Vaishnava Sahajiya?

[Kulapavana 0]

 

I think that as Vaishnavas, we should honor all paths to Krishna, especially those followed by our fellow Vaishnavas.

 

Very much so. However, I do not consider the believers of Abrahamic traditions to be Vaishnavas. They may be good people, religious people, godly people (sura), but they are not Vaishnavas IMO. Anybody who thinks that a destination of a good Christian, Muslim, or Jew, is Krsnaloka or Vaikuntha, should start studying the shastra.

[RadheyRadhey108 1]

 

Very much so. However, I do not consider the believers of Abrahamic traditions to be Vaishnavas. They may be good people, religious people, godly people (sura), but they are not Vaishnavas IMO. Anybody who thinks that a destination of a good Christian, Muslim, or Jew, is Krsnaloka or Vaikuntha, should start studying the shastra.

I agree that many of them are godly people, but not Vaishnavas (since they don't worship Vishnu or any of His avatars). I'm not sure where they go after death if they sincerely loved God in the form they were taught to worship Him, but I'm sure it's not a bad place.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

I'm not sure where they go after death if they sincerely loved God in the form they were taught to worship Him, but I'm sure it's not a bad place.

 

You can not go to a world you never wanted to join as your final destination.

[RadheyRadhey108 1]

 

You can not go to a world you never wanted to join as your final destination.

True, but I still don't think they're sent to a Naraka or something for 'mis-belief'.

[bija 0]

You can not go to a world you never wanted to join as your final destination. by kula

It is a totally different cultivation isnt it. Totally different mind too.

 

By the way I am not big on tearing down sahajiya either (all things are too beautiful for that - the esoteric poetry should not be demeaned because of our christian background in thinking). Sometimes I think people tear sahajiya down using our acaryas words without understanding fully the internal aspects of what the acaraya is trying to give. Seems to be the way of the neophyte to tear down others without understanding his own path.

 

The eastern path is full of spiritual eroticism, such a freedom in the spirituality, but mostly on a material level it seems they were balanced and whole. The christian history seems so different. Eroticism was taboo topic in spirituality (considered great sin - they even attributed adam and eve as the archetype of that sin), but on the material platform there were hang ups - society had malfunction with sex in many ways. Which is still prevelant in todays western culture and religion. Sanctity of sex act is not understood - what to say of tantra etc.

 

This is why I think the western mind has a hard time with sahajiya and tantra, and maybe should not go near it, unless they can move beyond western christian blocks and cultural taboos. How could they ever understand the purity of parakiya rasa, unless teachers build a clear foundation of Sri Krsna Tattva for them?

 

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura for example wrote at a time where there was western thinkers influence in India. He well knew the esoteric of vaisnavism and what the scriptures contained, and he well knew that the english scholars had criticized Sri Sri Radha Krsna worship. So great Indian minds surely contemplated how to teach the west that Sri Krsna is not just a debauchee as the english scholars taught from their mindset. The indian conscience wished to show the beauty of their Lord not a perversion of that tradition. Therefore the need to clean up the Indian practice in some cases (not all), to set an example of pure transcendentalism (what not to say of pure sahajiya sentiments), so that eventually the west could understand what pure bhakti and pure love was in the Sri Radha Krsna tradition - (and writings of Jayadeva, Candidas, and Vidyapati - even writings like Prema Samputa - click here by Srila Vishvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, which is beyond beauty).

 

Definately Kula there is much more in common with sahajiya and our practice, than our practice and christianity. Great point prabhu!

[Kulapavana 0]

 

True, but I still don't think they're sent to a Naraka or something for 'mis-belief'.

 

Their belief in creator-god and mode of goodness activities will at best take them to the heavenly planets, maybe even to the abode of Brahma (but that requires very pure mode of goodness life and alot of tapas). A mere belief in God is not a whole lot by Vedic standards - even the Vedic dog-eaters were pious and God-fearing.

[theist 1]

 

I agree that many of them are godly people, but not Vaishnavas (since they don't worship Vishnu or any of His avatars). I'm not sure where they go after death if they sincerely loved God in the form they were taught to worship Him, but I'm sure it's not a bad place.

 

This post makes no sense to me. You say "they don't worship Vishnu ..."and then you speak of those of them that "sincerely loved God."

 

So you are saying Vishnu and God are not the same person?

 

Is it not more correct to say they worship God(or Vishnu by another name) imperfectly and therefore are not ready to enter the perfect kingdom without more refinement in realization.

[RadheyRadhey108 1]

 

This post makes no sense to me. You say "they don't worship Vishnu ..."and then you speak of those of them that "sincerely loved God."

 

So you are saying Vishnu and God are not the same person?

 

Is it not more correct to say they worship God(or Vishnu by another name) imperfectly and therefore are not ready to enter the perfect kingdom without more refinement in realization.

There's nothing wrong w/ what I said. I said, "sincerely loved God in the form they were taught to worship Him. I said that they weren't worshipping God in the form of Krishna/Vishnu (who is the Supreme Form of God, but there are many others who worship the concept of God in the form of Jesus, Allah, Jehovah, etc...), and so, therefore, couldn't be considered Vaishnavas, and most likely wouldn't go to Goloka, Vaikuntha, or Ram-Rajya.

[theist 1]

Some people apparantly think the Lord can only have sanskrit names even though Lord Caitanya said He has hundreds of millions of names.

[RadheyRadhey108 1]

 

Some people apparantly think the Lord can only have sanskrit names even though Lord Caitanya said He has hundreds of millions of names.

I don't think the Lord only has Sanskrit names. He has many names, and there are many Lokas for the devotees of these different names and forms (Vaikuntha for Lakshmi-Narayan worshippers, Goloka for Radha-Krishna worshippers, Ram-Rajya for Sita-Rama worshippers, etc...). For all I know there could be a Christ-Loka for Jesus worshippers or a Yahweh Loka for Yahweh worshippers (although I really wouldn't want to go there). But, the people who go to Yahweh Loka or Christ Loka wouldn't be Vaishnavas, since they wouldn't be recognizing Vishnu/Krishna or His avatars. I don't consider myself a Muslim, Jew, or Christian, as I worship a completely different concept of God. Likewise, a Muslim, Jew, or Christian most likely isn't a Vaishnava. It's not a bad thing, it's just a difference. And diversity is what makes the world go round, LOL

[theist 1]

 

I don't think the Lord only has Sanskrit names. He has many names, and there are many Lokas for the devotees of these different names and forms (Vaikuntha for Lakshmi-Narayan worshippers, Goloka for Radha-Krishna worshippers, Ram-Rajya for Sita-Rama worshippers, etc...). For all I know there could be a Christ-Loka for Jesus worshippers or a Yahweh Loka for Yahweh worshippers (although I really wouldn't want to go there). But, the people who go to Yahweh Loka or Christ Loka wouldn't be Vaishnavas, since they wouldn't be recognizing Vishnu/Krishna or His avatars. I don't consider myself a Muslim, Jew, or Christian, as I worship a completely different concept of God. Likewise, a Muslim, Jew, or Christian most likely isn't a Vaishnava. It's not a bad thing, it's just a difference. And diversity is what makes the world go round, LOL

 

Wow. All I can say is you have a totally different idea on what constitutes a Vaisnava than I do.