a) Prabhupada was a Hindu

[madhav 0]

devotees and friends,

 

i would like to discuss some points one by one.

here is one.

 

a) Prabhupada was a Hindu.

 

Reasons:

 

- He practiced and preached krishna bhakti which is a major part of hinduism.

 

- his gaudiya-madhv-sampradaya is one of the five vaishnava sampradayas which are a major part of hinduism.

 

- he was from india born and raised there in the land of hindus. (although this is not a requirement to become a hindu.)

 

- he also has said he is preching varnastama dharma or sanatana dharma. (although i do not have references handy to prove it. but couldb e found in bhagavatam or gita.)

this dharma's well known but incorect name is Hinduism.

 

i would like to know how many HK's (Hare Krishnas) would agree to this point. Hare Krishnas to me are the western born and raised disciples of prabhupada.

 

i use this rational to say to the hindus that prabhupada was a hindu and he has preached a part of hinduism to the world. this being so, the hindus need to acept him and the HK's as Hindus, and vice versa. Hindu and HK unity is needed and is natural and mutually beneficial.

 

[theist 1]

So Krsna did not recommend that you should do something under superstition. No. You must do it for practical result. This dogmatism, fanaticism Oh, why I shall chant Hare Krsna? I am Christian. I am Jews this is fanaticism. If you find actually ecstasy by chanting Hare Krsna, why should you not? Why should you not? No. I am Jew. I am Christian. I am Muhammadan. Well, it is transcendental vibration from the spiritual platform. Your Muhammadism, Christianism, Hinduisim, Buddhism, this is skin disease. This is... Because you have got some particular body at particular circumstances, therefore you claim like that. But actually we are all spirit soul, and this sound vibration is from the spirit soul. It will appeal to everyone. See the effect. Then don't be fanaticist. Don't be, I mean to say, sectarian. So Krsna wants that, that simply by custom, one should not follow the rituals. One should see the effect.

[theist 1]

Yet man professes to belong to a particular type of faith with reference to particular time and circumstance and thus claims to be a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or an adherent of any other sect. Such designations are non-sanätana-dharma. A Hindu may change his faith to become a Muslim, or a Muslim may change his faith to become a Hindu, or a Christian may change his faith and so on. But in all circumstances the change of religious faith does not affect the eternal occupation of rendering service to others. The Hindu, Muslim or Christian in all circumstances is servant of someone. Thus, to profess a particular type of faith is not to profess one's sanätana-dharma. The rendering of service is sanätana-dharma.

[madhav 0]

yes, very good.

 

By "hinduism" i mean sanatan dharma also known as varnasrama dharma. by "hindu" i mean one who lives by that dharma more or less and does not hate dharma.

 

so with that definition,

my statement is:

 

Prabhupada was a Hindu.

 

no hindu practices all the paths of hinduism.

even when one practices even a small part of it

faithfully, then i call him or her a hindu.

 

no hindu scriputure has said that

a non hindu cannot do any hindu practice.

actually hindus have no pagans.

that is the reason prabhupada has said any one can chant hare krishna mantra.

 

even if bin laden and his party chant mantra

and stop terrorism, then it does not matter if they call them selves muslims. but chanting mantra and at the same time converting hindus to xianity is nor right. i am not saying any one i know does it.

 

so could HK's and Hindus agree that Prabhupda was a Hindu?

I wish they do.

If not please show where my argument logic is faulty.

[theist 1]

madhva please reread the above statements but Srila Prabhupada. I can copy and paste more but why? How can you read Prabhupada's words and claim he was a hindu.

 

I placed in bold where he said such designations ARE NOT SANATAN-DHARMA.

 

Please do not try to pull the lotus down into the dirty pond.

 

Prabhupada stands far above these designations.

[madhav 0]

my point is:

 

if prabhupada was a sahatana dharmi,

that means he was a hindu.

 

hinduism and sanatana dharma are same,

no difference, just as krishna and mukunda are same,

or krishna and rama are same.

 

many hindus have malpracticed dharma (hinduism),

but prabhupada has practiced it well and correctly.

so, i argue that he was a very good hindu.

 

there is no effort or intent here

to pull down prbhupada's status.

i am trying to give right meaning to teh words hindu and hinduism.

 

now i know he said he is not a hindu,

and he is not preaching hinduism.

but no one should buy it.

that point will descuss next

when we are done with this point.

 

[theist 1]

You are trying to give right words to hinduism. I am trying to give right words to CHRISTianity. Christian means follower of Christ.

 

The term Christian first appeared in the city of Antioch when his followers reminded the people of that town of Christ. So they called them Christians. I do not consider anyone who does not live a life in the footsteps of Christ a Christian.

 

Anyway i'm going to prove that I am not worthy of the name vaisnanva now by watching some football. See ya in three hours.

 

Go green bay

[Guest guest]

HIs Divine Grace, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Svami Prabhupada came to America nearly forty years ago to present the teachings of Varnashram dharma. Considering that "Hinduism"although a misnomer for Varnashram dharma professes the essence of sanatan dharma, then yes we can say that Srila Prabhupada is a Hindu. However, the correct upadi or designation is Vaisnava. Please refer to His Divine Grace's commentary on the Bhagavad Gita for further information and clarification on the term Hinduism.Thank you, Hare Krsna...

[madhav 0]

 

>>You are trying to give right words to hinduism. I am trying to give right words to CHRISTianity. Christian means follower of Christ.<<

 

well, when you say you are a vaishnava, then why bother to give right words to christianity? you also said all people(including christians) are vaishnvas.

 

>>The term Christian first appeared in the city of Antioch when his followers reminded the people of that town of Christ. So they called them Christians. I do not consider anyone who does not live a life in the footsteps of Christ a Christian.<<

 

So, you call those people christians who live a life in the footsteps of Christ. but you first said that you call everyone vaishnavas. this is confsing.

 

>>Anyway i'm going to prove that I am not worthy of the name vaisnanva now by watching some football.<<

 

so you conviction of being a vaishnava was that weak?

or your conviction of being a christian so strong?

this is not a football. we are talking in a very civilized way. this is not useless chat.

 

>> See ya in three hours.<<

 

may be next day.

 

>>Go green bay <<

 

sorry, i do not know what it means.

what is green bay and where it is please?

how it would help if go there?

 

[madhav 0]

thank you Guest ji.

 

please pick a username and use it.

it helps a lot.

 

[theist 1]

>>well, when you say you are a vaishnava, then why bother to give right words to christianity? you also said all people(including christians) are vaishnvas.<<

 

I never said I was a vaisnava. Although that is the essential active nature of the soul. True vaisnavism is the active nature of a liberated soul. One can say that Christian means vaisnava as Christ is a vaisnava.

 

Sorry For the football reference. One came on TV and wanted to see it. green bay is the name of one of the teams.

 

I think this has gone as far as we can take it for now. Prabhupada is not a Hindu.

 

Maybe some of his disciples would like to speak up.

 

Hare Krsna

[Bebot 0]

Madhav, you still don't get the point. Anbody could change religion from being a hindu to muslim or from a jew to a christian. Even from a mahayana buddhist to a hinayana buddhist. Its like changing one's citizenship from being an Indian to a U.S. citizen or what have you. All these things identifies with our material body, hence we all have this religious wars going on as if God was the source of all these nonsense.

Beyond hinduism is Sanatan Dharma which is the true essence and is beyond all religions. Srila Prabhupad may have come from a hindu culture but he came teaching vaishnavism and beyond to Sanatan Dharma. Lord Chaintanya Maha Prabhu came and destroyed a lot of hindu practices most notably the caste system a long time hindu practice. Lord Krishna says to abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender upon him. This is what Srila Prabhupad has been trying to point out most of the time in his mission, specially when he came to the states. If not he could just have stayed in India to preach. As long as we have the mentality of Hindu this, Christain this...then we'll never be able to transcend all this problem and fanaticism that we have today. Loopk at the Middle East, look at the Indian-Pakistani dispute, the Catholic-Protestant copnflict in Northern Ireland. REligion is a temporary identification that is attached to ones' present body, just like your name is. Religion is a stepping stone to spiritual realization but you have to go beyong religionism in order to have the ultimate realization.

[Guest guest]

 

Prabhupada is not a Hindu

 

 

 

A Vaishnava is a sect of Hinduism. Therefore a Vaisnava is a Hindu. This is not complicated.

[Guest guest]

the subject has an error above.

[Guest guest]

Should be 'Vaishnavism is a sect of Hinduism.'

[stonehearted 0]

madhav writes: if prabhupada was a sahatana dharmi,

that means he was a hindu. hinduism and sanatana dharma are same, . . . now i know he said he is not a hindu,

and he is not preaching hinduism.

but no one should buy it.

 

Why not? Give me a lunch break! He said many times that Hinduism is a material upadhi, and that sanatan dharma begins with leaving all upadhis behind. No matter what anyone says, you'll try to impose your material conception on Srila Prabhupada. That indicates that you have little appreciation for what he has given, if any; moreover, it shows you want to use his good name to advance your materialstic agenda. You're free to consider yourself a Hindu and push your little hindutva program. And we certainly can't stop you from asserting that Srila Prabhupada was a Hindu. That's a superficial vision, which the shastra condemns. But I don't think you'll find any customers for your hellish mentality among his mature servants.

 

madhav says the acharyas are their bodies, but no one will buy it.

 

 

 

[theist 1]

Vaisnavism is not a sect of anything. It is the inherent serving energy of the soul properly directed towards the Supreme Being.

 

You are right it is not complicated.

 

If there never was such a thing as Hinduism or the entire material world for that matter, vaisnavism would still exist.

 

It is not part of some religion.

[leyh 0]

It is a fact that Srila Prabhupada explicitly differentiated between Hinduism and Krsna Consciousness in his writings. The following excerpt from his article Krsna Consciousness:Hindu Cult or Divine Culture? is a very clear example:

 

The ultimate goal of this movement is to educate people in how to love God. Caitanya Mahaprabhu approves the conclusion that the highest perfection of human life is to learn how to love God. The Krsna consciousness movement has nothing to do with the Hindu religion or any system of religion. No Christian gentleman will be interested in changing his faith from Christian to Hindu. Similarly, no Hindu gentleman of culture will be ready to change to the Christian faith. Such changing is for men who have no particular social status. But everyone will be interested in understanding the philosophy and science of God and taking it seriously. One should clearly understand that the Krsna consciousness movement is not preaching the so-called Hindu religion. We are giving a spiritual culture that can solve all the problems of life, and therefore it is being accepted all over the world. (From Chapter 3 of Science of Self Realization

 

We should take Srila Prabhupada As He Is and not speculate. If he says he is not preaching Hinduism, his followers should accept that. As Prabhupada informed a journalist in a conversation: "If you want to know me, then you must know about me from me. You can not speculate about me." [s.P. Room Conversation with Reporter June 4, 1976, Los Angeles]

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hinduism always exists as does Vaisnavism.

Hinduism is established by Krishna himself.

[Guest guest]

True, Vaishnavism is the inherent serving energy of Krsna. And it is also sect of Hinduism. Just because it is the serving energy of Krsna doesn't mean it is automatically not a sect of Hinduism.

[leyh 0]

If Hinduism was established by Krsna, why is there no mention of it in Bhagavad-gita or any Vedic literature?

 

[stonehearted 0]

Where does Krishna say He established Hinduism? Please show me where the term Hinduism is given by the Lord in any authorized shastra.

[stonehearted 0]

Our guest writes: True, Vaishnavism is the inherent serving energy of Krsna. And it is also sect of Hinduism. Just because it is the serving energy of Krsna doesn't mean it is automatically not a sect of Hinduism.

 

No, but please show me an authorized scripture that says that suddha bhakti is a sect of Hinduism. In fact, Hinduism is a recent idea. Suddha bhakti is jaiva-dharma and is transcendental to all material concepts.

 

[theist 1]

This was written by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur

 

Vaisnava

 

Real Vaisnavism:the word Vaisnavism indicates the normal,eternal and natural condition, funtions and devotional characteristics of all individual souls in relation to Vishnu, the Supreme, the All-pervading Soul. But an unnatural, unpleasant and regrettable sense has been attributed to the word making one understand by the word, Vaisnava(literally a pure and selfless worshipper of Vishnu) a human form with twelve peculiar signs(Tilak) and dress on, worshipping many gods under the garb of a particular God and hating any other human form who marks himself with different signs, puts on a different dress and worships a different God in a different way and designated by the words 'Shaiva', 'Shakta', Ganapatya', 'Jaina', 'Buddhist', 'Mahomedan', 'Christian' etc.

 

This is the most unnatural and regrettable sense of the word, 'Vaisnava', which literally and naturally means one who worships Vishnu out of pure love expecting nothing from Him in return.

 

...As the service of the master is the fundemental funtion of the servant, so the service of Vishnu is natural and inherent in jiva and it is called Vaisnavata or Vaisnavism and every jiva is a Vaisnava....

 

----------------

 

Is there an online link to this little gem?

 

 

[Guest guest]

"If Hinduism was established by Krsna, why is there no mention of it in Bhagavad-gita or any Vedic literature?"

 

There are obviously.

 

Vyasadev is Krishna himself composing the Vedas. In addition Krishna incarnates many times to establish dharma or Hinduism.

 

Obviously the word Hinduism is not in sastra. So what. It was invented recently. So are you saying that the word HInduism cannot be used to describe religion?