Shiv Maha Puran doubts

[sant]

 

Service to Narayana is the perfection of that Vedic religion.

 

Tell that to the shaiv or advait .Well see how far theyll agree on this.

 

In the end, one attains the feet of Narayana, which is the conclusion of the Vedic religion.

 

 

Shaivs will laugh at this.even krishna is considered as a human who has all the siddhies and the shaivs or shakts beleive that they can become like him by doing their sadhana and their tantric practices.ive read such posts in this website only.

[Kali_Upasaka]

Excllent post Jahnava Nitai Das. But neither ISCON or the Vaishnavas the only people to face this problem. Almost all the Swamijis and religious teachers who came to the West from India propagated only one aspect of hinduism.

 

Paramahamsa Yogananda- Raja Yoga.

 

Swami Vivekananda - Vedanta

 

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - Meditation.

 

Srila Prabhupada - Krishna Consciousness.

 

Sri Ravishankar - Meditation

 

Srila Prabhupada was only following the trend.

 

The Swamijis and the teachers could only do that because as per the Sasthras a Guru can give instruction only in the path through which he has attained GOD.

 

So the westerners who came into contact with these Gurus came to know only one aspect of Hinduism.

 

This is enough for any person who is only seeking spiritual advancement. But not enough to understand Hinduism.

 

Hinduism is all the above and much more. Hinduism grew by absorption of ideas. Animism to Advaita. In a multi ethnic, multi lingual country like India Hinduism is the best solution.

 

Today a orthodox, Veda reciting Brahmin does not have a problem in understanding the villager who brings up a goat with love and affection to be sacrificed to some village God/Goddess. He does not know Vedas or Bhagavad gita. Has some vague ideas about Ramayana and Mahabharata. Yes.

 

He may not approve this, but accepts it.

 

My friend here may call it Neo-Hinduism. But this is the Hinduism that has grown over thousands of years. Acceptance of all belief systems and practices. Acceptance not approval.

 

That is why Hindus are not happy even with the term Sanathana Dharma because it excludes the Folk Hinduism which practiced by a sizable population.

 

The followers of Yoga, Vedanta, Sakthism and other different aspects of Hinduism also have the same problem as ISCKON. They find it difficult if not impossible to accept the various aspects of Hinduism including Shamanism. In fact you name any isms you find it in Hinduism.

 

Hindus in general do not want to convert any one. Most of them are not happy about conversions to Hinduism.

 

Hindus are happy that some of the aspects of Hinduism has found acceptance in the West.

 

The only things which makes us sad is anti-Hinduism. We never invaded any country, never forcibly converted any one.

[sant]

 

This is in reference to historical invaders of India who gave decrees that "all Hindus are to be killed" (for example in Delhi where 100,000 Hindus were massacred in a single day), or that all Hindus had to pay special taxes to be allowed to continue living. Such statements where the word Hindu was used always included all subsects of Hinduism, including Vaishnavas. Thus Vaishnavas have always been considered a branch of Hinduism. This is just to point out that the definition of Hinduism has always included Vaishnavas.

 

Imagine back then trying to explain to the soldiers that actually you weren't a Hindu, you were a Vaishnava, which is the eternal constitutional position of the soul. It wouldn't have gotten you out of that mess.

 

__________________

Certainly i get what you say.But now you tell the word hindu-stan how well will muslims or christians take this word.This word is again persian origin and if hindu means followers of veda's supremacy and authority then what do you think will the christians think of it.or the muslims or sikhs.Will they be happy to hear it that this country is not for them.The word originally only meant those who lived in indus valley along indus civilisation.

Sikhs also do not consider authority of vedas so are they hindu?but they are considere as hindus by many.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Tell that to the shaiv or advait .Well see how far theyll agree on this.

 

Shaivs will laugh at this.even krishna is considered as a human who has all the siddhies and the shaivs or shakts beleive that they can become like him by doing their sadhana and their tantric practices.ive read such posts in this website only.

Obviously I was speaking from the Vaishnava view point. You don't have to convince anyone. Life isn't about converting people to your belief. The Vedas provide all truth and people choose their paths based on their karma (sukriti, etc.). Convincing people really plays little roll at all.

[sant]

 

Obviously I was speaking from the Vaishnava view point. You don't have to convince anyone. Life isn't about converting people to your belief. The Vedas provide all truth and people choose their paths based on their karma (sukriti, etc.).

 

 

If that was true then why would prabhupada spread krishna consciosness.

(sorry for edit)

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

As a side note, I see a difference between the following:

 

"Vaishnavism is a branch of Hinduism." This is true based on historical and academic usage.

 

"XYZ is a Vaishnava so he is a Hindu". This is not necessarily true based on how people choose to identify themselves. No one can decide what someone else is, even though they may hold an opinion about them based on the origins of their beliefs. Basically if someone asks what religion you are, thats your choice to define yourself. I may believe that your religion is really a branch of Hinduism, but still if that person wants to say "I am an atheist" or "I am an agnostic" or "I am a Christian", that is their right to define their belief system.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

If that was true then why would prabhupada spread krishna consciosness. (sorry for edit)

 

That's a long topic about freewill, karma, sukriti, performing duty without expectation of result, the absolute independence of the Lord, etc. In summary, no one can come to Krishna without having performed countless pious activities in previous lives. You cannot convert someone to Krishna. It runs much deeper than simply convincing someone - it is based on your karma.

[kshama]

Dear Respected Members,

 

This thread is going way off topic, pardon me for chanelling my thoughts this way. All I have to say, follow whatever path you are practicing. Be tolerant (that certainly won't affect what ever your faith is) with other people's faith too. In short, live and let live. Namaste.

[sant]

 

Vaishnavism is a branch of Hinduism." This is true based on historical and academic usage.

Not fully true in histoical way,but yes the common accptance of what is hinduism now then, maybe yes.

[sant]

 

Dear Respected Members,

 

This thread is going way off topic, pardon me for chanelling my thoughts this way. All I have to say, follow whatever path you are practicing. Be tolerant (that certainly won't affect what ever your faith is) with other people's faith too. In short, live and let live. Namaste.

 

dear respected kshama, this is a discussion forum and u dont stop us from discussing.

[kshama]

 

dear respected kshama, this is a discussion forum and u dont stop us from discussing.

 

Respected Sant Ji,

 

It is not my intention to stop you or anyone from discussing. Go ahead, this is a free forum, and I am aware of that, thank you. I am again sorry to butt in, I won't do it in the future.

[sant]

 

Respected Sant Ji,

 

It is not my intention to stop you or anyone from discussing. Go ahead, this is a free forum, and I am aware of that, thank you. I am again sorry to butt in, I won't do it in the future.

 

Im sorry ofcourse you didnt say something wrong.You dont think that we are not letting others live or something like that.We werent even talking about that.This was the topic 20 posts earlier.And i thought you were reffering to what we were talking about now.

pls

I find it funny you always coming with the same type of message and always passing one comment and then fleeding.

Ofcourse youre welcome to butt in who am it to stop you.

[kaisersose]

 

If that was true then why would prabhupada spread krishna consciosness.

(sorry for edit)

 

Spreading is not the same as convincing with force. There is a world of difference between the two.

 

You can always present your version of the story and then leave it that that. The bible thumper types are usually not content with just presenting their religion. They go the extra mile, which involves threats of hell, derogatory views on other religions, etc., even if the other person has no interest in listening to these tirades. Their megalomaniac mentality does not let them rest until they have converted everyone to their way of thinking.

 

Cheers

[theist]

JNdas,

 

Your points,( although very well written as is your style), are very disappointing, watered down and weak. Linquististics!?. Are you not in line from Bhaktisiddhanta? Do you not represent the siddhanta of the Gaudiya Vaisnava's? Which of your preceptors has defined Vaisnavism as you have?

 

Here are Bhaktisiddhanta statements on what constitutes a real Vaisnava and a reminder we are only interested in establishing the reality and not the apparent as truth.

 

From Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's small book Vaisnavism Real and Apparent, the section on defining what is a Vaisnava and Vaisnavism.

 

 

Real Vaishnavism http://www.bvml.org/SBSST/vraa.htm

 

The word 'Vaishnavism' indicates the normal, eternal and natural condition, functions and devotional characteristics of all individual souls in relation to Vishnu, the Supreme, the All-per- vading Soul. But such an unnatural, unpleasant and regrettable sense has been attributed to the word as to naturally make one understand by the word, Vaishnava (literally a pure and self- less worshipper of Vishnu), a human form with twelve peculiar signs (Tilaka) and dress on, worshipping many gods under the garb of a particular God and hating another human form who marks himself with different signs, puts on a different dress and worships a different God in a different way as is the case with the words 'Shaiva', 'Shakta', 'Ganapatya', 'Jaina', 'Buddhist', 'Mohammedan', 'Christian' etc. This is the most unnatural, unpleasant and regrettable sense of the word, 'Vaishnava', which literally and naturally means one who worships Vishnu out of pure love expecting nothing from Him in return. Vishnu, the Supreme, All-pervading Soul gives life and meaning to all that is. He is the highest unchallengeable Truth devoid of illusion everywhere and through eternity. He is Sat - ever-existing, Chit -all-knowing, Ananda -ever-blissful and fully free. He is in jivas and jivas are in Him, as are the rays in the glowing sun and the particles of water in the vast rolling ocean. As nothing but heat and light of the sun, and coldness, liquidity etc. of the sea is found in the constituents of the rays and the particles of water respectively, so nothing but Sat, Chit or free-will and Ananda is found in the jiva. The ingredients and attributes of the whole must remain in the part in a smaller degree.

So the part is identical with the whole when taken qualitatively and different, when taken quantitatively. This is the true and eternal relation between jiva and Vishnu. So He always prevails over jiva who is also ever subject to Him. As the service of the master is the fundamental function of the servant, so the service of Vishnu is natural and inherent in jiva and it is called Vaishnavata or Vaishnavism and every jiva is a Vaishnava. As a person possessing immense riches is called a miser if he does not display and make proper use of them, so jivas when they do not display Vaishnavata, are called falses though in reality they are so.

 

If anyone rechecks my many posts on the subject, (deemed "bigoted" by many of the posters here) you will find I only adhere and promote this definiton of Vaisnavism.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

But that version of Vaishnava is not referring to a religion, it is referring to an inherent natural function of the soul. When people speak of "what religion are you", they are not asking you what is the inherent function of your soul. It is a fact that there is a designation called "Hindu", just like there is a designation called American. When the elderly indian man comes to the ISKCON temple, most will likely see him as a Hindu gentleman, even if he is a Vaishnava. These designations exist, even if they are temporary and material. Once we speak of "religion", it refers to a material designation. The Vaishnava definition cited above is not a material designation, so it is not a "religion" as per the modern usage of the word. We can't expect the public to understand our words when we choose to define them in an uncommon manner.

 

By the above definition "every jiva is a Vaishnava", so there is no question of the other religions at all. There is no such thing as Christianity, Judaism or Islam. Everyone is a Vaishnava. But factually there are other religions, as they are apples and oranges. Vaishnava is not a religious designation, so it is not mutually exclusive to the other religious designations. Religion is primarily a material cultural background.

 

Where as Prabhupada chose to refer to it as Vedic culture, the public generally refers to it as Hinduism. Prabhupada never spoke badly of Vedic culture.

[sant]

 

Spreading is not the same as convincing with force. There is a world of difference between the two.

Nobobdy is forcing anybody.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Here is a letter to the Los Angeles Times where Prabhupada mentions what is Hindu religion:

 

"With reference to your article in the Los Angeles Times dated Sunday, January 11, 1970, under the heading "Krsna Chant," I beg to point out that the Hindu religion is perfectly based on the personal conception of God, or Visnu.

 

...

 

As far as the Hindu religion is concerned, there are millions of Krsna temples in India, and there is not a single Hindu who does not worship Krsna. Therefore, this Krsna consciousness movement is not a concocted idea

 

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

Spiritual Master of the Hare Krsna Movement"

[sant]

hey whose leaving cheap comments on my reputation.

Its either one of you hindustani,sambya or jnd but i dont think anyone of you would do such a thing.But only you three are on pg2 where the post of mine whose basis someone has pasted cheap things is.

Wait it can be ganesh prasad.That little creep certainly has no respect.

And you people say hare krishnas are the one who talk cheap.

[theist]

 

But that version of Vaishnava is not referring to a religion, it is referring to an inherent natural function of the soul. When people speak of "what religion are you", they are not asking you what is the inherent function of your soul. It is a fact that there is a designation called "Hindu", just like there is a designation called American. When the elderly indian man comes to the ISKCON temple, most will likely see him as a Hindu gentleman, even if he is a Vaishnava. These designations exist, even if they are temporary and material. Once we speak of "religion", it refers to a material designation. The Vaishnava definition cited above is not a material designation, so it is not a "religion" as per the modern usage of the word. We can't expect the public to understand our words when we choose to define them in an uncommon manner.

 

By the above definition "every jiva is a Vaishnava", so there is no question of the other religions at all. There is no such thing as Christianity, Judaism or Islam. Everyone is a Vaishnava. But factually there are other religions, as they are apples and oranges. Vaishnava is not a religious designation, so it is not mutually exclusive to the other religious designations. Religion is primarily a material cultural background.

 

Where as Prabhupada chose to refer to it as Vedic culture, the public generally refers to it as Hinduism. Prabhupada never spoke badly of Vedic culture.

 

When people ask me what religion I am I take the time to explain that the eternal religion of the soul is to be a loving servant of God. This is the Krishna conscious position.!!!!

 

Srila Prabhupada did not come here to establish another religious designation for the people of the world to mis-identify with.

 

 

Vaishnava is not a religious designation, so it is not mutually exclusive to the other religious designations. Religion is primarily a material cultural background.

 

For years now I have been attacked by numerous rabid "hindus" on this forum for saying this very thing.

 

Perhaps you are unaware due to having your attention on your other manifold duties. I call religious designations such as Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist as mundane (mundane meaning having to do with the designations of the material world) and suddenly I am attacking all of India in peoples eyes.

 

The fact of the matter is I am presenting the definition as given by Bhaktisiddhanta and not attacking the poor hindus.

 

By the way I go on "Christian" debate forums and make exactly the same point only changing the name hindu to christian and Vaisnava to eternal servant. The poor christians also are bewildered as to what I mean and are loath to accept it because it means the Hindu and Muslim are just as much children of God as they are.

 

The jews would also freak out if I suggested every child of God is a chosen child and special in His eyes and not just them on there websites but that is not my territory.

 

 

Religion, as the term is generally used, (especially by those in the Mid-east and India where seeing in terms of religion is more prominent) is the reason the West is often described by them as "Christian". However I don't consider Europe or America as truly Christian by any stretch of the word despite all the chuches. Are the teachings of Lord Jesus Christ being followed here? Hardly. Gross materialism rules in the West.

 

If you insist on relating to the world on the terms acceptable to the world for the sake of going along to get along then that is your business but Lord Caitanya's teaching are meant to completely shake the world out of the dominant mundane paradigm.

 

Now this teaching not need to be offered in a rude manner but certainly can and must be offered in a staright forward manner. In this context meaning to explain the true definition of Vaisnava is as given by Bhaktisiddhanta and to not compromise on this vital point.

[theist]

 

Here is a letter to the Los Angeles Times where Prabhupada mentions what is Hindu religion:

 

"With reference to your article in the Los Angeles Times dated Sunday, January 11, 1970, under the heading "Krsna Chant," I beg to point out that the Hindu religion is perfectly based on the personal conception of God, or Visnu.

 

...

 

As far as the Hindu religion is concerned, there are millions of Krsna temples in India, and there is not a single Hindu who does not worship Krsna. Therefore, this Krsna consciousness movement is not a concocted idea

 

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

Spiritual Master of the Hare Krsna Movement"

 

You don't really want to go into this territory JNdas. You know I can post so many things by Srila Prabhupada calling hinduism a hodge-podge etc.

[bhaktajan]

Quote:

sant wrote [post 36]:

Certainly not no one has said such a thing here.It has been clearly mentioned in bhaktjans posts that one shouldnt insult lord shiva.

 

 

 

Either the statement was said to mock Shiva or it was said out of complete ignorance. How else could someone say Shiva never spoke anything on such basic topics as Dharma, Moksha, Karma, etc.? When your own books (the Bhagavatam) are filled with instructions by Shiva on spiritual life, how can you accuse Shiva of never having said anything usefull on spiritual topics, especially in a thread where a Shiva devotee is asking about Lord Shiva? Isn't that insulting?

 

 

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I am bewildered at what is being discussed inlieu of so learned Shivite who should be so kind as to tell us of revelations the Lord Shiva has revealed --especially those Vedantic truths that I have not yet learned . . . so Bhaktajan asks:

 

"Am I, Bhaktajan, being faulted for requesting responses to these Questions?":

 

[from Post #13] Please provide the assembly of vaishnavas [or just direct your erudition solely at me] the answers to these questions:

 

{Note: Post 14-Keiserose & 15-Ganeshprasad --failed to reveal any NECTAR --yet continued to mystify . . . }

 

Where, in sastra, has Lord Shiva explained the topics:

jiva,

parkriti,

karma,

isvara,

kala (time),

the differences between the yogic schools of thought,

basic sitting silent meditation,

dharma,

moksha,

sat-sanga,

good vs passionate vs bad foods/actions/austerities/fearlessness/equanimity/faith/

sacrifice/charity/renunciation/knowledge/performers/(doers of actions)/understanding/determination/happiness?

 

Please remember not to quote anyone except your Dear Bhagavan's melodious words. {...btw, This last statement is my sly reference to the neccesity to quote directly from sastra }

 

PS: Check my earlier posting:

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/?p=1145175&postcount=6

 

My intent is to show that quoting Lords Shiva's scriptural injunctions will ITSELF, reconcile so-called differences between the Vaishnavas' & Shivites' affection(s) --I cannot see how this could possibly be mis-construed as an offensive request.

 

If a Shivite asked of me the same questions--I would gladly search out and provide the exact 'chapter & verse' in abundance --until . . . he asked me to take a break for lunch.

[bhaktajan]

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahnava Nitai Das

Either the statement was said to mock Shiva or it was said out of complete ignorance. How else could someone say Shiva never spoke anything on such basic topics as Dharma, Moksha, Karma, etc.? ...

 

 

Of Course Lord Shiva spoke such things --but "that is for me to know and for the **upstart posters to find-out" --and then grace me with their mercy via revealing the mysteries to me. I am not greedy nor jealous. I would give my quota of prasadam to them even before being asked for it!

 

 

 

 

**Either you are a true Afficinado (of Shiva) and thus a reliable reference or you're just an iconoclast upstart who's propagating controvercy because you are addicted to chaos.

[bhaktajan]

Raghu Posted [Post #56]:

Neo-Advaitins are taught that acceptance of any hierarchy among the devas is equal to "hating other gods." . . . it is little wonder that ignorant Hare Krishna fundamentalists show up.

 

 

1] Hare Krishnas are 'ultra-orthodox' Hindus.

 

2] There is a hierarchy among the devas --that Family-Tree" is deliniated in the Bhagavatam --this insight provides a Vedantist with a foundation to offer respects and veneration to the paramapara descendants of Lord Brahma and thus, the Raghu & Soma vamsas.

 

Raghu, Maybe I had lost the context of your statement, but Hare Krishna fundamentalists don't exist except in the form of the 'Reform-movements' and, in fully surrendered full-time ashram devotees.

[Kulapavana]

It would be nice if we had clear cut definitions of the terms we use, and were consistent about it.

 

One time we say "every Jiva is a Vaishnava", and at other times we are contrasting Vaishnavas with Buddhists, Christians, Advaitins, etc.

 

And when we say: "'Vaishnava', which literally and naturally means one who worships Vishnu out of pure love expecting nothing from Him in return", we are actually speaking of supremely pure Vaishnavas. How many jivas in this world worship Lord Vishnu out of pure love expecting nothing from Him in return? I am not even sure you can say that about jivas who exist in the Brahmajyoti. Do they even know Lord Vishnu?

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's statement quoted above can be taken as his devotional mood rather than an objective and fact (or shastra) based truth.

[kaisersose]

 

It would be nice if we had clear cut definitions of the terms we use, and were consistent about it.

 

One time we say "every Jiva is a Vaishnava", and at other times we are contrasting Vaishnavas with Buddhists, Christians, Advaitins, etc.

 

Thanks Kulapavana.

 

There is the problem right there. An isolated quote is taken completely out of context to create a confused ideaology.

 

Vaishnava has been redefined. But this redefinition, to make sense has to be able to redefine Shaivism, Shaktism and everything else or else it has no meaning. Avoiding these questions and resurfacing later with the same old mumbo-jumbo to brand people who challenge these inconsistencies as "rabid" is juvenile.

 

Cheers