" matters. This is a sham. They are nothing more than unqualified, social misfits who had the opportunity to hear some Vaishnava philosophy and now use it as a sledgehammer to attack anyone who won't see eye to eye with them.

 

This entire forum would be better served if these individuals could get off their soapbox pedestals and learn to self-moderate occasionally (see Theist's racially motivated comments above). Perhaps then we could have an intelligent discussion that would befit a Vaishnava community.