a) Prabhupada was a Hindu

[leyh 0]

I am saying that the word Hinduism cannot be said to be established by Krsna. The followers of Krsna should take Krsna's words as they are and not add concoctions to it. Krsna does not mention Hinduism in Bhagavad-gita, so by what authority are saying that Krsna establishes Hinduism?

 

Krsna came to establish Dharma, which is not any "ism" anymore then the propensity to serve is a religion. Dharma is the eternal quality of eevry living entity.

[stonehearted 0]

Y'all appear to be so attached to being Hindus that you want validation from Srila Prabhupada and the perfect Gaudiya acharyas. They won't give such validation, but Krishna had also cautioned us not to disturb the faith of those ardently attached to lower conceptions of the self. So be nice Hindus, and when you have the adhikara, we have faith that you'll carefully read the Srila Prabhupada's introduction to Bhagavad-gita As It Is, and that you'll read Chapter 2 even more carefully. When you're able to actually assimilate Lord Krishna's instruction in that chapter, and Srila Prabhupada's elucidations on those instructions, then we'll have something to talk about. For now, it's clear to those of us with a little experience that you're trying to impose material concepts on the transcendental. The only way you'll ever be cleared of such misconceptions will be to take shelter of an elevated, transcendental representative of the Supreme Lord.

[Bebot 0]

Dharma and Hinduism are two different thing...its not anywhere in the Gita. Are you reading something else????

[Guest guest]

I mean to refer to Sanatan Dharma not dharma alone. Sorry for the confusion. And yes Krishna establishes Sanatana Dharma for the benefit of the living entities.

[Guest guest]

 

I am saying that the word Hinduism cannot be said to be established by Krsna. The followers of Krsna should take Krsna's words as they are and not add concoctions to it. Krsna does not mention Hinduism in Bhagavad-gita, so by what authority are saying that Krsna establishes Hinduism?

 

 

The word Gauidya Vaisnavism is not in the Gita but it is common knowledge Chaitanya Mahaprabhu nondifferent from Krishna established this religion. Noone is adding any concoctions by saying Krishna started Hinduism. And noone is adding any concoctions by saying Chaitanya Mahaprabhu started Gaudiya Vaisnavism.

[madhav 0]

Dear begot (i do not like to address you as a begot),

 

i understand your point. we are tangled in words.

my point is that what you call beyond religions (sanatana dharma) is actually known as Hinduism currently.

All the non hindus have given it a bad fame for two reasons:

 

1) the hindus malpracticed hinduism, and the blame was, and still is, thrown on hinduism rather than on the individual malpracticeners, and

 

2) they have their ulterior envious motive to wipe out hinduism from the face of the earth. they even want to take over hindu land, bharat.

 

also note that all hindus are not vaishnavas, but all vaishnavas are hindus (sanatana dharmis).

 

Now about the level of spiritual progress:

 

you say religion (xian, islam, etc.) is just a stepping stone for progress to sanatana dharma (which i call hinduism). Here we need to remember that until one reaches highest stage of spritual realization, one should not speak or act like an liberated yogi or uttmama bhakta because that would be delusion or hypocrcy.

 

Now about the target for preaching:

 

The hindus already are non violent and victims of islam and xianity in india. they have been so for a thousand years. so, why preach them the victims when one should preach bin laden and party (the agggressors) first?

 

[madhav 0]

thanks, dear guest,

 

please pick a user name. that helps.

 

[madhav 0]

>>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.<<

 

ok. let me know when you understand what i am talking.

Afganistan or pakistan or saudi arabia would be a better place to preach than green bay. just a thought.

 

[madhav 0]

>>madhav says the acharyas are their bodies, but no one will buy it.<< - Babhru das ji

 

i have not said it.

 

once upon a time before islamists started invading india, there was no Hindu or hinduism word.

there was and still is Sindhu word. so, the invaders called the people who lived on the east side of Sindu as Hindu because they pronounce Sindhu as Hindu, and the world picked up that name. (note that xians and islamists enjoy changing vedic names to non vedic names.)

 

So is the origin of the word Hindu and Hinduism. By the that scheme of naming people and religion, a xian is a jordanion and xianity is jordanism.

 

only name change does not make material or spiritual change. if you call a stone divyastra, it does not become divyastra. similarly if you call a dollar bill paper trash, it does not become paper trash. try it. so my point is that 'Hindu' word actually means sanatana dharmi or varnasrami, of which vaishnav is a major group. hope you understand this.

 

communication is not possible without willingness and sincere effort to understand other's point.

 

[madhav 0]

yes leyh prabhu, i know it.

i would discuss that point once the discussion on my current point is concluded. please hold on.

 

sri prabhupada is a great aacharya, a revere him.

however I also have some disagreements with him.

 

remember, in judgeing or analysing isuses for best conclusion, we have three standard authorities:

gurus, sadhus, and sastras.

 

[madhav 0]

thansk guest,

 

please pick a username. that helps.

 

[Guest guest]

by calling srila prabhupada a hindu, we are denying his right to choose. he declines that he is a hindu and that should be accepted. i would personally not like to call myself a hindu even though i consider myself a follower of vedic thought. why should the all glorious sanatana dharma be named by invaders who had little or no respect for the sanatan dharma ?

 

srila prabhupada's stand is valid from spiritual stand point as religion or dharma has no value when one attains moksha. secondly, it is also good from a preaching point of view.

[madhav 0]

>>It is not part of some religion. <<

 

yes. teh difficulty is hat the english word religion has limited meaning. what you are really saying is that vaishnavism is sanatana dhrma or dharma.

 

the word dharma has more meaning than the meaning contained in the world religion.

 

my point is that whatever vaishnavism is, it is a part of sanatana dharma or vedic dharma or varnasrama dharma which krishna has described fully in Gita.

 

[madhav 0]

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

 

even prabhupada has answered this.

i answered it too to Babhru das just a minute ago.

 

basically, the name change occured just 1000 years ago, where as krishna spoke gita last about 5000 years ago.

 

[madhav 0]

i already answered it.

 

those whose name was changed by muslims said it

and are still say it.

 

sri prabhupada changed your name to Babhru das,

but only you can say that your original name is so and so.

you will still carry on your inheritance or debt you had with your old name. is it not true?

[madhav 0]

>>'Vaisnava', which literally and naturally means one who worships Vishnu out of pure love expecting nothing from Him in return.<<

 

very true. and these worshippers come from varnsrama dharmis or sanatana dharmis or Hindus. bharat is the land of origin of vaishnavism because it is the land of sanatana dharmis. ask any one, "who says vishnu is god?"

the answer you will get is, "Hindus".

 

all hindus are not vaishnavas, all vaishnavas are hindus.

 

[leyh 0]

Dear Madhav:

 

You state that "All Vaishnavas are Hindus", but again this is refuted by Srila Prabhupada.

 

Prabhupada:(Hindi) I was born a Vaisnava family. My father was a great devotee. Naturally, he led me... Oh, I am speaking in Hindi, English. (Hindi) They are not attracted to the Hindu dharma.

Guest (6): Then why they attracted to Hare Rama, Hare Krsna?

Prabhupada: They are attracted to Krsna. These people, they are... (Hindi) But you are taking Krsna as Hindu. That is your mistake. Krsna is... Hindu ne. He is God. He is God. God Hindu ne, Mussulman ne, Christian ne, Parsi ne--God is God. (Hindi) And I am also not interested to preach Hindu dharma. (Hindi) ...Krsna dharma. Krsna consciousness, that is the only dharma. (Hindi) ...Krsna literature. It is not a Hindu dharma literature. (Hindi) (Room Conversation, November 7, 1970, Bombay)

 

You wrote 'who says vishnu is god?"

the answer you will get is, "Hindus".' But devotees have accepted Visnu as God before the word "Hindu" came into existence.

 

Srila Prabhupada has already stated on so many occasions that he is not interested in preaching Hinduism nor has he claimed himself to be a Hindu. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear on that. But you so desperately want Srila Prabhupada to be a Hindu, to be "on your side" that you ignore Srila Prabhupada's clear statements on what he thought of Hinduism. Please do not impose your own sectarian agenda on Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

 

[Bebot 0]

Madhav, stick on watching the band Green Day or football, as what you've said on your previous post from another topic. Leave Srila Prabhupad's teaching alone, you are trying to put words & personal interpretation on his mission. Srila Prabhuapad came to America to preach "Sanatan Dharma"/VAishnavism and not to watch football or any band on TV.

[stonehearted 0]

madhav says: only name change does not make material or spiritual change. if you call a stone divyastra, it does not become divyastra. similarly if you call a dollar bill paper trash, it does not become paper trash. try it. so my point is that 'Hindu' word actually means sanatana dharmi or varnasrami, of which vaishnav is a major group. hope you understand this.

 

communication is not possible without willingness and sincere effort to understand other's point.

 

Babhru: We understand your point, sir. Will you make the effort to understand ours?

 

You profess a strong conviction that bin Laden and company should be our primary presching audience. Is your conviction strong enough to move you to do this work? Or is it just somehthing you want to use to try to trump those who won't follow your instruction that our first course of action should be to kick every Muslim's ass? Our first priority, according to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, should be to become perfect then preach to whoever we encounter, whether they're in Riyad or Lompoc, California. Let's first teach those who are receptive and grow our movement quickly, while simultaneously looking for ways to broaden our message's appeal. Although I believe bin Laden is an atheist who uses Islam as a strategy for influencing the foolish, he seems as attached to identifying himself as a Muslim as some of us are to identifying ourselves as Hindus.

 

I had a reply with a string of quotations from Srila Prabhupada on how Hinduism is a subset of sanatan dharma rather than the other way around, but I lost the reply when I came back here to get your Green Bay quotation. it's probably just as well, since you have admitted that your limited appreciation for Srila Prabhupada precludes your acceptance of him as guru.

[madhav 0]

oh i admire, revere prabhupada.

however, i am attempting to clarify some issues.

 

once my points (all not stated yet) are understood,

it would not stop his mission

but would expand it with a lot of support from the suras.

 

all i pray to krishna is that

may he give open mind to the readers

till they get all my points (only a few they are).

 

[stonehearted 0]

And I pray that He may open your mind to those who have some experience with Krishna consciousness.

 

Your professed "admiration" betrays your arrogance in that you think you have a better plan than he.

 

May I ask under whose guidance you have practiced Krishna conciousness? Who are the guru, sadhus you follow? Who is the spiritual master to whom you surrender?

[Bebot 0]

"oh i admire, revere prabhupada.

however, i am attempting to clarify some issues"

 

Not as insult to you but who are you to clarify and misquote a pure devotee.

 

As what you did on another topic "Question & Answer", you were arrogantly questioning the purpose and motive of the tread when a lot of us were disscussing the issue.

 

the way I see it you are new in this forum, go ahead and take some time to read and review all the posting and maybe you'll learn something not from the shastras i quess but more on ethics.

[Bebot 0]

one can be so well verse on shastra/scriptures, even memorize it word for word but without surrender it would lead to arrogance and the swelling of one's ego ultimately to spiritual suicide.

but if one simply surrenders and follows a bonafide guru, even without scriptures one can be perfect.

 

[madhav 0]

>>May I ask under whose guidance you have practiced Krishna conciousness? Who are the guru, sadhus you follow? Who is the spiritual master to whom you surrender? <<

 

Babhru das and bigot prabhu asked me above.

 

what i see is that when there is no rational argument

to refute points raised, some start personal attacks. they ask all personal questions, then they get reasons to say,

"this guy is usless or fool or sinner or demon or advaiti or deluded, etc."

 

i am not ashmed of my guru or my sadhana,

but when those who cannot judge the truth and rationale as presented from the bottom of the heart, and they are hoojed up to certain concept, they start digging personal information to attack. the politicians do it all the times.

i am not a politician. i am just a small krishna devotee.

even if i say my guru is prabhupada, then HKs' would say,

"then just think as we think, no new thinking."

the this is no differet than what xians or muslims say.

 

santana dharam and the vedic culure has produced

many many great aacharyas like sri prabhupada.

HK's know just him and a few more.

 

see, even within HK's there are factions

i do not know how many. why so?

 

realiztion of truth is not any one person's or one sampradayas' monopoly. sanatana dharma gives one full freedom to seek truth. no other religion gives that much freedom. those who are not free to question and are not willing to understand others point cannot learn new thing.

this is obviously evident if you see how islam has progressed if any.

 

xians say, "jesus is the only way, and we will make you follow him."

 

muslims say, "allah is the only way, and we will make you follow him."

 

the vedic people sanatana dharmais say, "all is free to find god in their own way, but never bother any one else who is on his chosen path that is different from yours."

 

now here the attitude from some i see is:

 

"prabhuapada's is the only way. no need for checking gurus, sadhus, shastras, and facts and rational arguments from any one. what prabhupada said is the only truth, he has monopoly on truth."

 

never forget that upanishads are nothing but dialogues, questions to guru by disciple. even gita is a dialogue.

krishna did not threat arjun. truth cannot be concealed by simply throwing out a source.

 

[Bebot 0]

It is you who is getting personal, if you know your ethics it might help you. I never ask you who your guru is, It is not my business (you'll never answer it anyway). What I ask from you is go ahead quote who-ever your teacher is but please don't quote Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prahupada, you don't have the right. Go ahead consider yourself a hundu, this forum has no problem with it. The preoblem comes in when you start to misrepresent somebody who is a pure devotee which you yourself haven't even taken shelter to. It is useless to insist your part, base from all the response on this tread. This will be my last message as I have never had any expeprience with anybody in here who forcibly points his view or as you quoted it as clarifying a pure devotee.

I am not trying to be offensive to anybody in here, never did, musch more start with somebody who just came to the forum barely a month ago. All I ask from you is to stop misquote any devotees in this parts, much more for a pure devotee. I hope you will understand.

 

I also don't want to call you Mashav...