Why is demigod worship different from worshiping paramatma

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

In another thread I was unable to publish this post because that thread is now closed. There my first post was post #20, and now let me continue from post #87 which was my last post in that thread:

The purpose of this and the previous post is to show whether the definition of the word "demigod" in the dictionary is supported by the scriptures. Here I will quote the dictionary on "demigod" again:


a being with partial or lesser divine status, such as a minor deity ...
a mortal raised to divine rank

The main point of my previous post was to show subordinate status which the jiva souls (including devas because they are these jiva souls) have in comparison with the One God, Supreme God.
What follows are a few examples from the scriptures about One God who is declared as chief among all other gods.
Svetasvatara Upanishad 6.7 says:


tam īśvarāṇāṃ paramaṃ maheśvaraṃ taṃ devatānāṃ paramaṃ ca daivatam
patiṃ patīnāṃ paramaṃ parastād vidāma devaṃ bhuvaneśam īḍyam

"Let us know that highest great lord of lords, the highest deity of deities, the master of masters, the highest above, as god, the lord of the world, the adorable."

Here we have clearly stated that there is a God who is the highest great lord of lords, and the highest deity (God) among other deities or gods (devatānāṃ). This is further confirmed in the following verse 6.8: na tat-samaś cābhyadhikaś ca dṛśyate "no one is greater than Him or equal to Him". So it must be that there is a God who is lord even of other gods!
Maha Narayana Upanishad (translation by Swami Vimalananda with English and Sanskrit) explicitly says that Lord Vishnu is chief among all other gods (devas):


Śrīrmē bhajatu alakṣmīrmē naśyatu. Viṣṇumukhā vai
Dēvāśchandōbhirimāĕnllōkānanapajayyamabhyajayan

"May Sri favour me. May Alakshmi connected with me and mine be destroyed. The gods having Vishnu for their chief ..."
(Maha Narayana Upanishad I-48)

This verse also appears in Taittiriya Aranyaka 10-1-10.
Is there anything more explicit and clearer than the two shruti verses above?
"Let us know that highest great lord of lords, the highest deity of deities ..." and "The gods having Vishnu for their chief" :)

If we assume that all the gods have the same status and that no chief is amongst them then the above two verses do not make sense at all. These verses must make sense!

This is also confirmed in Smriti scriptures.
Bhagavad-gītā 11.37 (http://vedabase.net/bg/11/37/en) :
"O great one, greater even than Brahmā, ... O limitless one, God of gods, refuge of the universe!"
Here we have stated that Lord Krishna is īśa (a ruler, master, or lord) of the gods (deva): deva-īśa "God of the gods", and also that He is greater even than Lord Brahma. Compare this with the above mentioned verses from Svetasvatara Upanishad 6.7 "Let us know that highest great lord of lords, the highest deity of deities", and Maha Narayana Upanishad I-48 "The gods having Vishnu for their chief". It matches perfectly. Thus Bhagavad gita who is one of the most important Smriti scriptures regularly quoted by the Vedantists, also confirms that Lord Krishna is the ruler of the gods (devas).
Bhāgavatam 10.89.14 (http://vedabase.net/sb/10/89/14-17/) tan niśamyātha munayo vismitā mukta-saḿśayāḥ bhūyāḿsaḿ śraddadhur viṣṇuḿ "the sages were freed from all doubts and became convinced that Viṣṇu is the greatest Lord".
Bhāgavatam 12.13.16 (http://vedabase.net/sb/12/13/16/) devānām acyuto yathā "Lord Acyuta (Vishnu) the supreme among deities".

I think that the above verses quite well supporting the definition of the word "demigod" in the dictionary (see above at the beginning of the post): "a being with lesser divine status, such as a minor deity".

Now comes a few verses from the Maha Narayana Upanishad (translation by Swami Vimalananda):


I-16: Through whose power the gods who have attained immortality in the third region of heaven got allotted their respective places, He is our friend, father and ordainer. He knows the proper places of each because He understands all created beings.

I-48: May Sri favour me. May Alakshmi connected with me and mine be destroyed. The gods having Vishnu for their chief (who is the perpetual abode of Sri) by the help of (the means prescribed in) the Vedas won these worlds for themselves free from the fear of enemies.

LXXVIII-10: Others devoted to the Vedic religion say that sacrifice is the means of liberation. Verily gods have attained heaven by their own prior deeds of sacrifice.

It says that gods (devas) attained heaven and got allotted their respective places through the power of one God (named as Vishnu in verse I-48), they have used the help of the Vedas to fulfill a purpose, and also says "gods have attained heaven by their own prior deeds of sacrifice".
All this means that they are not independent and omnipotent gods, but their power is limited and they are dependent on the power of one Supreme God named Vishnu. It also tells us that these gods are just jiva souls who once lived as humans on Earth and by the help of the Vedas, deeds of sacrifice (pious karma), have attained heaven! What kind of "supreme" god is he who must acquire pious karma to be able to reach heaven?
In fact these three verses tell us that any man (jiva soul) who lives here on Earth can acquire pious karma that will allow him to be born in the next life as one of the gods in heaven. These verses are proof that the devas are just the jivas, they are not the Supreme entity (Supreme Lord).

This is also confirmed in Smriti scriptures.
Bhāgavatam 5.19.21-22 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/19/21/en) etad eva hi devā gāyanti ...
"all the demigods in heaven speak in this way: ...
(next verse 5.19.22) The demigods continue: After performing the very difficult tasks of executing Vedic ritualistic sacrifices, undergoing austerities, observing vows and giving charity, we have achieved this position as inhabitants of the heavenly planets. But what is the value of this achievement? Here we are certainly very engaged in material sense gratification, and therefore we can hardly remember the lotus feet of Lord Nārāyaṇa. Indeed, because of our excessive sense gratification, we have almost forgotten His lotus feet."

Not only do we see here that devas are jiva souls who achieved their deva position with the help of pious karma, but we see that they are devotees of Lord Narayana (Vishnu): "we can hardly remember the lotus feet of Lord Nārāyaṇa. Indeed, because of our excessive sense gratification, we have almost forgotten His lotus feet."
Every jiva soul should be devoted (with bhakti) to the Supreme Lord. Since the devas are jiva souls this applies to them also.

An additional verses speak of the devas as the jiva souls who have karma and attain various forms of life:
Bhāgavatam 2.10.37-40 (http://vedabase.net/sb/2/10/37-40/en) prajā-patīn manūn devān ... karmaṇāḿ gatayas tv imāḥ.
Bhāgavatam 4.29.29 (http://vedabase.net/sb/4/29/29/) "the living entity is sometimes a male, sometimes a female, sometimes a eunuch, sometimes a human being, sometimes a demigod (devaḥ), sometimes a bird, an animal, and so on. In this way he is wandering within the material world. His acceptance of different types of bodies is brought about by his activities (karma) under the influence of the modes of nature (guṇam)."

I think that the above verses quite well supporting the definition of the word "demigod" in the dictionary (see above at the beginning of the post): "a mortal raised to divine rank" because we have seen that even devas are mortals who ascended from earth to heaven.

Are devas parts of some other god?
This is also confirmed in both Smriti and Shruti scriptures. First examples from Smriti:


About devas as parts of some other God, Lord Krishna in this case. There are plenty of such verses in the scriptures, here I am giving just one typical example.
If you read Bhagavatam canto 1, chapter 3 (http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/en) from the beginning up to the verse 1.3.28 (http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/28/en) you'll see it mentioned many gods and finally in verse 1.3.28 says:

ete cāḿśa-kalāḥ puḿsaḥ
kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam

"All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead."

Especially pay attention to the words aḿśa and kalāḥ which means "parts, portions". So all gods mentioned are Lord Krishna's parts.

In fact every living being is a part of Lord Krishna. This is said in the Bhagavad gita 15.7 (http://vedabase.net/bg/15/7/en) :

mamaivāḿśo jīva-loke
jīva-bhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ

"The living entities (jivas or jiva souls) in this conditioned world are My eternal fragmental parts."

Here also we have word aḿśaḥ "part". This applies to demigods because they are also jivas.

This is illustrated by shruti also. Madhvacarya quoted Rig Veda in the commentary on Bhagavad gita 11.19:


"tadaṅgajāḥ sarvasurādayō.pi tasmāttadaṅgētyṛṣibhiḥ stutāstē" ityṛgvēdakhilēṣu

“Since all the gods having been produced from his parts, they and the seers are praised as the parts of the Lord”

I think that the above verses quite well supporting the definition of the word "demigod" in the dictionary (see above at the beginning of the post): "a being with partial or lesser divine status".


Of additional interest on the topic to the reader my post in the thread Sita is Sri Kamakshi Amman might be of interest.

regards

[Anirudh]

Namaste,

Thank you for re opening this discussion and pointing 20 and 87 as a prelude.

As long as I stick within the realms / framework of Sri Vaishnava (or other Vaishnava Sampradaya in general) , your views do not raise any questions. And Vishishtadvaita has already addressed other doubts one may have while reading other philosophical interpretations.

But this come at price because Supremacy of Sreeman Naaraayan is the pre requisite for Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya.

When contradicting views are aired from others (say for eg Shiva, Shakta) , then we settle down with Vaishnava doctrines developing animosity or insensibility to other beliefs and sentiments. At that point, the very purpose of being a Sri Vaishnavite is lost.

Can you share your views on how we can bridge the gap and still be a Sri Vaishnavite. If you want I will explain what I meant by bridging gap.

I understand my question might not be directly related to the topic, but your opinion on my question will help me understand the practicability of the answers / viewpoints shared in the context of the main question.

"Why is demigod worship different from worshiping paramatma"

Thanks again ....

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste Anirudh

Can you share your views on how we can bridge the gap and still be a Sri Vaishnavite. If you want I will explain what I meant by bridging gap

Yes, it would be nice of you to explain "bridging gap".

regards

[ameyAtmA]

If you read Bhagavatam canto 1, chapter 3 (http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/en) from the beginning up to the verse 1.3.28 (http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/28/en) you'll see it mentioned many gods and finally in verse 1.3.28 says:




ete cāḿśa-kalāḥ puḿsaḥ


kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam
"All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead."


Especially pay attention to the words aḿśa and kalāḥ which means "parts, portions". So all gods mentioned are Lord Krishna's parts.




In fact every living being is a part of Lord Krishna. This is said in the Bhagavad gita 15.7 (http://vedabase.net/bg/15/7/en) :mamaivāḿśo jīva-loke
jīva-bhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ

"The living entities (jivas or jiva souls) in this conditioned world are My eternal fragmental parts."

Namaste,

It seems that verse SB 1.3.28 is refering to the list in the verse immediately preceding it i.e. SB 1.3.27 -- which says that the ṛshī, deva, prajāpati manu, manu-putra (sons of manu) are aṃsha (parts) of the Supreme Whole nārāyaṇ. Then 1.3.28 clarifies that these beings (which are not ordinary earthlings) are all parts, parts of parts, parts of parts of parts, but Kṛshṇa is whole.

Many take the avatār chapter like this - Shri Rām, matsya, kūrma, yajña-varāha are all bhagvān svayam. All listed avatārs are nārāyaṇ in full, but the beings specifically mentioned (ṛshi, manu, deva, manu-putra) are not fully nārāyaṇ but covered partially - at the same time they are empowered owing to being an aṃsha or kalā.

So, yes, the devas (what you are calling demigods) are indeed aṃsha and kalā and certainly not nārāyaṇ in full

Now the question is --- if nārāyaṇ is One Whole Bramhan, how can He be cut into fractions (kalā) and pieces (aṃsha) ? The explanation is that these beings although definitely divinely empowered are within the modes of nature. They have not transcended the modes - triguṇa (sattva raja tama). Just as ordinary jivas are, except that the ordinary jivas are not so empowered. Therefore, the ṛshī, manu, manu-putra and deva-devatā are empowered jīvas, and not partial avatārs --- acc. to shrimad bhāgvat.

***However, Who is a deva is not listed. Further, Bramhā Vishṇu Mahesh are simply roles played by Nārāyaṇ for the purpose of creation, maintenance annhilation, and the Lord Himself says no one should make a distinction between Me, Bramhā and Shiva .

So, it does not automatically imply that these three forms (guṇāvatār of nārāyaṇ) are jiva tattva. Bhāgvat does not say so explicitly.

govindam ādi purusham tam aham bhajāmi

[Anirudh]

Namaste brahma jijnasa,

Events that keep occurring in my life are continuously taking me closer to Sreeman Naaraayana. This is one end of the bridge.

We the Bhaarathvaasis are being continuously misguided and exploited by the evil elements. This is the other end of the bridge.

I do not see any difference between SD and the basic characteristics that constitute a Bhaarathvaasi.

Different Shaakaas of SD keep fighting each other or in other words exploited by the evil elements to fight among themselves.

How do we unite both the ends and also follow the path that is destined to us? One may get a feeling how worshipping para devata or anya devata matter in this case.

Let me present a case:

I understand/assume that my fellow Bhaarathvaasi Omkara is a Shaivite and hence Shree Shiva Bhagwaan is the para devata for him. But to me Shree Shiva Bhagwaan is a anya devata. Spiritually our views are oriented based on the Shaakaa that suit us. But both of us dream a strong prosperous Bhaarath.

In the example presented here, both entities are been blessed with an understanding to respect each other boundaries, but not all are that lucky.

Hope I communicated myself in a way you understood my question.

PS : This is a not a political question because here I am stressing on the practical application of the thoughts that has been discussed in this thread under the present worldly scenario

[Viraja]

Namaste everyone,

I would like to address the notion of 'bridging the gap between being a Srivaishnavite and respecting all devatas' though it is not addressed to me here, because I think it stems from my other thread posted in this OP 'Sita is Sri Kamakshi Amman'. (If not, I apologize).

As a Vaishnava, I uphold loyalty to Sreeman Narayana (Sri Rama) and believe that he is supreme. But I also do not dismiss the fact that the deities themselves may not be holding the same belief themselves while interacting with other devatas - for example, I would not believe someone suggesting Sriman Narayana and Lord Shiva look upon and interact with each other under the mode of 'whether I am superior to you or you are superior to me'. This is point #1.

Secondly, even our own ithihasas suggest lot of interaction between devatas/avataras and deities of different sect. For example, Sri Rama builds the Ramalinga at Rameshwaram and worships Shiva for getting rid of Brahmahathi dosha. And Sri Shiva, according to Sthala purana of Thirunangur, a Vaishnava divyadesha, prays in the form of 11 rudras to Sri Vishnu to get rid of his Brahmahathi dosha after severing the 5th head of Brahma. This is point #2.

Lastly, I do believe avataras happen not just because of the Sriman Narayana's wish, the role of Shakti as the mother mahamayi is always there. This is point #3 given in the form of quotes from i) an upanishad ii) Sri AdiShankara's sloka iii) Several Tantric texts, and presented as an open question/discussion for all to contribute their views based on other scriptures/evidences. I agree it was a challenging thread, but it was also an open-ended question to draw conclusions based on all evidences to some challenging evidences found.

So, when we can accept Sri Rama built Ramalinga at Rameswaram, if our SriVaishnava faith is not hurt by this fact, why should we take it as a challenge to our faith that mother mahamaya might have a role to play in avataras of Sriman Narayana, based on evidences?

Sorry for not sticking to the question posed at the OP.

CONCLUSION: Thus, although I am a Vaishnava, I do not limit myself from respecting other devatas and when given evidences of an appropriate nature, I would like to be open in admitting the divine leela and interplay between deities of different sects.

[Anirudh]

Namaste Viraja,

I presume you didn't understand my question. This is about any two branches where in ones Para Devata is the Anya Devata of the other.

If Shree Raama Chandra Prabhu willing some day in future we will discuss on the other points you have mentioned here. But as of now I politely reject it although have taken them as focal points to increase my own awareness.

[Sudas Paijavana]

Namaste, Everyone:

Please kindly keep in mind that this is the Hare Krishna (ISKCON) Forum, and the view expressed in the OP is of the Hare Krishna/Gaudiya theological perspective. It was not meant to invite debate nor to offer contention. It was posted in the ISKCON Forum of HDF for precisely this reason: to explain and intricately detail the idea of God as it pertains to ISKCON, not as it pertains to every Hindu theological school of thought or of astika orientation. This is not a Sri-Vaishnava Forum for the Sri-Vaishnava theological school of thought nor for other related Vaishnava Sampradaya-s; instead, this is a sub-sect of Gaudiya-Vaishnava and exists only for closely related ISKCON/Gaudiya-Vaishnava theological aspects. And, mature, respectful, and progressive discourses and debates related to this topic are more than welcomed in the overarching God in Hindu Dharma/GiHD (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26) Forum, but off topic digressions unrelated to the content matter of the OP are not cohesively helpful nor appropriate in threads that are located in the GiHD sub-forums such as Vaishnava, Shaiva, Shakta, and ISKCON. Please be mindful.

[Anirudh]

Namaste,

I do not understand whether my post has derailed the thread. May be there exist some standards which I am not aware off.

How ever, do not want to argue for two reasons.

1. That was not my original intention
2. Doesn't help when the OP feels the clarification requested was irrelevant.

Last but not the least, when a generic announcement is made, let it not add up to the confusion.

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste Sudas

thank you for reminding our members how to behave.

However I did not explicitly say nothing should be discussed here. We can discuss the topic proposed in post #1 with regard to Gaudiya vaishnavism though.

----------
Namaste Anirudh

you are not derailing this thread.
I'll answer your question soon.

regards

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

It seems that verse SB 1.3.28 is refering to the list in the verse immediately preceding it i.e. SB 1.3.27 -- which says that the ṛshī, deva, prajāpati manu, manu-putra (sons of manu) are aṃsha (parts) of the Supreme Whole nārāyaṇ. Then 1.3.28 clarifies that these beings (which are not ordinary earthlings) are all parts, parts of parts, parts of parts of parts, but Kṛshṇa is whole.

Many take the avatār chapter like this - Shri Rām, matsya, kūrma, yajña-varāha are all bhagvān svayam. All listed avatārs are nārāyaṇ in full, but the beings specifically mentioned (ṛshi, manu, deva, manu-putra) are not fully nārāyaṇ but covered partially - at the same time they are empowered owing to being an aṃsha or kalā.

Gaudiya vaishnavas consider that verse Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.28 refers to all the verses from the first in this chapter to 28th. Some other sampradayas think that the verse 28th refers to verses 27-28 only. I think Gaudiya vaishnavas are right because there is no valid reason to assume that the verse 28th must refer to verses 27-28 only! This means that all the gods mentioned, including Varaha, Narayana, Kurma, Nrisimha, ... etc, are parts of Lord Krishna.


Bramhā Vishṇu Mahesh are simply roles played by Nārāyaṇ for the purpose of creation, maintenance annhilation, and the Lord Himself says no one should make a distinction between Me, Bramhā and Shiva .

So, it does not automatically imply that these three forms (guṇāvatār of nārāyaṇ) are lesser, or jiva tattva. Bhāgvat does not say so explicitly. They are nārāyaṇ . period .

Just because there is a verse in the Bhagavatam which says that "no one should make a distinction between Me, Bramhā and Shiva" does not mean that Brahma and guna avatara Shiva are not jiva souls. Similarly just because there are verses in the Bhagavatam which say "Bramhā Vishṇu Mahesh are simply roles played by Nārāyaṇ for the purpose of creation, maintenance annhilation" also does not mean that Brahma and guna avatara Shiva are not jiva souls. It is said that Brahma and Shiva are guna avataras of Lord Vishnu, but that does not necessarily mean that they are Vishnu tattva or Lord Vishnu Himself. Lord Vishnu is not a jiva.
Jiva souls are subordinate to the Lord Vishnu because their existence depends on Him. In my previous posts (links in post #1 in this thread) I have already mentioned some verses to that effect.

regards

[Sudas Paijavana]

However I did not explicitly say nothing should be discussed here. We can discuss the topic proposed in post #1 with regard to Gaudiya vaishnavism though.

Namaste,

Yes, I know you did not say nothing should be discussed here. I perceived the conversation about bridging gaps or theological differences between various Hindu schools of thought to be unrelated to the OP and thus made a diligent and helpful and generous reminder for keepings posts in line with the OP, which expresses the general notion of God as seen in ISKCON & related Gaudiya sub-sects.

In regards to your OP, what is the position of Shri Vishnu in regards to Lord Krishna? If I am correct, Gaudiya-s hold the theological position that Shri Vishnu is an avatāra of Lord Krishna, instead of Lord Krishna being an avatāra of Shri Vishnu, right?


Namaste Anirudh

you are not derailing this thread.

I also do not believe Anirudh was derailing this thread, nor was anyone else. If my post in said question is hindering honest and progressive contribution to this thread, I request a member to let me know and I will be more than happy to edit it for deletion. I apologize for the inconvenience. Thank you.

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste Sudas

In regards to your OP, what is the position of Shri Vishnu in regards to Lord Krishna? If I am correct, Gaudiya-s hold the theological position that Shri Vishnu is an avatāra of Lord Krishna, instead of Lord Krishna being an avatāra of Shri Vishnu, right?

Precisely. That's exactly what they say. It is said that Lord Krishna is not an avatāra, but is avatārī — the source of all incarnations.
This idea is expressed in that famous verse Bhagavatam 1.3.28 (see above my post #11). Jiva Gosvami, one of the foremost acaryas in the tradition, even calls this statement of verse 1.3.28 the paribhasha-sutra or the key verse of the entire Srimad Bhagavatam, essential in order to properly understand the position of Lord Krishna who is the main topic, the sum and substance of the entire Srimad Bhagavatam. It is the statement which forms the basis of the theology of the Chaitanya school, and distinguishes it from the earlier vaishnava schools of Ramanuja and Madhvacarya.
Jiva Gosvami also says this statement is a mahavakya, one of "The Great Sayings" such as mahavakyas in the Upanishads.

regards

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste Anirudh

You should not be concerned about the fact that there are many Hindu traditions and that people of other traditions believe in another God.
You chose what you are convinced. They choose what they are convinced. Should they be concerned about your faith?

You know that "developing animosity or insensibility to other beliefs and sentiments" occurs when we lose the feeling we call tolerance. When we say that we should be tolerant that does not mean that we should agree with philosophical points of other traditions that are unacceptable to us. Tolerance means to accept all people as the souls in which dwells the Lord and realize that their path is different from ours.

regards

[Sudas Paijavana]

Namaste Sudas


Precisely. That's exactly what they say. It is said that Lord Krishna is not an avatāra, but is avatārī — the source of all incarnations.
This idea is expressed in that famous verse Bhagavatam 1.3.28 (see above my post #11). Jiva Gosvami, one of the foremost acaryas in the tradition, even calls this statement of verse 1.3.28 the paribhasha-sutra or the key verse of the entire Srimad Bhagavatam, essential in order to properly understand the position of Lord Krishna who is the main topic, the sum and substance of the entire Srimad Bhagavatam. It is the statement which forms the basis of the theology of the Chaitanya school, and distinguishes it from the earlier vaishnava schools of Ramanuja and Madhvacarya.
Jiva Gosvami also says this statement is a mahavakya, one of "The Great Sayings" such as mahavakyas in the Upanishads.

regards


Pranam-s, Jijnasa:

Thank you for a very interesting post. I have always had a question that I have wanted to ask conservative, yet progressive, authentic, and pro-theological Gaudiya-s such as yourself. As a conservative Gaudiya that holds the Vaishnavite Scriptures as infallible and of highest authority, how do you view Jesus and how is Jesus reconciled within Gaudiya Vaishnavism? I have seen few examples in real life and online where Gaudiya-s and related ISKCON adherents express that Jesus and the Bible are compatible with Gaudiya Dharma. As per your theological evaluation of the honorable Vaishnava Scriptures as it pertains to the Gaudiya perspective, are they compatible with Gaudiya Dharma? Is Jesus an Avatara of Lord Krishna? Is it theologically valid to even correlate the two as per the Gaudiya perspective? Is it traditional to do so? How does Gaudiya Dharma and the Gaudiya perspective see or evaluate this syncretism? Does it conflict with traditional Gaudiya concepts of Godhead? Many syncretists will stress that both Jesus and Krishna are Avatara-s of [a] God, but as per your assessment of the honorable Gaudiya-related and Vaishnava-related scriptures, Lord Krishna cannot be an Avatara of God, since He is Swayam Bhagwan Himself. Therefore, how do traditional Gaudiya-s such as yourself address the statement that Jesus and Krishna are similar? May you be kind as to answer as many of the above questions as possible? Please take your time. No rush. Thank you for giving me this opportunity. Dhanyavada.

[Anirudh]

Namaste Anirudh

You should not be concerned about the fact that there are many Hindu traditions and that people of other traditions believe in another God.
You chose what you are convinced. They choose what they are convinced. Should they be concerned about your faith?

You know that "developing animosity or insensibility to other beliefs and sentiments" occurs when we lose the feeling we call tolerance. When we say that we should be tolerant that does not mean that we should agree with philosophical points of other traditions that are unacceptable to us. Tolerance means to accept all people as the souls in which dwells the Lord and realize that their path is different from ours.

regards


Thank you very much, I have sent you a PM .

No need to reply, i made it as a PM because it can be construed as deviation

Thanks again for sharing your valuable views.

[Devi Dasi]

Hare Krsna,

Respected Sudas Paijavana ji, has asked specifically of respected Jijnasa ji, yet it is requested on open forum and would humbly like to answer as well.
Analyzing what you have asked:
As a conservative Gaudiya that holds the Vaishnavite Scriptures as infallible and of highest authority, how do you view Jesus

This question is asked with a qualification that Vaishnav scriptures are infallible and of highest authority. We believe the Vedas and Upanishads are Apaurusheya perceived by the Rishis who heard Sound vibrations of Shabda swaroop of the Eternal.

yatra cādyaḥ pumān āste
bhagavān śabda-gocaraḥ
sattvaḿ viṣṭabhya virajaḿ
svānāḿ no mṛḍayan vṛṣaḥ

In the Vaikuṇṭha (http://vedabase.net/v/vaikuntha) planets is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the original person and who can be understood through the Vedic literature. He is full of the uncontaminated mode of goodness, with no place for passion or ignorance. He contributes religious progress for the devotees. -Śrīmad Bhāgavatam (http://vedabase.net/sb/en) 3.15.15This in no way means we view Jesus as infallible or as our God or Bible as Highest Authority on par with our own Scriptures, because we do not.
"...how do you view Jesus and how is Jesus reconciled within Gaudiya Vaishnavism? I have seen few examples in real life and online where Gaudiya-s and related ISKCON adherents express that Jesus and the Bible are compatible with Gaudiya Dharma."

Please forgive me as I'm not exactly familiar with what Gaudiya Dharma is. Gaudiya refers to location of Bengal and Bangla-desh. As such it relates to the location where this particular school of Vaishnavism arose historically. It isn't a special "Dharma." There is only Sanathana Dharma.

Why is figure such as Jesus "incompatible?" Is it not true that in core essence every religious teaching on the planet has some relation to highest Reality? This doesn't mean all religions are right when they conflict ideologically, or denying the duality of opposed concepts which may be Right/Wrong. It means, all religious logic and intention of human beings is aspiring to contact something greater than itself, to reach it's own origin.

Do you really believe the Creator of all beings is absent to the non-Sanathana Dharma world? Everything taught within Sanathana Dharma is how the Lord is pervading His Creation, within our hearts, antharajami. Is that only Brahmins hearts? Only Bharatiya's hearts? Even, only human beings hearts? No, we don't believe that. We believe within the core of every living thing, the God pervades.


Is Jesus an Avatara of Lord Krishna? ...
Many syncretists will stress that both Jesus and Krishna are Avatara-s of [a] God, but as per your assessment of the honorable Gaudiya-related and Vaishnava-related scriptures, Lord Krishna cannot be an Avatara of God, since He is Swayam Bhagwan Himself.

Srila Prabhupada has said that Jesus is a Shaktyavesa avatar. It means he is an empowered representative, a great teacher, to bring mankind back to thinking of God. He remains Jiva tattva and not Bhagavan tattva. He is sent by God, son of God. He is not God, not Krsna. He is an authorized representative for certain part of the world, according to time and circumstances so they may return to thought of Godhead according to their ability to understand.

Christian religion has called on Jesus Christ, and the bija of Christ is Krsna. This means, whenever people from Christian religion have called on Jesus Christ as their God, whatever errors in their understanding... out of the mercy of Lord Krsna Bhagavan... they have unintentionally called on the Supreme Lord, Krsna. As a result of such auspicious fortune, it may be after some lifetimes that these jivas will take birth in Krsna conscious households.


ye 'py anya-devatā-bhaktā
yajante śraddhayānvitāḥ
te 'pi mām eva kaunteya
yajanty avidhi-pūrvakam

Those who are devotees of other gods and who worship them with faith actually worship only Me, O son of Kuntī, but they do so in a wrong way.
-Bhagavad-gītā As It Is (http://vedabase.net/bg/en) 9.23
"Is it theologically valid to even correlate the two as per the Gaudiya perspective? Is it traditional to do so? How does Gaudiya Dharma and the Gaudiya perspective see or evaluate this syncretism?" There is no such concept as "Gaudiya Dharma" neither is there any syncretic fusion between Christian teachings and Gaudiya Vaishnavism.


"Therefore, how do traditional Gaudiya-s such as yourself address the statement (What statement?) that Jesus and Krishna are similar?..."
"The Lord then pointed out that there is no limit to the saktyavesa-avataras and that they cannot be counted. However, some can be mentioned as examples. The saktyavesa incarnations are of two kinds--direct and indirect. When the Lord Himself comes, He is called saksat, or a direct saktyavesa-avatara, and when He empowers some living entity to represent Him that living entity is called an indirect or avesa incarnation."-Teachings of Lord Caitanya (http://vedabase.net/tlc/en1),Chapter 8: The AvatarasIt simply means Srila Prabhupada is recognizing that the Jesus of Christians is a form of empowered representative of the Supreme Lord Krsna, sent into this world to remind people to think of God and to pray. It doesn't mean that all the historical baggage of what became Christian religion, or even the particular teachings of Jesus are equal or authoritative for us in any way.

But we recognize people are at different spiritual levels, and that the Supreme Lord is ever trying to awake people's consciousness. For that reason all religions have parallels and similarities. There is a Supreme Truth, but it gets filtered through our very ignorant human misunderstanding, our disturbed thoughts, our broken cultures, our corrupted languages, and our karmic reactivity. Just as ordinary jivatma such as myself, cannot comprehend Shruti, but can only grasp the echo of what great Sages and Guru-Acharyas have left in a form comprehensible to me by their great mercy.

In many ways, the teachings of the original Lord Krsna of Dwarka have filtered down throughout the world, and many parallel fragments of that memory became syncretized within the Christian religion. So as Lord Krsna washed the feet of Sudama, Jesus washed his disciples feet. As Lord Krsna is anthajami, so did Jesus teach the Kingdom of God is within you. Or as Bible states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." So do we believe the form of God (sargun swaroop) as Sound/Shabda Brahma, is OMkar, power of creation of the world, the beginning. Many parallels, too many to dismiss. BUT... many corruptions and distortions as well. We have the original, so we can bless those who share a similar belief syncretized anciently with what has come to us Apaurusheya from Sound Current Vibration and share with them greater knowledge of true reality as taught to us by our respected Gurus.

-please forgive my mistakes.

[Sudas Paijavana]

Namaste, DD:

That's very interesting. Thank you for your post. There are vast theological differences amongst various Vaishnava groups that I am starting to now become more aware of. And, that was a question that I always wanted to ask. Thanks for the answer. It clarifies a lot to me on how the concept of Godhead is described or viewed in Gaudiya Vaishnava Dharma. DD, have you ever partaken in Garba/Dandiya-Raas? I am very sure you would enjoy it a lot. Many that partake in Garba feel closer to Krishna-ji when they dance. :)

Krishna-ji doing Garba:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8kUWbe61tDo/TUZki07jGZI/AAAAAAAAABA/N_t44J56jsg/s1600/raas_leela.jpg

[Anirudh]

Namaste Devi Dasi,


It simply means is recognizing that the Jesus of Christians is a form of empowered representative of the Supreme Lord Krsna, sent into this world to remind people to think of God and to pray. It doesn't mean that all the historical baggage of what became Christian religion, or even the particular teachings of Jesus are equal or authoritative for us in any way.


It is indigestible to learn that a person of Srila Prabhupada's stature has said this. There is another person who runs Peace TV too has made nice revelations linking or using Veda to his own religious aspirations. I am not comparing both the personalities by any means. But would like to ask ISKCON ite, does this sort teaching / findings / statements give opportunities to dissect SD and inject any self serving ideologies in to the same?

And when I link this information to the original intent of this thread, interested to understand whether the Abrahamic deity discussed in this thread is a Para Devata (Paramatma) or a Anya Devata (Demi God)?

PS : If the real meaning of Para Devata and Anya Devata are different then kindly substitute them with Paramatma and Demi God

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Attention!

I would like to ask our respected members to continue the discussion about Jesus in another thread: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=396

Thanks

regards

[govind_das]

It is indigestible to learn that a person of Srila Prabhupada's stature has said this.


I've done a search thru Srila Prabhupada's works via the Bhaktivedanta VedaBase software and can find nowhere where he calls Jesus an incarnation of Lord Krishna or of Vishnu. He did refer to Jesus on a couple of occasions as a "perfect devotee" (something he also said of Muhammad whose followers do not consider him divine as Jesus' followers do. I don't know about Gaudiya Vaishnavism as a whole, but ISKCON does not appear to teach that.

[ameyAtmA]

This means that all the gods mentioned, including Varaha, Narayana, Kurma, Nrisimha, ... etc, are parts of Lord Krishna.
Just because there is a verse in the Bhagavatam which says that "no one should make a distinction between Me, Bramhā and Shiva" does not mean that Brahma and guna avatara Shiva are not jiva souls. Similarly just because there are verses in the Bhagavatam which say "Bramhā Vishṇu Mahesh are simply roles played by Nārāyaṇ for the purpose of creation, maintenance annhilation" also does not mean that Brahma and guna avatara Shiva are not jiva souls. It is said that Brahma and Shiva are guna avataras of Lord Vishnu, but that does not necessarily mean that they are Vishnu tattva or Lord Vishnu Himself. Lord Vishnu is not a jiva.
Jiva souls are subordinate to the Lord Vishnu because their existence depends on Him.

Namaste bramha jijnasa,

Truth exists on multiple dimensions. I can see this Truth as being what you have said, as Truth on one dimension. This is the dimension of Shri Hari that Gauḍīya vaīshṇav siddhānta chooses.

This may [or may not] surprise you, but I simply love this dimension. Always did :)

om namo bhagavate vāsudevāya

[Devi Dasi]

Hare Krsna,

It's unfortunate that wherever ISKCON is part of the topic, every conceivable controversy is going to find a way to the thread. However, that said, it doesn't solve the issue to shut down every challenge of the teachings and not take some time to answer them.

...It is indigestible to learn that a person of Srila Prabhupada's stature has said this. There is another person who runs Peace TV too has made nice revelations linking or using Veda to his own religious aspirations. I am not comparing both the personalities by any means...Yes you are or you wouldn't have said. It is ludicrous to accuse Srila Prabhupada of being a Zakir Naik because YOU can't digest and understand WHAT is the teaching, and instead fall back on your own personal loathing of what you understand about Christian religion.

I've done a search thru Srila Prabhupada's works via the Bhaktivedanta VedaBase software and can find nowhere where he calls Jesus an incarnation of Lord Krishna or of Vishnu. He did refer to Jesus on a couple of occasions as a "perfect devotee" (something he also said of Muhammad whose followers do not consider him divine as Jesus' followers do. I don't know about Gaudiya Vaishnavism as a whole, but ISKCON does not appear to teach that.Govind Das ji is correct.

"...interested to understand whether the Abrahamic deity discussed in this thread is a Para Devata (Paramatma) or a Anya Devata (Demi God)?..."We aren't discussing an Abrahamic deity. Your mind alone is stuck on this. Now, I can understand, you get hung up on term "avatar" thinking, we worship Jesus as Divine incarnation of Lord Krsna. Please, every living being is an "avatar" technically as it means only "incarnation." Srila Prabhupada nowhere EVER said, Jesus is God. Neither did Srila Prabhupada ever say, Jesus is Krsna. He said rather, in conformity with the teaching of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu:

"The Lord then pointed out that there is no limit to the saktyavesa-avataras and that they cannot be counted. However, some can be mentioned as examples. The saktyavesa incarnations are of two kinds--direct and indirect. When the Lord Himself comes, He is called saksat, or a direct saktyavesa-avatara, and when He empowers some living entity to represent Him that living entity is called an indirect or avesa incarnation."-Teachings of Lord Caitanya (http://vedabase.net/tlc/en1),Chapter 8: The AvatarasIt is our belief and part of the greatness of Sanathana Dharma that we understand the God is all-pervading even in Abrahamic countries as the jiv atmas from those countries also belong to the One Supreme Divine, Lord Krsna Bhagavan. And because we believe that the Lord Krsna is ever trying to reach conditioned souls who cry out in bewilderment and pain, Divine Lord tries to reach them, in a way they can understand. Sending empowered jivas (saints) is NOT the same as a Divine incarnation, and CERTAINLY not the same as a PURNA avatar. There is no shastric evidence to show any DIVINE Incarnation of MahaVishnu Tattva ever incarnates outside of Bharatvarsh. Please understand properly what is being said.

It has to be considered, are the MODERN teachings of Jesus the same as the original? You see, many are condemning based on interpretations altered over the course of 2,500 years. And this isn't speculation because there is archaeological evidence.

Simplest example: There was another Jesus, known as Mani who actually did come to India, and moved to the Himalayas, traveled throughout Tibet and China and was regarded as a Buddha (awakened one) and whose Philosophy survives to this day as the Pure Land sect of Chinese Buddhism. Dalai Lama acknowledges his scriptures are preserved in Tibetan Buddhist monasteries. His grave is located in Kashmir.

"Buddha Mani has proclaimed the truth; let this truth dwell in your hearts. Extinguish in yourselves every desire that antagonizes the Buddha, and in the perfection of your spiritual growth you will become like unto him. That of your heart which cannot or will not develop into Buddha must perish, for it is mere illusion and unreal; it is the source of your error; it is the cause of your misery; it is attachment to darkness and matter. You attain to immortality by filling your minds with truth and light. Therefore, become like unto vessels fit to receive the Master’s words. Cleanse yourselves of evil and sanctify your lives. There is no other way of reaching truth.

The truth is universal and leads to justice and righteousness. Matter is not the eternal, the everlasting, the imperishable. Seek not the darkness, but seek the Light. If we liberate even a small amount of the Light within our souls from matter, wish no ill to others, and become clear as a crystal diamond reflecting the light of truth, what a radiant picture will appear in us mirroring things as they are, without the admixture of burning desires, without the distortion of erroneous illusion..." http://manichaean.wordpress.com/tag/manichean/
Of course it's not Vedic Sanathana Dharma, but in some ways seems coming from that, derivative. THEY are derivative, not WE are derivative. Where would an ordinary Abrahamic EVER have this level of knowledge without being specially born with it? I think we don't modernly understand the ancient world teachings, what has been erased, altered, denied, and even murdered to suppress. Teachings of Manichean Gnosticism are about acquiring punya by good deeds to cleanse the evil inclinations in the heart so as to reincarnate into favorable opportunities to acquire birth in the World of Light. It's my belief those are the original teachings of Jesus who was born into an Abrahamic country and murdered... whose followers who kept those teachings were driven off,,, towards India, Tibet and ancient China where they were sheltered or those teachings would not have survived the suppression. But suffice to say, whatever is in mode of goodness, that originates with Lord Krsna. In my investigations on the subject, can't help but stand in awe at the wisdom of His Holiness Srila Prabhupada against convention to speak the truth.

-please forgive my mistakes

Sukhāvatī And The Light-World: Pure Land Elements In The Chinese Manichaean Eulogy Of The Light-World
http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/10.1163/ej.9789004172852.i-286.60

[Anirudh]

Namaste Devi Dasi

My opinion on Abrahamic religion is not going to change, considering what has been done to Bharat by the missionaries.
I have no qualms with your out burst.
I just said what i perceived based on what you said as " Iskcon founder's message"

More over i didn't post anything after that as the OP felt this is not the place to discuss that. Your comments were un called for. However your aggressive position wouldn't change my opinion.

[Avyaydya]

Srila Prabhupada nowhere EVER said, Jesus is God.
Namaste Devi Dasi,

Interesting you say that, I was recently viewing this video: Srila Prabhupada - Accepting Suffering as Enjoyment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JEObcqsHXl4#)
Maybe you care to comment on that


:[2:35] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JEObcqsHXl4#t=221)The material world means: The son, as soon as I must speak of the son there must be a father. As soon as I say friend there must be another man, friend. As soon as I say water, there must be something as water. But in the absolute world we name water and the water is the same. This called absolute. No different separation. So in the kingdom of God, God is God and his son is also God. So by chanting Hare Krishna You are directly in contact with God.
[15:46] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEObcqsHXl4#t=946)Disciple: Wat is our view of Lord Jesus Christ?
Prabhupada: Jesus Christ is son of God, the best son of God, we have all respect for him

[10:46] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEObcqsHXl4#t=645)In other forms of life (animals, plants, etc.) it is not possible to understand what is God. but for man this possible if he tries,if he reads the scripture never mind Bible, Bagvad gita, [Ba??] Then he understands God.

[Anirudh]

Thank you Avyaydya for sharing the video and giving the pointers

[Devi Dasi]

Hare Krsna,

May I ask why respected Anirudh ji is dismissing my reply as an "outburst?" This is, after all, a "discussion" forum. It is the ISKCON subforum as well, in which, one would expect that giving the ISKCON viewpoint and explanation is what is being "requested." And you did after all, make the unfortunate and ludicrous (meaning: "foolish, unreasonable, out of place") comparison with particularly anti-Hindu Islamic missionary, Zakir Naik from Peace TV with perhaps the foremost pro-Hindu missionary of modern times. Do you think it does not deserve a reply? My comments were by way of explanation to show that Srila Prabhupada did not, does not promote Jesus as a worshippable deity as the Christians do, but took examples of the better qualities of Jesus as a saint, "SON" of God, and how he spent his life trying to help suffering people to KNOW God, that this is a qualification as an empowered jiva, not an ordinary jiva.

I said you are using your personal loathing for Christian religion to prevent from understanding what good qualities exist in Jesus as a holy person which you admit by mentioning the harm done by Christian missionaries. Let me ask you by way of logic, is it possible that the ancient personality of Jesus has nothing to do with how ignorant and greedy people have understood and interpreted his teachings? Do you really think a peaceful man who was killed for going contrary to Abrahamic beliefs really wanted to lead wars as his followers did hundreds of years later?

It is with purpose of giving context to WHY Srila Prabhupada was sharing his belief that Jesus was Satyavesa avatar. This is not a direct avatar of Lord Krsna Bhagavan. It is jiva tattva. You don't believe? Fine. Why disrespect on ISKCON subforum by comparing with Zakir Naik who has spent his life converting Hindu's away from their religion into Abrahamic beliefs when Srila Prabhupada did the opposite? How is it that you label my position as aggressive when I have given citations to support the truth of it, and your comment is not the aggressive outburst? If you hate ISKCON and Srila Prabhupada so much, kindly refrain from spreading propaganda mischief about how ISKCON is invalid, ISKCON is Abrahamic, ISKCON founder is like Zakir Naik. At least, don't say anything inflammatory which requires a reply. Srila Prabhupada is our Guru-Acharya after all.


My opinion on Abrahamic religion is not going to change, considering what has been done to Bharat by the missionaries.
I have no qualms with your out burst.
I just said what i perceived based on what you said as " Iskcon founder's message"

More over i didn't post anything after that as the OP felt this is not the place to discuss that. Your comments were un called for. However your aggressive position wouldn't change my opinion.

[Devi Dasi]

Hare Krsna,


My comment: "We aren't discussing an Abrahamic deity. Your mind alone is stuck on this. Now, I can understand, you get hung up on term "avatar" thinking, we worship Jesus as Divine incarnation of Lord Krsna. Please, every living being is an "avatar" technically as it means only "incarnation." Srila Prabhupada nowhere EVER said, Jesus is God. Neither did Srila Prabhupada ever say, Jesus is Krsna."

Interesting you say that, I was recently viewing this video: Srila Prabhupada - Accepting Suffering as Enjoyment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JEObcqsHXl4#)
Maybe you care to comment on that

:[2:35] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JEObcqsHXl4#t=221)The material world means: The son, as soon as I must speak of the son there must be a father. As soon as I say friend there must be another man, friend. As soon as I say water, there must be something as water. But in the absolute world we name water and the water is the same. This called absolute. No different separation. So in the kingdom of God, God is God and his son is also God. So by chanting Hare Krishna You are directly in contact with God.Within context, Srila Prabhupada is speaking to people who are 100% raised in Abrahamic religions, and majority of whom are Christians. Therefore, as their Guru, Srila Prabhupada's message is given in specific context to them, that they might better understand that the entire purpose of Christian religion is that ultimately they will know the One Absolute Supreme, who is Bhagavan Krsna.

"The son, as soon as I must speak of the son there must be a father."

Srila Prabhupada is teaching them that Jesus is the son, a very special son because everyone is a "son of God, child of God." But Lord Krsna is the Father, the Adi Purusha. Did you hear somewhere in the tape Srila Prabhupada says Hare Jesus? NEVER! It is always praises of the Namas of Krsna Tattva. So it is erroneous and false propaganda to say otherwise.

"As soon as I say water, there must be something as water. But in the absolute world we name water and the water is the same. This called absolute. No different separation."

Srila Prabhupada seems to be discussing Philosophy here, and introducing Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy to Christians in a way comprehensible to them by using their belief in Jesus as a starting point which points to Lord Krsna. IN the Abrahamic religions, God is based on ancient Zoroastrian dualism dichotomies: good/evil, light/dark, male/female, god/devil. In such philosophies God is forever separate and unreachable to the devotees, who propitiate (gain the favor of) by offering sacrifices.

By way of teaching makes the remark about the absolute world, if we name an object, it has no distinction from that object. Most likely this is a reference to Krsna Nama Tattva, that qualities of Lord Krsna's name are non-different from Lord Krsna Himself. Whereas if I say "water, water, water." There is only the word "water" but the word is separate from the object. Created thing are known by their names, but their names are separate from the object such that if you try to taste sweetness from the word "sugar" you will get none. But to chant Krsna, you will receive prema rasa, according to your qualification and receptivity because the Name of Krsna is non-different from Krsna.

The purpose for introducing this Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy is because Christianity, being an Abrahamic based religion teaches the duality of forever opposites. But it is something that Jesus in contravention to Abrahamic religion went against, leading to the killing of Jesus because Jesus, who called himself "Son of God," and "prayed to God," also said, "I and my Father are One." Christians wrongly interpret this to mean, "Jesus is God." When in fact Jesus is jiva tattva and describing unitarian turiya consciousness where the Lover and the beloved are One.

"So in the kingdom of God, God is God and his son is also God. So by chanting Hare Krishna You are directly in contact with God."

Srila Prabhupada is introducing Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy to Christian audience by relating examples they can accept and understand from teachings and life of Jesus. In the material world there is duality and distinction, but unitarian consciousness you get direct contact with God... AND THIS IS ACHIEVED BY... chanting Hare Krsna. So who do you get by chanting Names of Krsna tattva? You get God, Krsna.



[15:46] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEObcqsHXl4#t=946)Disciple: Wat is our view of Lord Jesus Christ?
Prabhupada: Jesus Christ is son of God, the best son of God, we have all respect for him Son of God, means empowered jiva, not God directly, but part and parcel of God, a saint of God spreading message of God-consciousness. Sanathana Dharma is so noble it hasn't got any quarrel with any other belief system. There is no conflict with anything at all, because it has got the original apaurusheya Vedic knowledge. Everything else is derivative, and confused in some aspect or another. There is no teaching within ISKCON to "worship Jesus" like a God, only explaining the teachings of Christianity to Christians from Gaudiya Vaishnava perspective so they will have more correct understanding.

What is meant by "best son" is only he has lived up to the highest qualities of a saint, a devotee. Srila Prabhupada is clearly taking the Christian understanding of Jesus as a God, and putting it within the context of Jesus SON of God, SON of Krsna, and to have this kind of direct unitarian consciousness with God, Krsna, chant the Names of God, Hare Krsna.


[10:46] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEObcqsHXl4#t=645)In other forms of life (animals, plants, etc.) it is not possible to understand what is God. but for man this possible if he tries,if he reads the scripture never mind Bible, Bagvad gita, Then he understands God. It's a mystery that mankind has the capacity to "Know God" and throughout the world has religions and scriptures to teach an awareness of God? Is there somewhere saying forget Bhagavad-Gita read Bible as you are implying?

Srila Prabhupada is speaking directly to CHRISTIAN background devotees and teaching them religion is the highest, mankind has the capacity to understand God which is a quality animals don't have. Bhagavad-Gita doesn't teach other religions are false. Teaching another religion is false is an ABRAHAMIC teaching, not a Sanathana Dharma teaching. Bhagavad-Gita teaches even though another form of belief and worship may be wrong, or given to lower forms, demigods, ancestors, with good intention and sincerity, the worship comes to Krsna, the actual and ultimate Lord. Sanathana Dharma has no quarrel with other religions or religious scriptures. Many saints within Sanathana Dharma have said the exact same things. Only political persons want to make "us" against "them" in imitation of the most extremist and misguided Abrahamics. There is nowhere Srila Prabhupada says go read and study Bible! He is telling people from Bible backgrounds, look, your Bible, our Bible. We respect Jesus as saint, Son of God. Now chant Hare Krsna... and read my books (all English language translations of Shastras).

These things are so obvious it is none other than false propaganda and mischief to imply they are other than what they are or that Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON are syncretic mix with Abrahamic religion for having outreach to Christians and training them to be devotees of Lord Krsna.


"Christian, Muhammadan, Hindu-it doesn't matter. If he is simply speaking on behalf of God, he is a guru. Lord Jesus Christ, for instance. He canvassed people, saying, "Just try to love God." Anyone-it doesn't matter who-be he Hindu, Muslim, or Christian, is a guru if he convinces people to love God. That is the test.

The guru never says, "I am God," or "I will make you God." The real guru says, "I am a servant of God, and I will make you a servant of God also." It doesn't matter how the guru is dressed. As Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, "Whoever can impart knowledge about Krsna is a spiritual master." [B]A genuine spiritual master simply tries to get people to become devotees of Krsna, or God. He has no other business." -(Science of Self Realization Chapter 2: Choosing a Spiritual Master)

"Just like Lord Jesus Christ. He was so badly treated and still he was thinking, "Father, they do not know what they are doing. Please excuse." This is suhrdah. He is praying to God This is sadhu, mahatma. Suhrdah prasanta. Not that... In India there are examples like Haridasa Thakura, Prahlada Maharaja. And the Western countries also, Lord Jesus Christ, he is saktyavesa-avatara, God's son. And he tolerated so much. These are the examples of mahatma. Don't misunderstand that we are preaching that mahatmas are only in India. No. By the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead there are mahatmas even amongst the birds, even amongst the beasts, even amongst the lower than animals. Because this Krsna consciousness movement is going on in different places, in different circumstances." -(Srimad Bhagavatam 5.5.3 --vrndavana Oct 25, 1976) And "Lord" Jesus Christ in this context is not Bhagavan, but honorific as in Sri and ji, just as Lord also applies to rulers, or from the medieval English, Masters, as in this context Jesus as a spiritual master, a guru to the Abrahamics and devotee of God, Krsna. Srila Prabhupada is always very clear on that point. How you people miss the most amazing thing that here is 70's-80 year old elder whose disciples often finished his sentences because he grew tired, yet managed with beyond human endurance to translate so many great spiritual works and disseminate them worldwide and create a movement of Vaishnavas fully accepted within the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya.

If Srila Prabhupada thought Christianity is the highest, why didn't he spend life preaching that instead? His whole life and movement said to Christian people, this is good, but Gaudiya Vaishnavism is higher still, become Vaishnav.

-please forgive my mistakes

[Avyaydya]

Hare Krsna,
Within context, Srila Prabhupada is speaking to people who are 100% raised in Abrahamic religions, and majority of whom are Christians. Therefore, as their Guru, Srila Prabhupada's message is given in specific context to them, that they might better understand that the entire purpose of Christian religion is that ultimately they will know the One Absolute Supreme, who is Bhagavan Krsna.
...
Srila Prabhupada is teaching them that Jesus is the son, a very special son because everyone is a "son of God, child of God." But Lord Krsna is the Father, the Adi Purusha. Did you hear somewhere in the tape Srila Prabhupada says Hare Jesus? NEVER! It is always praises of the Namas of Krsna Tattva. So it is erroneous and false propaganda to say otherwise.
...
Srila Prabhupada seems to be discussing Philosophy here, and introducing Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy to Christians in a way comprehensible to them by using their belief in Jesus as a starting point which points to Lord Krsna. I
...
Srila Prabhupada is introducing Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy to Christian audience by relating examples they can accept and understand from teachings and life of Jesus.
...
There is no teaching within ISKCON to "worship Jesus" like a God, only explaining the teachings of Christianity to Christians from Gaudiya Vaishnava perspective so they will have more correct understanding.
...
Srila Prabhupada is clearly taking the Christian understanding of Jesus as a God, and putting it within the context of Jesus SON of God, SON of Krsna, and to have this kind of direct unitarian consciousness with God, Krsna, chant the Names of God, Hare Krsna.
...
Srila Prabhupada is speaking directly to CHRISTIAN background devotees and teaching them religion is the highest, mankind has the capacity to understand God which is a quality animals don't have. Bhagavad-Gita doesn't teach other religions are false. Teaching another religion is false is an ABRAHAMIC teaching, not a Sanathana Dharma teaching. Bhagavad-Gita teaches even though another form of belief and worship may be wrong, or given to lower forms, demigods, ancestors, with good intention and sincerity, the worship comes to Krsna, the actual and ultimate Lord. Sanathana Dharma has no quarrel with other religions or religious scriptures. Many saints within Sanathana Dharma have said the exact same things. Only political persons want to make "us" against "them" in imitation of the most extremist and misguided Abrahamics. There is nowhere Srila Prabhupada says go read and study Bible! He is telling people from Bible backgrounds, look, your Bible, our Bible. We respect Jesus as saint, Son of God. Now chant Hare Krsna... and read my books (all English language translations of Shastras).
...
If Srila Prabhupada thought Christianity is the highest, why didn't he spend life preaching that instead? His whole life and movement said to Christian people, this is good, but Gaudiya Vaishnavism is higher still, become Vaishnav.
Namaste Devi Dasi,

Thank you for this explanation. By the way I did not imply anything, I refrained from making any comment. As a polytheist I do not believe in or hold on to absolute truths. It is a pluralistic thinking in which different views are just that: different views on reality. I accept that a Belief in a supreme God creates its own unique viewpoints.

That is the difference with monotheism who sees its view as supreme as its God. Monotheism is based on acceptance of a view called belief. For me all views are true from a personal perspective and false from an absolute perspective. So my only interest is in collecting and understanding views.

I think that is the Vedic perspective too, that is why it is called: Sanatan DHARM and not Sanatan Jnaan. The Richis believed in Man constantly renewing himself, like Cosmic Man Purusha is constantly renewing himself through sacrifice. That is why Sanatan Dharm constantly renews itself through gurus developing new paths. But if one of these paths becomes absolute and dominant, that is the end of Sanatan Dharm. That is why proselyting is against Sanatan Dharm. It is a danger to diversity. So when I read Hinduism is monotheism on this forum, I am deeply saddened about the loss of Vedic ideals.

If you feel I have reservations about Ishkon as a movement, understand that those can only be based on Dharm, not on Jnaan. I really do not mind whether Ishkon is syncretic or not. If Christianity would follow Dharm, I would consider them Sanatan Dharm too. For in my view Sanatan Dharm does not prescribe what to believe, only how to act (follow Dharm).

I selected some of your comments. You write that Bhagavad-Gita does not teach that other religions are false, though their ideas may be wrong and inferior. This sounds condescending and the difference seems trivial to me personally. At the same time Srila Prabhupada is so busy trying to convince Christians of Krishna worship that it seems proselyting to me.

If you would be so kind would you care to explain: Does Hare Krishna see this as proselyting? And what is its position on proselyting?

[Devi Dasi]

Hare Krsna,

Sorry have not answered sooner. Let's take a look at what respected Avyaydya ji has written:

As a polytheist I do not believe in or hold on to absolute truths.You are ascribing philosophical nuances which are peculiarly your own concept of polytheism, for polytheism in general definition does not imply disavowal of absolute concepts. For one thing, Vedas as described as apaurushya because the sages in higher states of consciousness perceived God as sound vibration Shabda Brahman implies a source which is "absolute." Concepts of an Absolute Divinity permeate Upanishads and Puranas. If you want to disavow all the scriptures within Sanathana Dharma you can, but it wouldn't be intellectually honest.
yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante
"The entire material cosmic manifestation is born of the Supreme Brahman."
-Taittirīya Upaniṣad 3.1
It is a pluralistic thinking in which different views are just that: different views on reality. I accept that a Belief in a supreme God creates its own unique viewpoints. That is the difference with monotheism who sees its view as supreme as its God.I'm unaware of any philosophical school in history, with the exception of modern New Age movement, which holds pluralistic views on reality. This is tantamount to saying, every view is correct even in contradiction. Moreover, I don't see the pluralistic paradigm as being the same as "polytheism." It's simply an unsupported inference... "Polytheism means... all these views... which amounts to virtually every view with the exception of any one dominant view." It's just an opinion with label of "polytheism" on it. Polytheism simply means a pantheon of separate gods who are often in competition or condition of jealously. The power of the Vedic conception of multiple lights (devatay) is the underlying "unity."

Monotheism is based on acceptance of a view called belief. Are you really insinuating that "belief" has no basis in the polytheistic conception? Again, just opinion latched onto a concept of polytheism. Polytheism is not a specific philosophical school, it's a generic term describing multiplicity and doesn't even disavow potential of a unitarian principle. Neither is polytheism the obverse of monotheism. All "religions" throughout the ages whether monotheistic or polytheistic have a basis in "beliefs."

For me all views are true from a personal perspective and false from an absolute perspective.If you do not believe in or hold absolute truths, then are you denying the Divine origin of the Vedas? Because Sanathana Dharma is very much a religion with absolute truths, not least of which is belief that Vedas are originating as Sruti of the Divine in Sound Swaroop. For this reason Vedas and Upanishads are an absolute source.

Why do you insist on pigeon-holing beliefs into such extremely narrow categories like polytheist, and implying some superior philosophical properties to that, and then monotheist and implying foreign Abrahamic religion to that? Sanathana Dharma includes scriptural legacy of interpretive work by the sages which includes a form of monotheism. There is nothing foreign or falsely interpolated about it.

Savo deve eko Narayana na dwitiyacha kaschit
"There is only one God, Narayana and no second"-Yajur Veda

etAvAn asya mahima | ato jyAyAGSca pUrusha: |
pAdo 'sya vishvA bhUtAni | tripAdasyAmRtam divi || 3 ||
(etAvAn) All that is here seen (asya) is his (mahima)
greatness. (ata: ) And then, beyond all this (purusha: ca)
is that Purusha (jyAyAn) great. (vishvA bhUtani) All
that was created in this world (pAdo) is but one part
(asya) of him. (tripAd) The other three parts are (divi)
in heaven, (amRtam) where they are eternal.
-Purusha Sukta, verse 3


I think that is the Vedic perspective too, that is why it is called: Sanatan DHARM and not Sanatan Jnaan. You really think you personally speak for the authorized interpretations of the Vedas and this gives you the right to invalidate Vaishnava Siddhanta? On what qualification do you make such claim? May I ask who is your Guru?

The Richis believed in Man constantly renewing himself, like Cosmic Man Purusha is constantly renewing himself through sacrifice. That is why Sanatan Dharm constantly renews itself through gurus developing new paths. Do you really believe any guru can come and invent some new "truths" without establishing his teaching on what is apaurusheya? Where are the various "paths" even going? What is there purpose? Or do we simply invent a purpose for the path to suit our new fandangled conceptions? In actuality, the principles of religious practice change with the Yuga Dharma as the mentality of humanity changes in different ages. In the primary age, Satyuga, the Dharma Bull stands on all 4 legs. In each succeeding yuga, it loses one of it's legs until finally in Kali Yuga, there is only one leg left standing, and all mankind have become shudras (lost principles of religion).
arjuna uvāca
yo 'yaḿ yogas tvayā proktaḥ
sāmyena madhusūdana
etasyāhaḿ na paśyāmi
cañcalatvāt sthitiḿ sthirām
Arjuna said: O Madhusūdana, the system of yoga which You have summarized appears impractical and unendurable to me, for the mind is restless and unsteady.
-Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 6.33

The path of spiritual practice in Satyuga and Tretayuga becomes increasingly difficult even during the Dwaparayuga, as stated here by Arjuna and next to impossible in Kaliyuga.
tapah saucam daya satyam
iti padah krte krtah
adharmamsais trayo bhagnah
smaya-sanga-madais tava
In the age of Satya [truthfulness] your four legs were established by the four principles of austerity, cleanliness, mercy and truthfulness. But it appears that three of your legs are broken due to rampant irreligion in the form of pride, lust for women, and intoxication.
-Srimad Bhagavatam 1.17.24

[Devi Dasi]

Hare Krsna,

To continue extended reply to respected forum member Avyaydya ji's line of questioning:

But if one of these paths becomes absolute and dominant, that is the end of Sanatan Dharm.Sanathan Dharma means the eternal righteousness. It's quite impossible logically for concept such as san'Atan to be removed from it's root "anadi" which means "without beginning" and "anantha" which means "without end... to have an end. So this is a concocted "danger."

That is why proselyting is against Sanatan Dharm. It is a danger to diversity.All philosophical schools since the dawn of time within Sanathana Dharma have promoted their views and held public debates, etc. But most importantly you see school like that of Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu being a recent phenomenon coinciding with Mughal invasion.

caturtha ślokera artha ei kaila sāra
prema-nāma pracārite ei avatāra
I have given the essential meaning of the fourth verse: this incarnation [Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu] descends to propagate the chanting of the holy name and spread love of God.
-Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Ādi 4.5
These other proselytizing faiths are going full steam, and you are standing still. Do you think standing still will protect India from invasive ideologies? If you have a truth but do not speak it, how is that truth able to impact the world? Without a great personality like the preaching sannyasi Mahaprabhu Chaitanya and His popular movement with reincorporated forcibly converted Hindu's, and also converted the key proselytizers into bhaktas... that there would have remained a "Hindu" Bengal? Does it occur to you that the Yuga Dharma for this age of Kaliyuga is so easy as chanting for a purpose illustrated within Smriti tradition precisely because this entire world has to begin the process which ultimately will restore the Satyuga. Therefore "ignoring" or "not bothering" about invasive, aggressive ideologies affords no protection at all but simply assures destruction and loss of the Vedic conception of life? Because what comes after an incarnation like Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, is Shri Kalki Bhagavan. But there can still be a golden hour in the midst of Kaliyuga. For this the Puranas proclaim that incarnation in the Kali Age is desirable because the Yuga Dharma is so much simpler. Else, for what purpose do the incarnations of Vishnu Tattva enter into the world except to turn mankind away from the downward spiral of degeneration and materialism?

So when I read Hinduism is monotheism on this forum, I am deeply saddened about the loss of Vedic ideals. What Vedic ideals are lost by Vaishnava sampradaya? No! Rather a preservation of Vedic ideals, Sanskruti, and pride of place within Vedic Sanathana Dharma. The real loss of Vedic ideals is some kind of fandangled new age do-it-yourself religious philosophy which bears no association with the ancient teachings within the shastras, as in some persons who say the scriptures are all man-made, made-up and to be dispensed with by elevating own personal opinions in place of teachings of our holy sages.
dharmaṁ mahā-puruṣa pāsi yugānuvṛttaṁ
dharmam — the principles of religion; mahā (http://vedabase.com/en/synonyms-index?original=maha)-puruṣa (http://vedabase.com/en/synonyms-index?original=purusa) — O great personality; pāsi (http://vedabase.com/en/synonyms-index?original=pasi) — You protect; yuga (http://vedabase.com/en/synonyms-index?original=yuga)-anuvṛttam (http://vedabase.com/en/synonyms-index?original=anuvrttam) — according to the different millenniums
-Srimad Bhagavatam 7.9.38

If you feel I have reservations about Ishkon as a movement, understand that those can only be based on Dharm, not on Jnaan. I really do not mind whether Ishkon is syncretic or not. If Christianity would follow Dharm, I would consider them Sanatan Dharm too. ISKCON isn't syncretic at all and doesn't teach anything "Christian." Everything which is taught comes from Shastras. When ISKCON's founder Guru Acharya spoke to Christians by way of explanation, to make concepts understandable would explain by analogy, this thing is like that thing. Show me one official ISKCON temple which chants Hare Jesus? Of course there have been innovators, but those who dared where always thrown out as they do not represent the teachings and ideals of the founder, a born brahmin Vaishnav priest. People from Christian upbringing often have the same mentality as that is their understanding. But their idiosyncratic beliefs are not the equivalent of ISKCON spiritual institute teaching. Why else would His Holiness Srila Prabhupada translate some 60-70 works, including shastras into English language if only to teach Christianity? Why would He train Sanskrit scholars and priests with Vaishnav pancha samskara with fire yagna, give brahmana thread and gopala mantra and teach them to live the brahmin ideal?


For in my view Sanatan Dharm does not prescribe what to believe, only how to act (follow Dharm). That is your personal view, a path of non-belief. What school is this? Who is your Guru?
Verily that which is Dharma is truth.
Therefore they say of a man who speaks truth,
"He speaks the Dharma,"
Or of a man who speaks the Dharma,
"He speaks the truth."
Verily both these things are the same.
-Brhad Aranyaka Upanishad 1.4.14


sad eva, saumya, idam agra AsId ekam evAdvitIyam,
taddhaika AhuH, asad evedam agra AsId ekam evAdvitIyam,
tasmAd asataH sat jAyata 6.2.1
In the beginning, dear boy, there was existence alone,
one only without a second. Some people say that, in the
beginning, there was non-existence alone, one only without
a second. From that non-existence arose whatever exists.
-Chandogya UpaniShad, chapter 6
I selected some of your comments. You write that Bhagavad-Gita does not teach that other religions are false, though their ideas may be wrong and inferior. This sounds condescending and the difference seems trivial to me personally. You are referring to Krsna uvacha:
ye 'py anya-devatā-bhaktā
yajante śraddhayānvitāḥ
te 'pi mām eva kaunteya
yajanty avidhi-pūrvakam
Those who are devotees of other gods and who worship them with faith actually worship only Me, O son of Kuntī, but they do so in a wrong way.
-Bhagavad-gītā As It Is (http://vedabase.net/bg/en) 9.23


Vaishnava siddhanta is notoriously not "politically correct" as far as trying not to be condescending to a wrong teaching. Did you not say: "The Richis believed in Man constantly renewing himself, like Cosmic Man Purusha is constantly renewing himself..." And if definition of Dharma, per Brhad Aranyaka Upanishad is equivalent to "Truth" then why is it condescending to say mankind moves from untruth to Truth as his capacity to grasp truth improves through spiritual purification? Is it not the same as saying:
ॐ असतो मा सद्गमय ।
तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय ।
मृत्योर्मा अमृतं गमय ।
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥
Om Asato Maa Sad-Gamaya |
Tamaso Maa Jyotir-Gamaya |
Mrtyor-Maa Amrtam Gamaya |
Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||
Lead me from the unreal to the real.
Lead me from darkness to light.
Lead me from death to immortality.
May there be peace everywhere.
-Source, Rg Veda

At the same time Srila Prabhupada is so busy trying to convince Christians of Krishna worship that it seems proselyting to me. If you would be so kind would you care to explain: Does Hare Krishna see this as proselyting? And what is its position on proselyting?Since you have concocted own concept that proselytizing is Adharmic despite context of incarnation Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu clearly coinciding with Mughal invasions and forced conversions and countering quite effectively the same... and since you have concocted that Krsna worship is Adharmic since it posits a "a Belief in a supreme God," "That is why proselyting is against Sanatan Dharm. It is a danger to diversity." When in actuality it is the "diversity" of foreign aggressive faiths which are the danger, and the self-respecting solution is to meet the danger head-on directly, rather than passively waiting for the inevitable loss. And since Vaishnavism positing Vishnu Tattva as Supreme, and Shaivism positing Shiva Tattva as Supreme, and Shaktism positing MahaMaya Tattva as Supreme have not since ages managed to "destroy" Sanathana Dharma diversity... accuse your debate as being facetitious and without merit. All you are doing is creating unnecessary divisions and hostility WITHIN Sanathana Dharma. And self-division is a failure strategy. Better to promote unity.

[Viraja]

.. and since you have concocted that Krsna worship is Adharmic since it posits a "a Belief in a supreme God," "That is why proselyting is against Sanatan Dharm. It is a danger to diversity."

Excellent, Devi Dasi ji!

While Abrahamic religions say non-believers of their faith 'will go to hell', Vaishnavam says, 'Believers of this faith will go to moksha'! :) I think this is the true difference!

Wonderful explanations given by you.

Pranam.

[hinduism♥krishna]

For in my view Sanatan Dharm does not prescribe what to believe, only how to act (follow Dharm).

Pranam.

Exactly ! Sanatana Hindu Dharma gives full freedom to choose any vaidic path . It is not limited to certain believes . It is a vast knowledge having no end .

But Iskconites preach that worship of vishnu is the sanatana Dharma . I read this on Iskcon's Site. Praphupada said " Other branches are dried up branches of Sanatana Hindu dharma . "

http://www.culteducation.com/reference/krishna/krishna8.html

But other Vaishnawas don't agree on this.

But In fact , sanatana Dharma includes everything in realtion with Veda .. from worship of devatas to worship of atma/paramatma.


And another thing . Sanatana Dharma is not eternal . It is called as Sanatana , because it gives us eternality , it gives us sanatana existence . So the name - Sanatana Dharma .

Dharma is never eternal . ( It is eternal as long as Atma sees himself a Jiva ) In uddhava gita ,shri krishna says that knowledge along with bhakti merges in him . There remains only totality of ParaBramhan after getting Moksha .If one crosses river , there is no any need of Boat . No veda , No bhakti , No meditation , No dharma . Only ParaBramha ! Atma remains in his original state , non-dual state .

" Atmasya Upama Atma eva "

Hari Krishna ....

[Devi Dasi]

Pranam.

Exactly ! Sanatana Hindu Dharma gives full freedom to choose any vaidic path . It is not limited to certain believes . It is a vast knowledge having no end .

But some modern dvaitians like Iskconites preach that worship of vishnu is the sanatana Dharma . Other branches are dried up branches of Sanatana Hindu dharma . I think Prabhupada said like this and I don't take him seriously . I don't know about others.

But Everyone know It was just a tactic used by Prabhupada to attract people . In fact , sanatana Dharma includes everything in realtion with Veda .. from worship of devatas to worship of atma/paramatma.


And another thing . Sanatana Dharma is not eternal . It is called as Sanatana , because it gives us eternality , it gives us sanatana existence . So the name - Sanatana Dharma .

Dharma is never eternal . ( It is eternal as long as Atma sees himself a Jiva ) In uddhava gita ,shri krishna says that knowledge along with bhakti merges in him . There remains only totality of ParaBramhan after getting Moksha .If one crosses river , there is no any need of Boat . No veda , No bhakti , No meditation , No dharma . Only ParaBramha ! Atma remains in his original state , non-dual state .

" Atmasya Upama Atma eva "

Hari Krishna ....
My report of this post sent to forum moderators: May I kindly request of moderators to prevent ISKCON abusers and haters from spreading hate propaganda over every single ISKCON thread in ISKCON subforum? First, this fellow attacks me for being shudra mleccha, and no sooner is he back then accusing my sampraday of being adharmic. Please, this has got to stop. I kindly request you.

[devotee]

Welcome back, HLK !

OM

[Avyaydya]

Hare Krsna,

To continue extended reply to respected forum member Avyaydya ji's line of questioning:
Sanathan Dharma means the eternal righteousness. It's quite impossible logically for concept such as san'Atan to be removed from it's root "anadi" which means "without beginning" and "anantha" which means "without end... to have an end. So this is a concocted "danger."
All philosophical schools since the dawn of time within Sanathana Dharma have promoted their views and held public debates, etc. But most importantly you see school like that of Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu being a recent phenomenon coinciding with Mughal invasion.

caturtha ślokera artha ei kaila sāra
prema-nāma pracārite ei avatāra
I have given the essential meaning of the fourth verse: this incarnation [Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu] descends to propagate the chanting of the holy name and spread love of God.
-Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Ādi 4.5
These other proselytizing faiths are going full steam, and you are standing still. Do you think standing still will protect India from invasive ideologies? If you have a truth but do not speak it, how is that truth able to impact the world? Without a great personality like the preaching sannyasi Mahaprabhu Chaitanya and His popular movement with reincorporated forcibly converted Hindu's, and also converted the key proselytizers into bhaktas... that there would have remained a "Hindu" Bengal? Does it occur to you that the Yuga Dharma for this age of Kaliyuga is so easy as chanting for a purpose illustrated within Smriti tradition precisely because this entire world has to begin the process which ultimately will restore the Satyuga. Therefore "ignoring" or "not bothering" about invasive, aggressive ideologies affords no protection at all but simply assures destruction and loss of the Vedic conception of life? Because what comes after an incarnation like Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, is Shri Kalki Bhagavan. But there can still be a golden hour in the midst of Kaliyuga. For this the Puranas proclaim that incarnation in the Kali Age is desirable because the Yuga Dharma is so much simpler. Else, for what purpose do the incarnations of Vishnu Tattva enter into the world except to turn mankind away from the downward spiral of degeneration and materialism?
What Vedic ideals are lost by Vaishnava sampradaya? No! Rather a preservation of Vedic ideals, Sanskruti, and pride of place within Vedic Sanathana Dharma. The real loss of Vedic ideals is some kind of fandangled new age do-it-yourself religious philosophy which bears no association with the ancient teachings within the shastras, as in some persons who say the scriptures are all man-made, made-up and to be dispensed with by elevating own personal opinions in place of teachings of our holy sages.
dharmaṁ mahā-puruṣa pāsi yugānuvṛttaṁ
dharmam — the principles of religion; mahā (http://vedabase.com/en/synonyms-index?original=maha)-puruṣa (http://vedabase.com/en/synonyms-index?original=purusa) — O great personality; pāsi (http://vedabase.com/en/synonyms-index?original=pasi) — You protect; yuga (http://vedabase.com/en/synonyms-index?original=yuga)-anuvṛttam (http://vedabase.com/en/synonyms-index?original=anuvrttam) — according to the different millenniums
-Srimad Bhagavatam 7.9.38
ISKCON isn't syncretic at all and doesn't teach anything "Christian." Everything which is taught comes from Shastras. When ISKCON's founder Guru Acharya spoke to Christians by way of explanation, to make concepts understandable would explain by analogy, this thing is like that thing. Show me one official ISKCON temple which chants Hare Jesus? Of course there have been innovators, but those who dared where always thrown out as they do not represent the teachings and ideals of the founder, a born brahmin Vaishnav priest. People from Christian upbringing often have the same mentality as that is their understanding. But their idiosyncratic beliefs are not the equivalent of ISKCON spiritual institute teaching. Why else would His Holiness Srila Prabhupada translate some 60-70 works, including shastras into English language if only to teach Christianity? Why would He train Sanskrit scholars and priests with Vaishnav pancha samskara with fire yagna, give brahmana thread and gopala mantra and teach them to live the brahmin ideal?

That is your personal view, a path of non-belief. What school is this? Who is your Guru?
Verily that which is Dharma is truth.
Therefore they say of a man who speaks truth,
"He speaks the Dharma,"
Or of a man who speaks the Dharma,
"He speaks the truth."
Verily both these things are the same.
-Brhad Aranyaka Upanishad 1.4.14


sad eva, saumya, idam agra AsId ekam evAdvitIyam,
taddhaika AhuH, asad evedam agra AsId ekam evAdvitIyam,
tasmAd asataH sat jAyata 6.2.1
In the beginning, dear boy, there was existence alone,
one only without a second. Some people say that, in the
beginning, there was non-existence alone, one only without
a second. From that non-existence arose whatever exists.
-Chandogya UpaniShad, chapter 6You are referring to Krsna uvacha:
ye 'py anya-devatā-bhaktā
yajante śraddhayānvitāḥ
te 'pi mām eva kaunteya
yajanty avidhi-pūrvakam
Those who are devotees of other gods and who worship them with faith actually worship only Me, O son of Kuntī, but they do so in a wrong way.
-Bhagavad-gītā As It Is (http://vedabase.net/bg/en) 9.23


Vaishnava siddhanta is notoriously not "politically correct" as far as trying not to be condescending to a wrong teaching. Did you not say: "The Richis believed in Man constantly renewing himself, like Cosmic Man Purusha is constantly renewing himself..." And if definition of Dharma, per Brhad Aranyaka Upanishad is equivalent to "Truth" then why is it condescending to say mankind moves from untruth to Truth as his capacity to grasp truth improves through spiritual purification? Is it not the same as saying:
ॐ असतो मा सद्गमय ।
तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय ।
मृत्योर्मा अमृतं गमय ।
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥
Om Asato Maa Sad-Gamaya |
Tamaso Maa Jyotir-Gamaya |
Mrtyor-Maa Amrtam Gamaya |
Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||
Lead me from the unreal to the real.
Lead me from darkness to light.
Lead me from death to immortality.
May there be peace everywhere.
-Source, Rg Veda
Since you have concocted own concept that proselytizing is Adharmic despite context of incarnation Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu clearly coinciding with Mughal invasions and forced conversions and countering quite effectively the same... and since you have concocted that Krsna worship is Adharmic since it posits a "a Belief in a supreme God," "That is why proselyting is against Sanatan Dharm. It is a danger to diversity." When in actuality it is the "diversity" of foreign aggressive faiths which are the danger, and the self-respecting solution is to meet the danger head-on directly, rather than passively waiting for the inevitable loss. And since Vaishnavism positing Vishnu Tattva as Supreme, and Shaivism positing Shiva Tattva as Supreme, and Shaktism positing MahaMaya Tattva as Supreme have not since ages managed to "destroy" Sanathana Dharma diversity... accuse your debate as being facetitious and without merit. All you are doing is creating unnecessary divisions and hostility WITHIN Sanathana Dharma. And self-division is a failure strategy. Better to promote unity.

Namaste Devi Dasi,

I only wrote the part leading up to the question so you should understand the position from which I was reasoning, not in any way as an attack to your ideas or that of Ishkon. As I wrote, I accept any viewpoint as a true viewpoint. I am not in your shoes and you are not in mine, so we see things differently.

Yes we think differently, but that is no reason to find an attack in every word I write. By the way that is something I see often in monotheist cults, this feeling of being under attack. My explanation is that they try so hard to convince others, that they meet a lot of rejection and start to believe the world is against them. The simple truth is that people cherish their own beliefs and convictions and traditions. If you feel so threatened by other ideas, imagine how people feel about people trying to convert their loved ones from their own traditions. They feel fear as well and fear is the birth-ground of hate. Converting is taking something precious from people, of course that causes negative reactions. Action = Reaction, that is Karma. Don't you believe in Karma? Don't you believe that what we undergo is self-provoked? Are these negative reactions not a sign we are acting wrongly? How do you look at that?

It is a pity you did not really answer my questions. I simply asked how Ishkon regards proselyting. You make all kind of comparisons with other beliefs, like Christianity, you find them awful, but did you ever try to see it their way?

Let me tell you how an honest convinced Christian would react if you accuse him from proselyting. He would say: I never converted anyone in my life. It is my God that converts people, he opens their heart to the true faith. I am a mere servant, I do not have the power to that. If you would say, yes but you used bribes, threats, blackmail, lies. He will say, yes God works in mysterious ways, there is no way we can understand him. But I do not convert anyone. It is God that is the doer, we are merrily his hands. And seriously that is what they believe, because that is what they learn. And isn't that idea not very similar? God being the real doer?

That is my personal objection to belief-based systems of religions, your are made a servant. If God becomes the real doer, than servants can become pretty ruthless. Following Gods words as explained by gurus, there is little room for personal ethical decision making. Everything is spelled out for you in books and by Guru's. But that is personal, I am an individualist at heart. Polytheism creates true individuals, not servants to a God. It sees Man equal to the Gods, all expressions of Brahman. Polytheism never developed one overriding theology, it is by its very Nature individualistic, but that does not mean it did not gave rise to superb minds. It does however not create unifying books for the masses to learn by heart and follow. It does not create mass movements of followers. That is what monotheism is famous for. And monotheistic movements grow through proselyting.

As I see it, trying to take away peoples convictions and traditions is a form of theft. Now I gather from your words (correct me if I am wrong) that you find Christian proselyting wrong, but Ishkon proselyting okay. But to me that is like saying: I am not against proselyting as long as we do it and not them. But then one can equally say: I am not against stealing as long as we do it and not others. I am not against murdering but only if we do it and not others.

Can you explain the justification for proselyting, I do not read this in the Gita. Krishna says to Arjuna that he should keep the knowledge a secret, only for one in many thousands in many thousands, so only one in many millions. Is Krishna putting people up to proselyte? What is Ishkon's view on this?

[Devi Dasi]

Hare Krsna,


I only wrote the part leading up to the question so you should understand the position from which I was reasoning, not in any way as an attack to your ideas or that of Ishkon.I don't recall any post of yours being neutral towards ISKCON, rather several equating Vaishnav monotheism as an Abrahamic syncretism, using anaolgy of pedophiles in describing Vaishnavas, and claiming the Hindu scriptures are all man-made devices. I don't see how any of your postings can be construed as anything but a negation and attack.
As I wrote, I accept any viewpoint as a true viewpoint. I consider this statement intellectually dishonest. Did you not in this very thread denounce ISKCON as adharmic, a threat to the continued existence of Sanathana Dharma, and for whose existence you were "saddened at the loss of Vedic ideals?" Moreover, you attack ISKCON as an Abrahamic syncretism and claim you reject ISKCON since Christianity is not a Dharmic religion... but now claim you accept all viewpoints, even contradictory viewpoints as true... but really, you don't.

Let's be rationale, how can comments such as these be considered "not" an attack or undermining? What is your purpose then for posting on ISKCON subforum then since you clearly have no respect or interest in ISKCON teaching? It's only to trash the sampraday, no other purpoise in this endless line of objection.

Yes we think differently, but that is no reason to find an attack in every word I write. But you really are attacking, let's at least be honest. Did you not write this?

What it comes down to is that Vaishnavas have learned to quote exactly those few lines in a million or so that support their view and present that as ultimate proof, leaving out all that speaks against it. That kind of filtering creating half truths is simply deceit. Nothing new, I see Abrahamist proselyters do that all the time too. They are trained to use that as argument to fool innocent new believers. That is why they like to control forums, because new believers come there.

There is no bigger liar than the written word. In fact the great fraud began the moment people started to write down texts. Then people could not resist the temptation to temper with the texts to make clearer what that saw as the correct interpretation. You will be amazed how popular this game is. When you discuss with pedophiles they are able to flood you with research papers that find that pedophilia is harmless. How come? There are lots of researchers, psychiatrist, child psychologists that are secretly pedophiles and create such papers. And they deeply believe in their own creations.

Only the Vedas are authoritative as they are not written to sell us an ideology/theology, they are above this kind of brainwash. #94 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=112558&postcount=94)Between you and "Hinduism Heart Krsna" I have not even heard a tolerant, respectable or friendly word in regards to ISKCON, not even once. So why are you both on ISKCON subforum if not to trash this sampradaya which you both despise? Is there really anything further to discuss? All I can do is offer explanations or clarifications from ISKCON teachings and my own perspective. If you want to degrade and continue to ostracize ISKCON as something vile, I can go no further. What's the point? Just avoid this subforum, and avoid disagreements. Why disrespect the teachings of this sampraday? Does it gain you some kind of punya?

By the way that is something I see often in monotheist cults,this feeling of being under attack. You are accusing us of being a "cult" but it's not an attack? And then playing mind games to accuse of being a "cult" for reacting to what is clearly an attack?" And not just by one, but by multiple... no wait, nearly every single person on this forum who posts is attacking ISKCON in this thread. You are almost all accusing of it being non-Hindu (Abrahamic, syncretic), a danger, adharmic, avedic, or recommending to just dismiss the Guru Acharya's views utterly, and listen to all of yours...

This is beyond rude. And it's really unacceptable for any kind of discussion forum to have one sampraday and it's members endlessly ganged up on. It's not a discussion anymore, it's just an abusive tactic to drive the ISKCON members off the forum.

My explanation is that they try so hard to convince others, that they meet a lot of rejection and start to believe the world is against them. And you aren't trying so hard to convince? Why do you even bother? At least I try to answer sincere questions and objections. Do you see me bothering any of your personal views on other forum threads? Since I came to this forum, my welcome thread wound up in jalpa! So many people spread so much malicious hatred, castism, and ostracism toward Gaudiya Vaishnavism and ISKCON that it's really shameful. It's shameful you people behave this way and think you are defending Dharma.

If you feel so threatened by other ideas, imagine how people feel about people trying to convert their loved ones from their own traditions. They feel fear as well and fear is the birth-ground of hate. Converting is taking something precious from people, of course that causes negative reactions.The founder of Gaudiya Vaishnavism resisted the efforts of aggressive converting tactics by promoting Vaishnavism, for those efforts there was a HINDU Bengal to resist partition. I am not threatened by other ideas and actually love to have philosophical discussions. I have a problem with being marginalized, ganged-up on, treated with hatred, disrespect and unkindness. That to me ends a discussion. You seem to be placing Srila Prabhupada, and Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in the same category as Christian and Muslim missionaries. I find that, not only fallacious, but a propaganda lie. If anything, this sect was born as a result of self-preservation against aggressive missionaries. More than that, we don't teach hatred or denigration of any other religion, or that it's a Satanic evil to be eradicated. If Muslims and Christians want to be good Muslims and Christians, FINE! But if they want to taste sweetness of Lord Krsna, we invite them to chant.

Action = Reaction, that is Karma. Don't you believe in Karma? Don't you believe that what we undergo is self-provoked? Are these negative reactions not a sign we are acting wrongly? How do you look at that?In my view, the negative reactions to me personally on this forum are from a number of positions, not least of which is to consider me as unwelcome outcaste which is a form of discrimination. To deny that casteism is still a problem in India is to be dishonest. I do not agree that it is part of Vedic Sanathan Dharma, but it is a cultural legacy and an evil. ISKCON happens to be viewed as a low caste and outcaste sampradaya, for which reason it is marginalized in India, along with many Sant Deras among the lower castes which mission Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu made outreach to. The saints of Gaudiya Vaishnavism includes outcastes like Sant Kabir, and Srila Haridas Thakur (both from converted Muslim families), and low caste like Goswami Tulsidas have never been accepted within mainstream brahmin caste sampradayas. Even as recently as few years ago, Chamar Dera Baba was shot and killed... so, my view is the underlying caste and race hatreds which infect certain level of Indian society continue to mar the religion... else why was I greeted as a "shudra mleccha" on this forum before I ever said anything to anyone?

Cause and effect? Sometimes introspection is necessary. ISKCON is considered a "Western" movement, because the inner circle chelay of Srila Prabhupada came from the West. Some conflicts occurred between Srila Prabhupada and his Gaudiya Math godbrothers rejecting non-Indian Vaishnavas, so ISKCON is unique in this respect. I have PM in my box where someone has asked me directly, what is my race and country of origin because only Bharatiya's (born Indians) matter to this person. So this is very much a deep dividing issue... and number 1 cause of WHY ISKCON is continually relegated to an Abrahamic status, and labelled as "enemy and threat to Hindus." And NOT for it's actual Gaudiya Vaishnava teachings.

It is a pity you did not really answer my questions. I simply asked how Ishkon regards proselyting.I'm sorry that you cannot read or comprehend my replies in a way satisfactory to you. Perhaps you should approach someone else with your queries.

You make all kind of comparisons with other beliefs, like Christianity, you find them awful,This is just intellectual dishonesty. I am attacked on this thread by another poster BECAUSE Iskcon shows respect to personage of Jesus and Christians, and now you tell me I view Christians as awful. Let's clarify... what Christianity has done historically, the murders, the forced conversions, the Native American Indian boarding schools, the child rapes, etc... is awful... and I feel based on deep spiritual misunderstanding. I do not view Christianity as any way equal spiritually to Vedic Sanathana Dharma... because it is NOT a Dharmic path. But I also do not believe the personality of Jesus was appropriately represented in what evolved to be a religion in his name.

Let me tell you how an honest convinced Christian would react if you accuse him from proselyting.You are the only one making an issue of proselytizing, not me... and solely for purposes of invalidating ISKCON, sampradaya bashing on the ISKCON subforum. I find that to be really disrespectful.

That is my personal objection to belief-based systems of religions, your are made a servant. If God becomes the real doer, than servants can become pretty ruthless. Following Gods words as explained by gurus, there is little room for personal ethical decision making. Everything is spelled out for you in books and by Guru's. But that is personal, I am an individualist at heart. Polytheism creates true individuals, not servants to a God. If you don't agree with ISKCON, go preach whatever you believe on some other subforum. If you don't believe in Guru's, go elevate yourself to Guru and preach whatever you want on some other subforum. But on ISKCON subforum at least, try to show toleration for ISKCON teaching at least. You don't agree, fine. Go believe whatever you want. For what purpose is there any discussion by you on this forum? You reject this teaching, fine. Have peace. Don't disturb people who believe in Gaudiya Vaishnavism please. This is our little section on Hindu Dharma forum where we should be able to post without huge attack, invalidation, undermining, arguing, insulting, etc... basically trashing our sampraday and Guru Acharya. If you want to discuss the Christianity, go to Christian forum. I am not a Christian. Neither am I any syncretism with Christian.

It sees Man equal to the Gods,Best of luck with that. The jiva atman is not the same as Paramatman.

As I see it, trying to take away peoples convictions and traditions is a form of theft. So what are you doing here on ISKCON subforum then?

Now I gather from your words (correct me if I am wrong) that you find Christian proselyting wrong, but Ishkon proselyting okay. But to me that is like saying: I am not against proselyting as long as we do it and not them. But then one can equally say: I am not against stealing as long as we do it and not others. I am not against murdering but only if we do it and not others. I think you make some huge mental leaps by going to accusation of murder now, just as your previous analogy with pedophilia. It's clear you have some issues with ISKCON, recommend you just leave us alone. The problem with religion in Kaliyuga, is POLITICS. When invader nations send missionaries to undermine a faith and unity of a people and make inroads, such as Christian missionaries in India so they become a constituency to vote in favor of Western colonial business development and against own National self-interests... this kind of purpose is Adharmic. When a Saint goes to America to spread message of peace and unity, it isn't the same. I'm sorry you cannot tell the difference.


Can you explain the justification for proselyting, I do not read this in the Gita. Krishna says to Arjuna that he should keep the knowledge a secret, only for one in many thousands in many thousands, so only one in many millions. Is Krishna putting people up to proselyte? What is Ishkon's view on this?I gave you answer already, but you don't want to accept it. The founder Acharya of Gaudiya Vaishnavism is Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, to Gaudiya Vaishnavas He is considered an avatar of Shri Radha-Krsna. He spread the Yuga Dharma of chanting the Holy Names regardless of caste, race, nationality, sex, or status. It is open to all people, and for hundred years the saints between Hindu's and Muslims actually took this message to heart, unlike the deterioration of today where the politics is preached. There was a time in history when Sufi sants, Sikh sants and Hindu sants joined Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and promoted peace. Sadly, the spiritual level of society and world cannot maintain such a gracious condition.

-please forgive my mistakes

[Aryavartian]

Namaste Devi Dasi,

I'm not against ISKCON or any other Dharmic organization,but i just came across this article http://www.ibtimes.com/swami-prabhupada-founder-hare-krishna-movement-virulent-racist-anti-semite-1412102

Could you tell me,is Prabhupada's views on 'Dravidians' and 'Aryans' as cited in that article,true?

Also,if possible could you please refute the points raised in the article?

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste Devi Dasi,

I'm not against ISKCON or any other Dharmic organization,but i just came across this article http://www.ibtimes.com/swami-prabhupada-founder-hare-krishna-movement-virulent-racist-anti-semite-1412102

Could you tell me,is Prabhupada's views on 'Dravidians' and 'Aryans' as cited in that article,true?

Also,if possible could you please refute the points raised in the article?

That link is totally based on lies. Prabhupada was talking about Shudras. Not about so called Aryan and Dravidians. In fact, as stated in puranas, Aryas are original habitants of Bharata. They are sacred people born in four Varnas, ie they are Hindus.

Aryans or Dravidians are related to Aryan Invasion Theory of anti-hindu Max Muller. Under the order of British east India company, he proposed it to degrade India's vedic History. It was just a myth.

Now no one believes in such last decade myths. It was completely debunked by Scientists.

See http://gosai.com/writings/the-myth-of-the-aryan-invasion

Now see , what was the aim of creation AIT and dividing India into Aryas and Dravidians ?

Lord McCauley in his speech of Feb
2, 1835, British Parliament have
said:-
"I have travelled across the length
and breadth of India and I have
not seen one person who is a
beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth
I have seen in this country, such
high moral values, people of such
calibre, that I do not think we
would ever conquer this country,
unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and,
therefore, I propose that we
replace her old and ancient
education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is
foreign and English is good and
greater than their own, they will
lose their self-esteem, their native
self-culture and they will become
what we want them, a truly
dominated nation".

Hari Krishna

[Aryavartian]

That link is totally based on lies. Prabhupada was talking about Shudras. Not about so called Aryan and Dravidians. In fact, as stated in puranas, Aryas are original habitants of Bharata. They are sacred people born in four Varnas, ie they are Hindus.

Aryans or Dravidians are related to Aryan Invasion Theory of anti-hindu Max Muller. Under the order of British east India company, he proposed it to degrade India's vedic History. It was just a myth.

Now no one believes in such last decade myths. It was completely debunked by Scientists.

See http://gosai.com/writings/the-myth-of-the-aryan-invasion

Now see , what was the aim of creation AIT and dividing India into Aryas and Dravidians ?

Lord McCauley in his speech of Feb
2, 1835, British Parliament have
said:-
"I have travelled across the length
and breadth of India and I have
not seen one person who is a
beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth
I have seen in this country, such
high moral values, people of such
calibre, that I do not think we
would ever conquer this country,
unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and,
therefore, I propose that we
replace her old and ancient
education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is
foreign and English is good and
greater than their own, they will
lose their self-esteem, their native
self-culture and they will become
what we want them, a truly
dominated nation".

Hari Krishna

Namaste,yes i know very well about AIT.Prabhupada openly supported it.Read these:


"Dravidian culture. Dravida. They are non-Āryans. Just like these Africans, they are not Āryans. Now they are mixing up with Europeans and Americans. In India, it was, one from the higher section, brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya, they will be fair complexion. Śūdras, black. So if a brāhmaṇa becomes black, then he's not accepted as brāhmaṇa."


http://vaniquotes.org/wiki/Non-Aryan#1976_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks

" Maybe. Actually Aryan civilization was central Asia. Some of them went towards India and some of them went towards Europe. Indo-European stock that is called."

"The Aryans are white. But here, this side, due to climatic influence, they are a little tan. Indians are tan but they are not black. But Aryans are all white. And the non-Aryans, they are called black. Yes."

http://vanisource.org/wiki/Lecture_on_SB_6.1.6_--_Bombay,_November_6,_1970?terms=climatic&first=Revat%C4%ABnandana:%20Is%20it%20also%20true%20that%20the%20Scandinavians%20come%20from...&last=In%20Punjab,%20you%27ll%20find,%20they%20are%20as%20white%20as%20Europeans.

Sources are from a Hare Krishna site.

It is clear that Prabhupada believed in this colonial era racist Aryan invasion theory,which viewed Aryans as fair skinned....while non-Aryans such as Dravidians,were black skinned.

It is quite ironic,because Lord Sri Krishna himself had black skin!!

[Avyaydya]

Hare Krsna,

I don't recall any post of yours being neutral towards ISKCON, rather several equating Vaishnav monotheism as an Abrahamic syncretism, using anaolgy of pedophiles in describing Vaishnavas, and claiming the Hindu scriptures are all man-made devices. I don't see how any of your postings can be construed as anything but a negation and attack.I consider this statement intellectually dishonest. Did you not in this very thread denounce ISKCON as adharmic, a threat to the continued existence of Sanathana Dharma, and for whose existence you were "saddened at the loss of Vedic ideals?" Moreover, you attack ISKCON as an Abrahamic syncretism and claim you reject ISKCON since Christianity is not a Dharmic religion... but now claim you accept all viewpoints, even contradictory viewpoints as true... but really, you don't.

Let's be rationale, how can comments such as these be considered "not" an attack or undermining? What is your purpose then for posting on ISKCON subforum then since you clearly have no respect or interest in ISKCON teaching? It's only to trash the sampraday, no other purpoise in this endless line of objection.
But you really are attacking, let's at least be honest. Did you not write this?
Between you and "Hinduism Heart Krsna" I have not even heard a tolerant, respectable or friendly word in regards to ISKCON, not even once. So why are you both on ISKCON subforum if not to trash this sampradaya which you both despise? Is there really anything further to discuss? All I can do is offer explanations or clarifications from ISKCON teachings and my own perspective. If you want to degrade and continue to ostracize ISKCON as something vile, I can go no further. What's the point? Just avoid this subforum, and avoid disagreements. Why disrespect the teachings of this sampraday? Does it gain you some kind of punya?
You are accusing us of being a "cult" but it's not an attack? And then playing mind games to accuse of being a "cult" for reacting to what is clearly an attack?" And not just by one, but by multiple... no wait, nearly every single person on this forum who posts is attacking ISKCON in this thread. You are almost all accusing of it being non-Hindu (Abrahamic, syncretic), a danger, adharmic, avedic, or recommending to just dismiss the Guru Acharya's views utterly, and listen to all of yours...

This is beyond rude. And it's really unacceptable for any kind of discussion forum to have one sampraday and it's members endlessly ganged up on. It's not a discussion anymore, it's just an abusive tactic to drive the ISKCON members off the forum.
And you aren't trying so hard to convince? Why do you even bother? At least I try to answer sincere questions and objections. Do you see me bothering any of your personal views on other forum threads? Since I came to this forum, my welcome thread wound up in jalpa! So many people spread so much malicious hatred, castism, and ostracism toward Gaudiya Vaishnavism and ISKCON that it's really shameful. It's shameful you people behave this way and think you are defending Dharma.
The founder of Gaudiya Vaishnavism resisted the efforts of aggressive converting tactics by promoting Vaishnavism, for those efforts there was a HINDU Bengal to resist partition. I am not threatened by other ideas and actually love to have philosophical discussions. I have a problem with being marginalized, ganged-up on, treated with hatred, disrespect and unkindness. That to me ends a discussion. You seem to be placing Srila Prabhupada, and Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in the same category as Christian and Muslim missionaries. I find that, not only fallacious, but a propaganda lie. If anything, this sect was born as a result of self-preservation against aggressive missionaries. More than that, we don't teach hatred or denigration of any other religion, or that it's a Satanic evil to be eradicated. If Muslims and Christians want to be good Muslims and Christians, FINE! But if they want to taste sweetness of Lord Krsna, we invite them to chant.
In my view, the negative reactions to me personally on this forum are from a number of positions, not least of which is to consider me as unwelcome outcaste which is a form of discrimination. To deny that casteism is still a problem in India is to be dishonest. I do not agree that it is part of Vedic Sanathan Dharma, but it is a cultural legacy and an evil. ISKCON happens to be viewed as a low caste and outcaste sampradaya, for which reason it is marginalized in India, along with many Sant Deras among the lower castes which mission Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu made outreach to. The saints of Gaudiya Vaishnavism includes outcastes like Sant Kabir, and Srila Haridas Thakur (both from converted Muslim families), and low caste like Goswami Tulsidas have never been accepted within mainstream brahmin caste sampradayas. Even as recently as few years ago, Chamar Dera Baba was shot and killed... so, my view is the underlying caste and race hatreds which infect certain level of Indian society continue to mar the religion... else why was I greeted as a "shudra mleccha" on this forum before I ever said anything to anyone?

Cause and effect? Sometimes introspection is necessary. ISKCON is considered a "Western" movement, because the inner circle chelay of Srila Prabhupada came from the West. Some conflicts occurred between Srila Prabhupada and his Gaudiya Math godbrothers rejecting non-Indian Vaishnavas, so ISKCON is unique in this respect. I have PM in my box where someone has asked me directly, what is my race and country of origin because only Bharatiya's (born Indians) matter to this person. So this is very much a deep dividing issue... and number 1 cause of WHY ISKCON is continually relegated to an Abrahamic status, and labelled as "enemy and threat to Hindus." And NOT for it's actual Gaudiya Vaishnava teachings.
I'm sorry that you cannot read or comprehend my replies in a way satisfactory to you. Perhaps you should approach someone else with your queries.
This is just intellectual dishonesty. I am attacked on this thread by another poster BECAUSE Iskcon shows respect to personage of Jesus and Christians, and now you tell me I view Christians as awful. Let's clarify... what Christianity has done historically, the murders, the forced conversions, the Native American Indian boarding schools, the child rapes, etc... is awful... and I feel based on deep spiritual misunderstanding. I do not view Christianity as any way equal spiritually to Vedic Sanathana Dharma... because it is NOT a Dharmic path. But I also do not believe the personality of Jesus was appropriately represented in what evolved to be a religion in his name.
You are the only one making an issue of proselytizing, not me... and solely for purposes of invalidating ISKCON, sampradaya bashing on the ISKCON subforum. I find that to be really disrespectful.
If you don't agree with ISKCON, go preach whatever you believe on some other subforum. If you don't believe in Guru's, go elevate yourself to Guru and preach whatever you want on some other subforum. But on ISKCON subforum at least, try to show toleration for ISKCON teaching at least. You don't agree, fine. Go believe whatever you want. For what purpose is there any discussion by you on this forum? You reject this teaching, fine. Have peace. Don't disturb people who believe in Gaudiya Vaishnavism please. This is our little section on Hindu Dharma forum where we should be able to post without huge attack, invalidation, undermining, arguing, insulting, etc... basically trashing our sampraday and Guru Acharya. If you want to discuss the Christianity, go to Christian forum. I am not a Christian. Neither am I any syncretism with Christian.
Best of luck with that. The jiva atman is not the same as Paramatman.
So what are you doing here on ISKCON subforum then?
I think you make some huge mental leaps by going to accusation of murder now, just as your previous analogy with pedophilia. It's clear you have some issues with ISKCON, recommend you just leave us alone. The problem with religion in Kaliyuga, is POLITICS. When invader nations send missionaries to undermine a faith and unity of a people and make inroads, such as Christian missionaries in India so they become a constituency to vote in favor of Western colonial business development and against own National self-interests... this kind of purpose is Adharmic. When a Saint goes to America to spread message of peace and unity, it isn't the same. I'm sorry you cannot tell the difference.

I gave you answer already, but you don't want to accept it. The founder Acharya of Gaudiya Vaishnavism is Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, to Gaudiya Vaishnavas He is considered an avatar of Shri Radha-Krsna. He spread the Yuga Dharma of chanting the Holy Names regardless of caste, race, nationality, sex, or status. It is open to all people, and for hundred years the saints between Hindu's and Muslims actually took this message to heart, unlike the deterioration of today where the politics is preached. There was a time in history when Sufi sants, Sikh sants and Hindu sants joined Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and promoted peace. Sadly, the spiritual level of society and world cannot maintain such a gracious condition.

-please forgive my mistakes
Namaste Devi Dasi,

Again i feel you misread and misrepresent my words. They are much more nuanced than you want to have true. If you want to fight a straw man and meet every polite question with a personal attack, than there is not much point in my continued presence here. I politely asked you to give Ishkon's view on matters explaining why I think it is important, but you want to read a vicious attack in everything I write, simply because my ideas are not yours. It is true we have very different ideas, but that does not make you my enemy, that is not how I think. There is room for every idea in my book. I accept reality as it is. I wanted to give you a podium to explain things from Ishkon point of view on some tough issues, the inside view, but you do not seem to welcome the chance to give this perspective. In that case I better not pursue this.

You also seem to overlook I can not react here to your accusations, this is no place for discussion. So you can say everything mean about me without me being able to defend. As you want that discussion, fine with me, we will continue that outside the Ishkon section.

I do however thank you for the information you have given me so far.

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste,yes i know very well about AIT.Prabhupada openly supported it.
It is clear that Prabhupada believed in this colonial era racist Aryan invasion theory,which viewed Aryans as fair skinned....while non-Aryans such as Dravidians,were black skinned.

It is quite ironic,because Lord Sri Krishna himself had black skin!!

Pranam ,

I really don't think Prabhupada said like this . Because he himself many times said that vedic dharma originated in India.

But I think Some non-hindus are altering Hindu's self esteem under the name of Prabhupada .

Though Prabhupada would have really said that , it doesn't matter. Because it is the view without scriptural supports and AIT had been completely debunked by scientists after discovery of dried Saraswati river & Dvaraka city. So don't bother. There is no any mention of AIT in entire veda. Veda glorious only Bharatavarsha and certainly Aryas/Hindus homeland is Bharavarsha.

IN fact , As stated in Vyasa's Purana , Aryans are original habitants of our BharataVarsha and All four varnas including Shudras are Aryas. Purunas explicitly mentions non-aryans as foreigners living outside of Bharata and having non-vedic religion.

However I really can't believe that Prabhupada had ever supported AIT.

[Aryavartian]

Pranam ,

I really don't think Prabhupada said like this . Because he himself many times said that vedic dharma originated in India.

But I think Some non-hindus are altering Hindu's self esteem under the name of Prabhupada .

Though Prabhupada would have really said that , it doesn't matter. Because it is the view without scriptural supports and AIT had been completely debunked by scientists after discovery of dried Saraswati river & Dvaraka city. So don't bother. There is no any mention of AIT in entire veda. Veda glorious only Bharatavarsha and certainly Aryas/Hindus homeland is Bharavarsha.

IN fact , As stated in Vyasa's Purana , Aryans are original habitants of our BharataVarsha and All four varnas including Shudras are Aryas. Purunas explicitly mentions non-aryans as foreigners living outside of Bharata and having non-vedic religion.

However I really can't believe that Prabhupada had ever supported AIT.

Namaste,

Yes,i am aware that AIT is dead.But i still wonder why Prabhupada supported this racist theory.Sri Krishna clearly says in BG that varnas are made of gunas and karmas.I don't expect a devout Lord Krishna devotee like Prabhupada to support this theory.


Jai Sri Krishna.

[Jaskaran Singh]

Namaste,yes i know very well about AIT.Prabhupada openly supported it.Read these:


"Dravidian culture. Dravida. They are non-Āryans. Just like these Africans, they are not Āryans. Now they are mixing up with Europeans and Americans. In India, it was, one from the higher section, brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya, they will be fair complexion. Śūdras, black. So if a brāhmaṇa becomes black, then he's not accepted as brāhmaṇa."


http://vaniquotes.org/wiki/Non-Aryan#1976_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks

" Maybe. Actually Aryan civilization was central Asia. Some of them went towards India and some of them went towards Europe. Indo-European stock that is called."

"The Aryans are white. But here, this side, due to climatic influence, they are a little tan. Indians are tan but they are not black. But Aryans are all white. And the non-Aryans, they are called black. Yes."

http://vanisource.org/wiki/Lecture_on_SB_6.1.6_--_Bombay,_November_6,_1970?terms=climatic&first=Revat%C4%ABnandana:%20Is%20it%20also%20true%20that%20the%20Scandinavians%20come%20from...&last=In%20Punjab,%20you%27ll%20find,%20they%20are%20as%20white%20as%20Europeans.

Sources are from a Hare Krishna site.

It is clear that Prabhupada believed in this colonial era racist Aryan invasion theory,which viewed Aryans as fair skinned....while non-Aryans such as Dravidians,were black skinned.

It is quite ironic,because Lord Sri Krishna himself had black skin!!
Wow...I don't really have words for this. I was kind of upset when I read about prabhupAda quoting the manusmR^iti to enforce his claim that women are less intelligent than men, but these comments are nothing short of racist and don't even have any shAstrika basis. I really don't want to say this in the ISKCON section, but if he (prabhupAda) did indeed make these statements, then he was likely far too Victorian in his views, even for his time period (the 1970-s). Also, I assume that prabhupAda didn't realize that the bhAgavatapurANam, which is revered by vaiShNava-s, especially by gauDiya-s, was likely composed by a "draviDian" tamizhar. In fact, it's probably one of the, if not the, most widely read Hindu text from tamizh nADu and in part inspired people like nammAzhwAr.

[grames]

Just a curious question.... making only the ancillary points and do not want to be too straight to the point here..

1. We have seen many men being far less intelligent than some women
2. We have seen some men are more intelligent than others ( including men and women)
3. We have seen some women are more intelligent than others (including men and women)

So, if there is a generalization saying "less intelligent people, people who are related to intelligent people by genetically relationship and women" it is much more than "plainly" saying "For Stupid and Idiots" ! :)

May be there is something more subtle and instead of rushing and jumping to "pseudo feminism", i think the "intelligence" has to be applied and utilized to understand what is said and what is said is not "Shri Prabupada's" idea but what is available in MahaBharata and BG.

Hare Krshna!

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste


I'm not against ISKCON or any other Dharmic organization,but i just came across this article http://www.ibtimes.com/swami-prabhup...semite-1412102

Could you tell me,is Prabhupada's views on 'Dravidians' and 'Aryans' as cited in that article,true?

Also,if possible could you please refute the points raised in the article?

It is clear that Prabhupada believed in this colonial era racist Aryan invasion theory,which viewed Aryans as fair skinned....while non-Aryans such as Dravidians,were black skinned.

It is quite ironic,because Lord Sri Krishna himself had black skin!!

Yes,i am aware that AIT is dead.But i still wonder why Prabhupada supported this racist theory.Sri Krishna clearly says in BG that varnas are made of gunas and karmas.I don't expect a devout Lord Krishna devotee like Prabhupada to support this theory.

It seems that nowadays it is easy to quote someone's statements without properly viewed within context, and then accuse the person for being racist.
Here I do not even want to go into a discussion of these charges because they are simply ridiculous.
If Srila Prabhupada was a racist then why he had disciples belonging to different races including African Americans and Africans? What kind of racist is he who had the disciples belonging to various races and worldwide, and who traveled to these countries to preach vaishnava dharma?

Regarding Aryan invasion theory.
The only thing Srila Prabhupada believed was what the Scriptures teach. No theory of scientists or anything else. I am quite sure about that.

regards

[Jaskaran Singh]

Namaste

Regarding Aryan invasion theory.
The only thing Srila Prabhupada believed was what the Scriptures teach. No theory of scientists or anything else. I am quite sure about that.

regards
Wait, so you don't believe he made those statements, right?

[brahma jijnasa]

Wait, so you don't believe he made those statements, right?

He could made those statements just as consideration of the theory in a conversation with his disciples, but the only thing what he believed is what the Scriptures teach.

regards

[Jaskaran Singh]

He could made those statements just as consideration of the theory in a conversation with his disciples, but the only thing what he believed is what the Scriptures teach.

regards
Okay, perhaps I can somewhat understand. Still, why even comment on such a thing if you didn't personally believe it? Even common sense can tell you that the whitest non-Albino people (i.e. Germanics and Scandinavians) are statistically the biggest beef-consumers on the planet. That is not to say that there aren't any great devotees of Germanic origin, as that is not true. However, white skin is definitely, definitely NOT the measure of how noble/Arya a person is; the theory itself has racial eugenic origins, so why should a vaiShNavAchArya ever make such a claim? Honestly, I doubt that most modern-day AIT supporters themselves would make such a ridiculous comment as "if a brAhmaNa becomes black, then he's not accepted as brAhmaNa"

[hinduism♥krishna]

He could made those statements just as consideration of the theory in a conversation with his disciples, but the only thing what he believed is what the Scriptures teach.

regards

And I think scriptures don't teach or support AIT or being god of Jesus !

[Jaskaran Singh]

I noticed that the following statements were also said when clicking on your link, Aryavartian:

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:
Prabhupāda: Those who are Aryan, non-Aryan; just like I say, they are all human beings, but why you say one Aryan and another non-Aryan? It is difference of culture, that's all.
Devotee: Say, for example, there is the Caucasian race, the Negroid race, different races like that. If they are all living in the same... Say they all join Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, then they are all the same...
Prabhupāda: But Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is not on the basic principle of this body. It is basically on the soul; therefore you will find everyone same."

"Prabhupāda: Yes, Aryan family, the structure of body... From the... There is a science called physiognomy. No? Yes. So it can be ascertained. But we have got forget all these material. We have to advance in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. This is white skin... So you have all taken your bath? So, give me little oil. I shall also take bath."

From the above statements, it seems that he is not viewing "white skin" in a material, racial context, but instead in regards to guNa-s (wherein black refers to tamasaguNa and white refers to sattvaguNa). Still, the other comments about Europeans being Arya and Africans and "drAviDians" being anArya is indeed racial and directly parallels those of eugenicists at the time, so I'm not too sure. Perhaps an ISKCONite could inform us as to why that was said.

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste Jaskaran Singh

One thing is to read the quotes in newspaper article devised with the aim to present Srila Prabhupada as a racist, and something else is to see the whole context of the entire conversation in which these quotations appear.

About Aryans.
See how Sanskrit dictionary defines the word. See also how Srila Prabhupada explained:

Bhāgavatam 11.5.36 (http://vedabase.net/sb/11/5/36/en) :

āryāḥ — progressive souls.
The word ārya has been defined by Śrīla Prabhupāda as "one who is advancing spiritually." The nature of an advanced person is to search for the essence of life. For example, the essence of the material body is not the body itself but the spirit soul that is within the body; therefore an intelligent person gives more attention to the eternal spirit soul than to the temporary body.

Bhāgavatam 3.29.18 (http://vedabase.net/sb/3/29/18/en) :

Another word is ārya. Āryans are persons who are advancing in knowledge of Kṛṣṇa consciousness as well as in material prosperity. The difference between the Āryan and non-Āryan, the sura and asura, is in their standards of spiritual advancement.

The word refers not only to race!

regards

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

I am not an ISKCONite, so I apologize if I misstate anything. But I did know a lot about Prabhupad. My Mother-In-Law also knew a lot of Prabhulad, in fact Prabhupad's relatives as well.

Back to Prabhupad. He would stress the soul, not the body. Thus all the "same".

However, it seems to me it is also true that Prabhupad did not have much patience with those who complained a lot about victimization. That is, those who would focus too much on their problems by saying "all my problems are due to racism, I am a victim of white racism" and things like that. He seemed to argue that such complainers were also focusing too much on their body, e.g. for example being "black", always putting things into some sort of bodily vision. He did not approve of this, really from his attitude which some took as "racist". But I could be wrong. One thing I do know is, there were many well "blacks" in positions and influence in ISKCON.

Om Namah Sivaya

[Avyaydya]

Okay, perhaps I can somewhat understand. Still, why even comment on such a thing if you didn't personally believe it? Even common sense can tell you that the whitest non-Albino people (i.e. Germanics and Scandinavians) are statistically the biggest beef-consumers on the planet. That is not to say that there aren't any great devotees of Germanic origin, as that is not true. However, white skin is definitely, definitely NOT the measure of how noble/Arya a person is; the theory itself has racial eugenic origins, so why should a vaiShNavAchArya ever make such a claim? Honestly, I doubt that most modern-day AIT supporters themselves would make such a ridiculous comment as "if a brAhmaNa becomes black, then he's not accepted as brAhmaNa"

Namaste Jaskaran Singh,

When I read Prabhupada on Aryans, he seems to mean people of higher civilization, which is different than noble people. You can divide civilization in different stages of outer development. Like hunter-gatherer, agriculture, city-dweller etc. These stages of development say very little about the inner development of people.


Prabhupāda: They were, they were belonging to the Aryan family. The Europeans, they were also Aryan family, and Indians, the Arabians, Persians, they were all Aryan family. And the Americans they also migrated from Europe. They are also Aryans. But that is familywise. But actually Aryan means one who is advanced in civilization. That is Aryan. Therefore when Kṛṣṇa chastised Arjuna, He addressed him, "non-Aryan." "You are not talking like Aryan." Anārya juṣṭam. "You are talking like non-Aryan." (aside:) Hare Kṛṣṇa. So Aryan means advanced. The first-class civilized men are the Aryans. So that standard of Aryan civilization is to understand God, Viṣṇu, and go back to. This is perfectional.As I understand it, Krishna clearly represents city civilization (Dwarka), so higher technological civilization. Prabhupada sees such people as the Aryans. People living in rural areas he sees as from lower civilizations. In this way he sees Europeans as Aryans too (they live in cities).

Krishna is the King God that comes with the Kings. Like the Kings Krishna is a protector. He follows civilized rules. Dharm has now become the civilized rules more than the laws of nature. Dharm is codified in scripture. This comes with the idea that civilization has now to be spread to people of lower civilization. People still living as hunter gatherers (Africans) or in agricultural societies. They must be brought to this new higher civilization. They must be brought under a central rule. In the Mahabharata we read about the empire as a means to do this. Warriors no longer must be warlords, but must serve Dharm, and Krishna creates a special ethics for them: renunciation in stead of conquering land, women and treasures. I think that is Prabhupada's understanding of this.

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste ShivaFan

Namaste

I am not an ISKCONite, so I apologize if I misstate anything. But I did know a lot about Prabhupad. My Mother-In-Law also knew a lot of Prabhulad, in fact Prabhupad's relatives as well.

Back to Prabhupad. He would stress the soul, not the body. Thus all the "same".

However, it seems to me it is also true that Prabhupad did not have much patience with those who complained a lot about victimization. That is, those who would focus too much on their problems by saying "all my problems are due to racism, I am a victim of white racism" and things like that. He seemed to argue that such complainers were also focusing too much on their body, e.g. for example being "black", always putting things into some sort of bodily vision. He did not approve of this, really from his attitude which some took as "racist". But I could be wrong. One thing I do know is, there were many well "blacks" in positions and influence in ISKCON.

Om Namah Sivaya

Exactly. :cool1:
Srila Prabhupada has always emphasized the importance of the soul because the soul is exactly the real "I" in man, ie our real self.

regards

[Avyaydya]

Namaste

I am not an ISKCONite, so I apologize if I misstate anything. But I did know a lot about Prabhupad. My Mother-In-Law also knew a lot of Prabhulad, in fact Prabhupad's relatives as well.

Back to Prabhupad. He would stress the soul, not the body. Thus all the "same".

However, it seems to me it is also true that Prabhupad did not have much patience with those who complained a lot about victimization. That is, those who would focus too much on their problems by saying "all my problems are due to racism, I am a victim of white racism" and things like that. He seemed to argue that such complainers were also focusing too much on their body, e.g. for example being "black", always putting things into some sort of bodily vision. He did not approve of this, really from his attitude which some took as "racist". But I could be wrong. One thing I do know is, there were many well "blacks" in positions and influence in ISKCON.

Om Namah Sivaya
Namaste ShivaFan,

I think we have to understand that the Gita was made for warriors. Arjuna was a warrior. Krishna is a societal reformer (four varna's), he also creates a new type of warrior. The new warrior is prepared to give up his life for a higher goal. He is no longer out for land, loot and women. We see the same idea in Jihad. Jihad originally meant an act of extreme bravery in fight (the Arab tribes were constantly fighting for honour amongst themselves). Mohammed also turned Jihad into a an act of defence of new civilization/Islam. In Christianity it became the idea of martyrdom. But as the warrior is an egotist he must be promised some great reward: something like Moksha, or a free ticket to heaven with forty beautiful women.

The warrior is drenched in suffering, he brings it to others, and freely seeks it for heroism. He is basically a sadomasochist (like Jesus). As the warrior caste no longer really exists, renunciation becomes something for people otherwise in suffering. Then the warrior becomes a spiritual warrior. Renunciates are often people that run aground in their pursuit of worldly pleasures, for instance through drugs abuse. The path for these people is tough and hard, total abstinence, the way alcoholics are treated. That is why Christianity still has 99.9% popularity in the US army. This kind of religion was made for warriors. That why it is so tough. It is like enlisting in the army.

An egotist is full of self-pity. How are you going to treat him? You say shut up, follow orders. This kind of religion can be very healthy if brought to the right people.

[Sudas Paijavana]

The word refers not only to race!


Namaste,

In its primordial, linguistically original, Indic sense, if placed in a contrasting stance to how it's cognate in Iranian, airya/airiya, was expressed - which was indeed racial, ārya, on the other hand, never really referred to race. Its colloquial usage, since early Vedic times, was always cultural (i.e., does this person speak Vedic or Sanskrit and related Prakrits? does this person engage in yajna-dharma? does this person abide by the concept of the apaurusheya? does this person acknowledge and revere the concepts of dharma, rta, satya, and karma?).

...unfortunately, it was hijacked and misappropriated by fascistic, racist, genocidal, lunatic, pro-eugenics, sinners. :(

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

ārya, on the other hand, never really referred to race. ...
...unfortunately, it was hijacked and misappropriated by fascistic, racist, genocidal, lunatic, pro-eugenics, sinners. :(

Yes, it's a long story. :D

regards

[Sudas Paijavana]

Namaste, Everyone:

Coming back to the topic and the OP --


In my personal opinion, I would, perhaps, suggest that instead of the question or expression, why demigod worship is different from worshipping paramatma, it would be better to state, how "demigod" worship is different from worshipping paramatma.

The reason for this, is - keeping in mind that this thread is obviously in the ISKCON section - because one paradigm innately expresses paramatma-worship as "superior", while another stresses that "demigod"-worship isn't "demigod-ly" at all and is rather quite normal and of similar merit and foundation. The involvement of the term, why, in my honest opinion (please keep in mind that this is just an opinion - I'm not engaging in Crusade-talks here, folks), invokes a negative feeling that is automatically received by those that engage in "demigod"-worship (i.e., wait, are you calling our seva and dharma a worship of "demigods"? wait, are you calling us fools? are you calling the Gods we worship, lesser-beings?); whereas the involvement of how would serve an expression of explanation rather than that of a declaration.

Why connotes, if I am understanding the objections by Avyaydya correctly, an established and exclusive position of subjective truth that is automatically professed as objective, while how, on the other hand, would leave inclusive room for better understanding.

For example (and, this is just a hypothetical so please consider the following emotionally-free), if I were to make a thread in the Vedas & Brahmanas section on why Krishna-worship is anti-yajna...can you imagine the amount of negativity that would arise? I'd have to stop being a member of HDF. I'd have to pack my bags and dip-set. :p

[hinduism♥krishna]

I request thread owner to use Devata word instead of Demigod word .

For the sake of VEDA , please replace demigod word with devata word in your op and thread title .

Thank You .

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste


Gaudiya vaishnavas consider that verse Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.28 refers to all the verses from the first in this chapter to 28th. Some other sampradayas think that the verse 28th refers to verses 27-28 only. I think Gaudiya vaishnavas are right because there is no valid reason to assume that the verse 28th must refer to verses 27-28 only! This means that all the gods mentioned, including Varaha, Narayana, Kurma, Nrisimha, ... etc, are parts of Lord Krishna.





Pranam ,

But belief is not the truth always . I think Ameyatma is right . That verse is in relation with previous verse . Because Bhagavata Puraan says something different .

Bhagavata Purana clearly states that Krishna is a part of Vishnu . ( See the proof below ) . Besides , In many puranas , Krishna is described as a Avatara of vishnu and I think everyone know this .


भूमेः सुरेतरवरूथविमर्दितायाः ।
क्लेशव्ययाय कलया सितकृष्णकेशः ॥ भागवत पूरण २.७.२६ ॥

" To destroy evils , ishwara ( Vishnu ) will take birth by a ansha ( part ) in the form of dark ( krishna ) and white hair ( balarama ) " [ In vishnu purana also , krishna and balaranma are described as part of mahavishnu . ]

So according to me , every avatara of mahavishnu is kalavatar and bhagavan simultaneously. From above verse , we certainly come to know that ansha is just an imagination with respect to formless bramhan . Ansha is just like a reflection of sun in a pot . That reflection of sun appears as a part of big sun . It is totally identical to the big sun and appears as a finite aspect of big sun . In the same way , krishna is totally identical to formless bramhan but appear as a human form ie as a part of supreme formless infinite Bramhan . Sages had considered this point and imagined avatara as ansha of bramhan/Vishnu .

When krishna appears as a krishna , :) his formless nature doesn't get tainted . Because maya has no any existence at all . Through the view of bramhan , krishna takes maya is somewhat meaningless . He appears in his real infinite formless nature And this would be the truth .

Conclusion : Krishna is avatara of mahavishnu . Only mahavishnu is the origination of all avataras including krishna . Because he is the first purusha avatara of bramhan at the time of creation of the universe . http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

[hinduism♥krishna]

My view on this topic : " Why is demigod worship different from worshiping Paramatma "

According to me , this question itself doesn't make any sense . First I want clarification on demigod word .

What is the reason for using demigod word . Demi-god means Half God . Veda doesn't mention such half god concepts . So why don't they use Devata word instead of Demigod ? Now you will say Half god means the jiva who acquired the divine state . This is also not acceptable . Because Vedas don't glorify them in such manner .

Vedas give very high salutations and great esteem to devatas . So calling them Demigods is certainly disrespecting them .

Now my question , Why should devata worship be considered different from worshiping Paramatma ?

Because , In Bhagavata Purana , Shri Krishna himself says that Devatas , Bramhanas and cows are the most sacred places to worship him . He resides there . Note that worshiping devatas for material gains is a different thing and I don't think worshiping krishna for material gains would be a different thing from this .

And my final view on this topic .. " Worshiping Paramatma , Worshiping Atma and Worshiping Devatas as Bramhan and worshiping supreme gods like krishna or Shiva , are not different . [ Note : Devatas are parts of Bramhan . Part of Infinite is also Infinite . So it is not wrong to worship Devatas as Bramhan ]

I think Bhagavata Purana is very clear on this topic . Shukadeva says " Our atma should be worshipped . One should worship Vishnu as his self . Because Indeed vishnu is atma of all living beings , "

Read this Mantra to know What should be worshipped : ( Note : I consider every shloka of Bhagavata as Mantra :) )


स सर्वधीवृत्त्यनुभूतसर्व
आत्मा यथा स्वप्नजनेक्षितैकः ।
तं सत्यमानंदनिधिं भजेत
नान्यत्र सज्जेद्यत आत्मपातः ॥ भगवत पुराण २.१.३९ ॥

Shuka Says : " Even as Dreamer sees himself in various things , like that , who experiences all things from everyone's mind is the only one Atma . Only he is the happiness and the truth . One should worship him only and should not induldge in another thing which causes downfall . "


So Indeed , Atma is not different from Bramhan . We should worship him . Those who know and worship his Atma as Bramhan are the real knowers of the truth and I think They are the greatest Vaishnawas .


Hari Krishna Hari Hari ..

[Aryavartian]

I noticed that the following statements were also said when clicking on your link, Aryavartian:

Philosophy Discussion on Charles Darwin:
Prabhupāda: Those who are Aryan, non-Aryan; just like I say, they are all human beings, but why you say one Aryan and another non-Aryan? It is difference of culture, that's all.
Devotee: Say, for example, there is the Caucasian race, the Negroid race, different races like that. If they are all living in the same... Say they all join Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, then they are all the same...
Prabhupāda: But Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is not on the basic principle of this body. It is basically on the soul; therefore you will find everyone same."

"Prabhupāda: Yes, Aryan family, the structure of body... From the... There is a science called physiognomy. No? Yes. So it can be ascertained. But we have got forget all these material. We have to advance in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. This is white skin... So you have all taken your bath? So, give me little oil. I shall also take bath."

From the above statements, it seems that he is not viewing "white skin" in a material, racial context, but instead in regards to guNa-s (wherein black refers to tamasaguNa and white refers to sattvaguNa). Still, the other comments about Europeans being Arya and Africans and "drAviDians" being anArya is indeed racial and directly parallels those of eugenicists at the time, so I'm not too sure. Perhaps an ISKCONite could inform us as to why that was said.


Pranams,


Even if Sri Prabhupada talked of this "black skin" and "white skin" in a metaphorical way(just like in Rg Veda,where krsna tvac is a metaphorical epithet of Dasyus,i.e the evil wicked men/tribes) why should he say that Aryans marched towards India from central Asia?:confused:

And we Dravidians were one of the earliest worshipers of Sri Krishna/Mayon/Mal ;)

[hinduism♥krishna]

Pranams,:

And we Dravidians were one of the earliest worshipers of Sri Krishna/Mayon/Mal ;)


Are you a south Indian ? So be proud of it.

In Bhagavata Purana, It is stated that most real vaishnawas would be in Dravida state in Kaliyuga.

Besides , Vaishnu's kalki avatar is also Dravidian . He will take birth in Shambala village. Shabala is the hidden south Indian village. Many scholars proposed that the village would be in south India .

[isavasya]

And we Dravidians were one of the earliest worshipers of Sri Krishna/Mayon/Mal Prabhupāda: Dravidian culture. Dravida. They are non-Āryans. Just like these Africans, they are not Āryans. Now they are mixing up with Europeans and Americans. In India, it was, one from the higher section, brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya, they will be fair complexion. Śūdras, black. So if a brāhmaṇa becomes black, then he's not accepted as brāhmaṇa. Kāla bahu (?). And if a śūdra becomes fair, then he's to be know that he's not pure śūdra. Although we do not take very, but, this brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya, by birth, but still, we have seen, those who are coming purely from high caste family, their behavior and śūdras behavior is different. The family culture. And the spiritual culture lost, still, the family culture keeps them separate.Prabhupāda: Maybe. Actually Aryan civilization was central Asia. Some of them went towards India and some of them went towards Europe. Indo-European stock that is called.

No, no. Uncivilized, just like aborigine.

@Aryavartian
My post is only addressed to you.

The above quotes are from Iskcon sites. The meanings are clear to me at least and I believe they are to you too. Now let me ask you a question. What is causing you the pain.1. That prabhupada said Aryans have come from central Asia. This might pain certain Indians and a particular group of people. 2. That prabhupada said dravidians are non-aryans like Africans and aborigines and later calls them uncivilized. 3. Or do you as person/humanitarian feel the pain from human point of view that any one should not be called as uncivilized based on his birth, whether that be aborigines or Africans ?

[Aryavartian]

Are you a south Indian ? So be proud of it.

In Bhagavata Purana, It is stated that most real vaishnawas would be in Dravida state in Kaliyuga.

Besides , Vaishnu's kalki avatar is also Dravidian . He will take birth in Shambala village. Shabala is the hidden south Indian village. Many scholars proposed that the village would be in south India .

Pranam,


Yes,i'm from south,i'm not a Vaishnava though.I do respect all Dharmic faiths,including Nastika sects :)

And i think Shambala is located somewhere in Tibet,not in south India.Buddhists also view it as an exotic hidden region.

[Aryavartian]

Prranam Isavasya let me answer your queries.


1. That prabhupada said Aryans have come from central Asia. This might pain certain Indians and a particular group of people.

Yes,this indeed pains me.It means the he believed in Aryan invasion. :rolleyes:


2. That prabhupada said dravidians are non-aryans like Africans and aborigines and later calls them uncivilized.



As a Dravidian myself,it pains me that he called Dravidians as non-Aryas,and that he believed in this Aryan-Dravidian divide.



3. Or do you as person/humanitarian feel the pain from human point of view that any one should not be called as uncivilized based on his birth, whether that be aborigines or Africans ?


I believe that several African or aborigine tribes indeed lead a primitive life.But he shouldn't have called civilized Africans,like African Americans & South Africans,as uncivilized.

[hinduism♥krishna]

Pranam ,

I remember all of you that you are discussing off-topic and that too on myth of Aryan Theory. Stop debating it.

@Isavasya

There is no question of pain to any Hindu. Because Hindus or Aryas know the truth . They are not weak or emotional. Every Hindu knows his own motherland's history.

I think, The problem is when someone supports the myth having no support from Vaidik Scriptures or any scientific proof and at the same time claims that we are followers of Vaidik Scriptures .

I only want to say that this isn't right. Nothing else.

Hari