PDA

View Full Version : Superiority Complex?



satay
25 April 2006, 03:30 PM
If you don't know already, I am born in a Vaishnava family...that doesn't say much but take it for what it is worth.

The purpose of my post on this thread is a behaviour of "Vaishnavas" that I have encountered on different forums. As a hindu, I am concerned about this behaviour.

Most of the vaishnavas that I have come across on the internet are very sectarian in nature and generally sarcastic or down right angry at other hindu sects. One does not have to go out of this forum even to see this behaviour.

Have we forgotten that we are "hindus" and as such should have and should show respect to "all" sects even if we do not agree with their teachings?

If all vaishnavas are taught to belittle other hindu sects these days then believe me it leaves a bitter taste in other people's mouth. And if any vaishnava thinks that Bhagwan has instructed us to belittle others then they are just plain wrong!

While people like me shun the missionary 'shove it down your throat' mentality of other religions, it is sad to see that this mentality exists in our own house too!!

pretty sad to see this...:o

ramkish42
25 April 2006, 05:45 PM
Dear Moderator

You had verily found only one guy of that sort and that guy has promised you not to come back, and that guy was an exception, I can see he was young, enthusiastic and sees internet as a great tool.

To make him understand, what is required is time and patience

What has to be done by simple guidance cannot be done by instrcuting with tone nor by punishment

Jai shree krishna

satay
25 April 2006, 07:05 PM
Dear Moderator

You had verily found only one guy of that sort and that guy has promised you not to come back, and that guy was an exception, I can see he was young, enthusiastic and sees internet as a great tool.

To make him understand, what is required is time and patience

What has to be done by simple guidance cannot be done by instrcuting with tone nor by punishment

Jai shree krishna

Dear member,
My post does not talk about one particular member of this forum. My post represent a number of 'alike' personalities I have met on the net on different hindu forums.

This forum is not a vaishnava forum or any sectarian forum and as such one is not allowed to 'shove something down' other people's throats. Frankly, it is annoying and turns people off.

My observation is not based on one person...

The rules of the site are clear. There will be 'punishment' (if you prefer to call it that) if any member breaks the rule.

If one does not like the rules they can happily go to other forums where insulting other sampadrayas are allowed or one can easily setup one such forum. It doesn't take much to setup a personal site, blog or even a forum like this...

This forum is created for 'positive' hindu presentation. I will not hesitate a bit to close it if all we get here is sectarian nonsense and breaking of the rules or 'my father can beat up your father' attitudes.

Now, back to the original post...do you have anything to say about the behaviour I have observed among vaishnavas or is that just some little kids behaving like this and giving a bad impressions of vaishnavas in general?

what's your opinion?

satay

ramkish42
26 April 2006, 07:15 AM
As I found this post immediately as such instances, I was referring to the individual member

Being a Moderator action, I trust, the said action will not be based on individual's action.

During my comparitive study analysis in my private discussion group, which drew many references from Yahoo group observants (We do not actively participate in Yahoo groups, but just keep observing the nature of people in such group chats) we found a surprising information.

Many Muslims get provoked easily with statements against their prophet and citations to unislamic activity. This provocation is shared by Vaishnavites (and many Dvaitins too), where a negative reference to their revered perceptors and non vedic practices

Advaitins and Gaudia Vaishnavs are seen to be very patient inspite of such provocations.

Working offline, we found few similarities between people who got provoked and people who are very patient. This goes with attachment to perceptor and perpetual discussions on bio-graphies of the perceptors. With this, we were able to conclude, point of provocation to One group is different from another group, though we found more similar things, those are irrelevant at this point.

I am easily provoked when some says a negative point on any of my perceptor, on the contrary, others do not get provoked with such similar statement, but only with statement contrary to their belief

Such provocation results in negative statements made on forums of this kind, in different levels like some one responds subtly "You do not know", referring to ignorance of the other pointing out that the other person has not read his own scriptures and this also goes to extent of name calling

The point which I want to make clear is - one feel offended at different levels which we like to measure with standard formats

To put it precisely, Group one is provoked against any statement where intentions are negative and group two is provoked against statement which are not politically correct

One condemns the intentions irrespective of words and other condemns the very words used

Meeting point for this difference is much varied, what I suggest here is first two Moderator actions and messages related to that could be made via Private Message

satay
26 April 2006, 09:23 AM
As I found this post immediately as such instances, I was referring to the individual member


yes, it was clear to me that you were referring to the individual member though my post does not talk about any individual whatsoever and is based on observation of many individuals of the same sect.



Being a Moderator action, I trust, the said action will not be based on individual's action.

Not sure what you are trying to say here could be because english is not my first language. In any case, you can have full confidence in the abilities of the moderators here...some have been doing this for years especially BYS.
We are good at reading between the lines and at identifying who is trying to just push the limits of the rules and who is actually following the rules nicely in a mature manner.

Actions will be taken based on individual's action. Final judgement rests with the mod or admin and there is no if, buts or questions about that. We have to do this to keep the site clean of all childish behaviour.

I trust that you understand what I am saying.



During my comparitive study analysis in my private discussion group, which drew many references from Yahoo group observants (We do not actively participate in Yahoo groups, but just keep observing the nature of people in such group chats) we found a surprising information.


Who is "we"? Are there many of you?



Many Muslims get provoked easily with statements against their prophet and citations to unislamic activity.

Naturally, since they regard their prophet as the only prophet sent by god.



This provocation is shared by Vaishnavites (and many Dvaitins too), where a negative reference to their revered perceptors and non vedic practices


Any idea why this is?



Working offline, we found few similarities between people who got provoked and people who are very patient. This goes with attachment to perceptor and perpetual discussions on bio-graphies of the perceptors. With this, we were able to conclude, point of provocation to One group is different from another group, though we found more similar things, those are irrelevant at this point.


It is a natural for humans to have emotions and get angry when provoked but we are talking about dharma adherents that are supposed to be setting an example and not get angry and not behave like children if provoked.




I am easily provoked when some says a negative point on any of my perceptor, on the contrary, others do not get provoked with such similar statement, but only with statement contrary to their belief


This is all natural nothing new about this in your research. People get provoked and angry for different reasons but the point I am trying to make is that as dharma adherents Vaishnavas should show more constraint on their senses. Is sense control not taught in Vaishnava sects these days?



Such provocation results in negative statements made on forums of this kind, in different levels like some one responds subtly "You do not know", referring to ignorance of the other pointing out that the other person has not read his own scriptures and this also goes to extent of name calling

Naturally, this why mods are needed.



The point which I want to make clear is - one feel offended at different levels which we like to measure with standard formats

As a hindu do we have a standard format or not is my question?



Meeting point for this difference is much varied, what I suggest here is first two Moderator actions and messages related to that could be made via Private Message

Thanks for the suggestion. The site rules are clear and in fact common sense. It is assumed that we are all adults here but I keep repeating myself on this and childish behaviour creeps up in most threads.

The action is taken in public and not through private messages since the offending action was taken in public. It also serves as a reminder to other members of the board to follow the rules.

If one breaks the rules openly and behaves like a child openly action will be taken in open.

Thanks,

ramkish42
26 April 2006, 09:58 AM
you can have full confidence in the abilities of the moderators here...some have been doing this for years especially BYS.
We are good at reading between the lines and at identifying who is trying to just push the limits of the rules and who is actually following the rules nicely in a mature manner.

OK.

However, like to point out differences, You had asked members to proceed to debate in nice manners, where in other Mod indicating their views of feeling irritated with Right Vs. Wrong discussions

Certain religious leaders are accuesd for being money minded which comment was irrelevant to this forum and respective thread, and Shri Prabhupada directly accused for inserting new things in texts, not being dependable at all - all done to upheld a sectarian view went without any notice

Inspite of my objection in making threads with sectarian thoughts, for the intentions of someone, Mods break down on me for being sectarian thought.


Actions will be taken based on individual's action. Final judgement rests with the mod or admin and there is no if, buts or questions about that. We have to do this to keep the site clean of all childish behaviour.

I trust that you understand what I am saying.

I welcome it


Who is "we"? Are there many of you?
I am part of few offline local private discussion groups where we try to discuss & understand hindu scriptures. The very idea is to understand different philosophies. I referred myself and members of the private offline group with the word "We".

Ramkish42 is only one person



Naturally, since they regard their prophet as the only prophet sent by god.

Any idea why this is?
The idea of eternity and blessings of Lord is purely dependant of Guru for Vaishnavs. We point out various examples, the base of all such examples are one - if a vaishanva does not have satisfaction of his Guru and bhaagavatha Sampatha, even is Lord has bestowed his krupa, cannot obtain eternity, but has to be satisfied only with Jnana.

Verily, for a Vaishnav Eternity is dependant of eternity of his guru


This is all natural nothing new about this in your research. People get provoked and angry for different reasons but the point I am trying to make is that as dharma adherents Vaishnavas should show more constraint on their senses. Is sense control not taught in Vaishnava sects these days?
Let me corroborate with some events on this forum.

When some members pointed out I DO NOT KNOW CERTAIN SCRIPTURE, I HAVE NOT READ CERTAIN TEXTS, indicating my ignorancy, I responded with my knowledge of the very texts

When some one points out Ramanuja has hidden a fact from his disciples, I objected. When insults against Prabhupada is made I recorded my objections

Were do you see the sense control is missing. The particular event which I pointed out earlier was misery, no doubt. I had recorded my objection to him through email too, but statements made against great perceptors is really a matter where one should not be in control of senses. I am not saying the person who has insulted should be punished, that is the prerogative of the mods, but the person who marks his objection should not be punished


Thanks for the suggestion. The site rules are clear and in fact common sense. It is assumed that we are all adults here but I keep repeating myself on this and childish behaviour creeps up in most threads.

The action is taken in public and not through private messages since the offending action was taken in public. It also serves as a reminder to other members of the board to follow the rules.

Action in public is well appreciated, but the point I am trying to make is a call for explanation before proceeding. PM's could serve that purpose verily

Thanks Satay

satay
26 April 2006, 10:13 AM
As I have said repeatedly here on different threads...if you come across a post that you feel is breaking the rules of the site by all means please report it. The report goes to all mods and the post is reviewed and actions taken. Most of the times, the offending member is sent a pm. I know most of the members from other forums as I invited them here.

Let's not turn this into a 'mod' vs members thread and let's focus on the behaviour of vaishnava in general on the net.

I have found the behaviour to be childish, it turns people off. Do you not agree with my observation?

We want to talk about Bhagwan but end up looking like a missionary from another religions that are ready to shove something down other peoples throats.

You know well, what happens if someone shoves somethings down other peoples throats right? The person often vomits it all out and that doesn't leave a good taste in the mouth now does it?

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
26 April 2006, 04:43 PM
If you don't know already, I am born in a Vaishnava family...that doesn't say much but take it for what it is worth.

The purpose of my post on this thread is a behaviour of "Vaishnavas" that I have encountered on different forums. As a hindu, I am concerned about this behaviour.

Most of the vaishnavas that I have come across on the internet are very sectarian in nature and generally sarcastic or down right angry at other hindu sects. One does not have to go out of this forum even to see this behaviour.

Have we forgotten that we are "hindus" and as such should have and should show respect to "all" sects even if we do not agree with their teachings?

If all vaishnavas are taught to belittle other hindu sects these days then believe me it leaves a bitter taste in other people's mouth. And if any vaishnava thinks that Bhagwan has instructed us to belittle others then they are just plain wrong!

While people like me shun the missionary 'shove it down your throat' mentality of other religions, it is sad to see that this mentality exists in our own house too!!

pretty sad to see this...:o

Namaskaar. I share the same feelings. While this isn't the case with all members of the Vaishnava sects, it is a noticable trend. A trend I notice with Shaivites, Shaktas, Smartas, and others is a more non-judgmental approach to other sects and without preaching or converting. In fact, I cannot ever recall a Shaivite or other type of non-Vaishnava Hindu trying to preach or convert others to his or her school. As to the non-judgmental trend, they will tend to be less sectarian in the sense that they do not regularly assert to all other Hindus that they are a member of such and such school and consider themselves to be Hindus while acknowledging that there are many different sects.

On the other hand, a Vaishnava trend I have seen on every forum including this one as well as out in society includes the following:

1. Preaching and converting
2. Criticizing, ridiculing, and excessively debating against other schools
3. Re-defining their sect as Hinduism instead of defining their sect as one out of many sects of Hinduism
4. Failing to acknowledge that there are other valid sects of Hindu philosophy

This can also be witnessed here on this forum where certain Vaishnavas excessively debate against all other users while constantly bringing up their school. These people seem to have an inferiority complex. Even when other members would rather have a discussion than a debate and discuss the topics in as non-sectarian a way as possible, certain Vaishnavas go to extreme lengths to argue that their view in their school is the right one. It is this constant attempt to prove that they are right and everyone else is wrong often when their debates are not in context and irrelevant and even inappropriate to the type of dialogue that is being engaged in that it becomes quite annoying and unfortunately gives Vaishnavas a very bad name. Similar to misbehaved kids, they cannot focus on their own problems and instead try to correct everyone else instead of simply minding their own business.

Namaskaar. ~BYS~

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
26 April 2006, 05:00 PM
Dear Moderator


It is not necessary to assume that any post made by a moderator is made for moderation purposes. We will post normally as users and if a complaint, request, or announcement is made, we will note the post as a "Moderator Note" or an "Admin Note." Otherwise, our comments should be treated just as you would treat them as if they were to come from any other user.

I am not surprised you were the first one to reply since you have been trying to debate against all other schools since you first arrived here. I don't believe Satay's comments were directed toward you in particular but it is noticable that you do fit the category we are referring to: preaching and converting, criticizing other schools than your own, acting as if your own schools is the only true Hinduism, and an addiction to trying to prove that you are right and everyone else is wrong when such attitude is not necessary.

Namaste. ~BYS~

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
26 April 2006, 05:16 PM
Many Muslims get provoked easily with statements against their prophet and citations to unislamic activity. This provocation is shared by Vaishnavites (and many Dvaitins too), where a negative reference to their revered perceptors and non vedic practices

Perhaps clarity is needed here. I worked and studied with a sizable number of Muslims not too long back where I used to live. They knew that I'm not Muslim and never tried to convert me. On the other hand, sometimes we had some interesting discussions. When I stated what my disagreements were with Islam and Muhammad, they were not offended but simply understood that I follow a different religion and had different beliefs. They were aware I wasn't hostile toward their religion. On the other hand, I have been confronted by a rather sizable number of Gaudiya Vaishnavas particularly those who are associating with ISKCON and in almost every case, it was a one-way judgmental discussion similar to a preacher going door to door.

When you state that you have your own views, they don't go away but continue to tell you why their school is the right school and why you should follow them. Additionally, if you state your disagreements with Prabhupada in most cases they become angry. Note that just like with the Muslims, this has been done in a non-hostile and respectful manner. The difference is that the Muslims weren't trying to preach to me in the first place and really didn't care what I believed in but actually appreciated the fact that I showed some understanding and respect for their right to follow a different path. This is also considering the fact that both of us (Hindus and Muslims) are a minority in this country. It is the Gaudiya Vaishnavas that consistently act as if my number has been called and it is time to have my soul saved and surrender to Krishna under their understanding of him. This is combined with a holier-than-thou attitude and superiority complex that they "own" Hinduism and some total stranger suddenly is now my guru whom I should listen to. Please note that this is not the case with all members of any particular group but these are the experiences that I have had in my day to day life. Namaste. ~BYS~

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
26 April 2006, 05:30 PM
Admin Note:

This message is to ramkish42 and other who may not be aware of this. Moderators and Administrators will often participate in discussions in addition to managing the forums. It is important not to confuse personal opinions in a thread discussion with a specific request by a moderator. When we make a specific request or annoncement, we will state that it is a moderator or admin note as one can see at the top of this post. If you don't see any such note then chances are it is just us participating in the discussion and our views should be treated just as if they were to come from any other user.

Additionally, this thread should be left on topic. The topic is about Vaishnava attitudes in general. It is not focused on one individual's views (i.e. Ramkish42). In other words, the thread was not started to accuse you of doing anything (Ramkish42). The purpose is to talk about these Vaishnava trends in general. We are not accusing anyone of anything.

Namaskaar. :) ~BYS~

Do you have any questions about the use of this website? If so, please send a private message to Bhakti Yoga Seeker or contact any of the other administrators on the website.

satay
26 April 2006, 07:30 PM
namaste,
In ramkish's defence I should say that he was not saying that my post was directed at him (in post #2). He was referring to another member who I had edited the posts of earlier that day. That member got angry at that and sent me a PM telling me that advaita is a cancer and that he was trying to do surgery to cure this cancer. He also told me that he will not be posting here anymore (though I see one of his posts here today) and that he was going to create his own forum to uproot advaita which is a wrong philosophy as taught by his sect and gurus.

I thanked him for his pm and bade him good bye. I also told him that yes, he should open up his own forum to perform this type of 'surgery'. In pos #2 ramkish made a reference to that member and wrongly assumed that my op was due to the offending member pming me and appraently ramkish knows of the contents of the PM exchange between the offending member and myself.

Anyway, the matter is now cleard as the offending member has told us that he will not be posting here. I welcome such gesture in the name of dharma and in an effort to keep this site clean.

Again, there are tons of sites on the net where one can go and bash other sects, religions and people.

I refuse to allow this site to become of those sites. This is a place for hindus to discuss dharma in a positive manner.

orlando
27 April 2006, 01:33 AM
Mamaste all.
Satay,you wrote:"appraently ramkish knows of the contents of the PM exchange between the offending member and myself."
Yes,Shri Ramkish42 does know about my pm because I told him about it.However he doesn't exactly know the concents of my p.m. to you.
I will stop to engage in philosophical debate,althoug I don't accept to be called an "offender".
When I was in hindunet I never won a philosophical debate against advaitin.I always miserabily failed.I am not still ready for this.
For example how can I win a debate on Brahma-sutra against an advaitin when I must still read Shankara-Bhasya and Ramanuja-Bhasya?
So,I will not engage in debate except about topics that I already know perfectly.
And Bhakti Yoga Seeker,it is wrong that ISKCON's followers get angry when you show disagreement with Prabhupada.But if they try to convert him,it is only out of mercy,not because of sectarism.
Regards,
Orlando.

satay
27 April 2006, 09:51 AM
In my opinion, we should show respect to all schools and acharyas even if we don't agree with thier thesis or teachings. Doing otherwise is 'unhindu' in my opinion especially if your behaviour leaves a bad impression of your guru and sect.

I welcome you back to the forum. :)

orlando
27 April 2006, 10:21 AM
Namaste Satay.
Well,in my opinion the word Hinduism is too general.It means many religions.After all I don't recognize my-self as hindu.I recognize my-self as a Sri vaishnava of Ramanuja-sampradaya.
I came back to this forum because a member's request.
Regards,
Orlando.

satay
27 April 2006, 11:43 AM
Namaste Satay.
Well,in my opinion the word Hinduism is too general.It means many religions.After all I don't recognize my-self as hindu.I recognize my-self as a Sri vaishnava of Ramanuja-sampradaya.
I came back to this forum because a member's request.
Regards,
Orlando.

namaste,
in that case then please not that this is a "hindu" forum and not a vaishnava forum as such respect to "all" sects under the hindu umbrella is expected from all members of this site.

ramkish42
27 April 2006, 12:01 PM
Namaste Satay.
Well,in my opinion the word Hinduism is too general.It means many religions.After all I don't recognize my-self as hindu.I recognize my-self as a Sri vaishnava of Ramanuja-sampradaya.
I came back to this forum because a member's request.
Regards,
Orlando.
That member was I

orlando
27 April 2006, 01:25 PM
namaste,
in that case then please not that this is a "hindu" forum and not a vaishnava forum as such respect to "all" sects under the hindu umbrella is expected from all members of this site.

Namaste all.
Your order will be executed.
Regards,
Orlando.

Arjuna
27 April 2006, 03:23 PM
And Bhakti Yoga Seeker,it is wrong that ISKCON's followers get angry when you show disagreement with Prabhupada.But if they try to convert him,it is only out of mercy,not because of sectarism.
Regards,
Orlando.

Some ISKCON followers do get angry, Bhakti Yoga Seeker is right.

And verily many of them have "superiority complex", think of Prabhupada's version of Gaudiya-vaishnavism as a standard not only of Vaishnavism but even of Vedic religion and denigrate other sampradayas without any proper knowledge of those.

orlando
27 April 2006, 04:28 PM
Some ISKCON followers do get angry, Bhakti Yoga Seeker is right.

And verily many of them have "superiority complex", think of Prabhupada's version of Gaudiya-vaishnavism as a standard not only of Vaishnavism but even of Vedic religion and denigrate other sampradayas without any proper knowledge of those.

Many months ago I did read the whole Bhagavad Gita as it is(Bhagavad-gita with commentary of Prabhupada) in italian language,my mother tongue.
There is an english version at http://vedabase.net/bg/en
Look at what Prabhupada says in the Introduction

By http://vedabase.net/bg/introduction/en

In this present day, people are very much eager to have one scripture, one God, one religion, and one occupation. Therefore, ekaḿ śāstraḿ devakī-putra-gītam: let there be one scripture only, one common scripture for the whole world — Bhagavad-gītā. Eko devo devakī-putra eva: let there be one God for the whole world — Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Eko mantras tasya nāmāni: and one hymn, one mantra, one prayer — the chanting of His name: Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare. Karmāpy ekaḿ tasya devasya sevā: and let there be one work only — the service of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Regards,
Orlando.

satay
27 April 2006, 04:43 PM
Though I know that everyone needs Bhagwan I feel that it is not my "job" to shove him down other people's throats. I feel confident that he will and does reveal himself to those who are ready.

I have the utmost respect for Prabhupada as I do for any other hindu scholar but I can not agree with the approach of some devotees.

ramkish42
27 April 2006, 04:53 PM
Some ISKCON followers do get angry, Bhakti Yoga Seeker is right.

And verily many of them have "superiority complex", think of Prabhupada's version of Gaudiya-vaishnavism as a standard not only of Vaishnavism but even of Vedic religion and denigrate other sampradayas without any proper knowledge of those.
Dear Arjun

As long as you respect Gurus of ISKCON and do not degrade ISKCON with Sahajiyas, they will not get angry

As you are angry when I interpret your texts, they will be angry on comparison with Sahajiya and statements against their gurus.

That is why I suggest, we must have a table - who is incompatible with what

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
27 April 2006, 06:02 PM
Namaste. I do not agree with you Bhakta of God. The real preachers of Vaishnavism do so in a non-confrontational way similar to some Muslims I know. They will be happy to talk about their views when asked and won't hesitate to give you literature or point you to information if you would like to have it. It is a indirect form of preaching where they are always happy to bring more people into thier belief system but without going around with a sales pitch to accomplish that goal. Most Gaudiya Vaishna preachers I have come across do not have "merciful" eyes but instead have suspicious and paranoid eyes as if everyone but them is going to the hell realms in their next life. I am quite good at reading people's body chemistries, detecting auras, and seeing through the eyes of a person so to speak. I have yet to meet a preacher that I would consider anywhere close to a pure soul. The overwhelming majority of them again have a look of disdain in their eyes indicating a superiority complex. It begins to feel like their motive for preaching isn't to help you but to prove to you how much better of a person they are than you.

This is certainly not the case with all preachers but these are the experiences that I have had. Some people may have had different experiences. Frankly, I don't appreciate it when other people try to control my life. I am an adult and expect to be treated as one. When I am carrying groceries in to the house or walking to work, I don't appreciate nor condone having a total stranger stop me and tell me how to live or not live my life. Especially if these are Gaudiya preachers and they can figure out I'm a Hindu as I wear tulsi beads around the neck. I'm over the age of 18 and don't need other strangers telling me how I can have sex or what I can drink or smoke and how I can meditate or pray and to whom I can meditate or pray toward. There is nothing merciful about preaching. If I want advice on how to live my private life then I will approach them and ask them for advice. If I'm not asking for their advice they should go away and bother someone else.

Namaskaar. ;) ~BYS~

orlando
28 April 2006, 07:15 AM
Dear Arjun

As long as you respect Gurus of ISKCON and do not degrade ISKCON with Sahajiyas, they will not get angry

As you are angry when I interpret your texts, they will be angry on comparison with Sahajiya and statements against their gurus.

That is why I suggest, we must have a table - who is incompatible with what

What does mean Sahajiya?

TruthSeeker
28 April 2006, 09:38 AM
Namaskaar. I share the same feelings. While this isn't the case with all members of the Vaishnava sects, it is a noticable trend. A trend I notice with Shaivites, Shaktas, Smartas, and others is a more non-judgmental approach to other sects and without preaching or converting. In fact, I cannot ever recall a Shaivite or other type of non-Vaishnava Hindu trying to preach or convert others to his or her school. As to the non-judgmental trend, they will tend to be less sectarian in the sense that they do not regularly assert to all other Hindus that they are a member of such and such school and consider themselves to be Hindus while acknowledging that there are many different sects.


It is the philosophical difference that leads to this scenario. According to Smartaism or even Shaivism, Vishnu's place in the ontology is supreme. In contrary, Vaishnava Theology renders Shiva as an individual soul. It is just like Chirstianity or Islam or other faiths. Consequently...



On the other hand, a Vaishnava trend I have seen on every forum including this one as well as out in society includes the following:

1. Preaching and converting


Has been part of the Hindu tradition, and not anything new. It is well known that Hindus clashed head on with both Buddhism and Jainism in the past. That includes advaita too. You could say that advaita has become modern , while Vaishnavite religion retains its medieval flavour.




2. Criticizing, ridiculing, and excessively debating against other schools


Unfortunately, this is common to all Hindu traditions, including advaita. You only have to flip through the works of say, Madhusudhana Saraswati or Appayya Dixita. I beleive there used to be some decency in their debates, which is becoming increasingly lost.



3. Re-defining their sect as Hinduism instead of defining their sect as one out of many sects of Hinduism


Common to all vedantic schools. Why do you think the schools of Shankya, Nyaya, Vaisheksika, and Yoga, and even Purva Mimamsa are non existant now? They have been out debated, and shut down.:)



4. Failing to acknowledge that there are other valid sects of Hindu philosophy


No classical Hindu school acknowledgedges any non vedic sect. I beleive this is again a new trend, due to the mixing of the Hindu religion with Islam and Christianity. I think it is a good trend...we need to keep in pace with the world.




This can also be witnessed here on this forum where certain Vaishnavas excessively debate against all other users while constantly bringing up their school. These people seem to have an inferiority complex. Even when other members would rather have a discussion than a debate and discuss the topics in as non-sectarian a way as possible, certain Vaishnavas go to extreme lengths to argue that their view in their school is the right one. It is this constant attempt to prove that they are right and everyone else is wrong often when their debates are not in context and irrelevant and even inappropriate to the type of dialogue that is being engaged in that it becomes quite annoying and unfortunately gives Vaishnavas a very bad name. Similar to misbehaved kids, they cannot focus on their own problems and instead try to correct everyone else instead of simply minding their own business.


Excessive debating is encouraged by all schools that promote concepts like damnation, or grading of people, and beleive in the superiority of one specific God over others. Such people feel the need to "save other souls" from hell or samsara. Nothing much we can do about it. We cant change their philosophy, nor their beleifs, and consequently their actions. Only God can change that.:)

ramkish42
28 April 2006, 10:54 AM
What does mean Sahajiya?
Sahajiyas once upon a time were Tantris, they existed even before Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Upon the advent of Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabu, they accepted his teachings but retained there Tantric practises, and rejected the basic tenant of Shri Chaitanya - Dualist Philosophy of Shri Madhavachaarya

According to many Gaudiya Vaishnavs and ISKCON to be very particular, they are called kulabrashtaas - out castes; Sahajiyas perceptors are called babajis, though they accept Krishna as supreme lord, they differ from other vaishnav on many counts., like generally Vaishnavs agree that Shri Radha was married to Shri Krishna, Srivaishnavs call her nappinai and Madhavi's call her Shrimati Radha Rani, Sahajiya's deny this fact, the feel that she was married to some one else later.

I am not going deep into philosophical inqueries of Sahajiya for two counts

1. I am none to do that, Sahajiya's are very small sect having their individual thought, we cannot deny them their rights.
2. I do not see any person in sahajiya representing here in this forum, (if so, we can hear from him directly)

As Satay pointed out, I too feel, this thread cannot be debate thread

idli_sambar
28 April 2006, 01:09 PM
Hi, I like idli’s and not cheesburger or scotch or drugs. There may be others who may not like idli’s but the rest. I don’t shove it down others throat. If asked or provoked idli’s are dumb, I have the right to defend it. I do not respect others who like beef and drugs. Does that make me sectarian ? Are you demanding that I show the same respect to people who consume them even though I dislike them ? Bhagavad Ramanuja never respected advaiti’s and condemned them, so is he plain wrong ?

ramkish42
28 April 2006, 01:26 PM
Hi, I like idli’s and not cheesburger or scotch or drugs. There may be others who may not like idli’s but the rest. I don’t shove it down others throat. If asked or provoked idli’s are dumb, I have the right to defend it. I do not respect others who like beef and drugs. Does that make me sectarian ? Are you demanding that I show the same respect to people who consume them even though I dislike them ? Bhagavad Ramanuja never respected advaiti’s and condemned them, so is he plain wrong ?
I like the way in which your name and first post synchronises

If you ask me yes, we want you to respect them as long as it is not scotch and drugs. If you do not like scotch and drugs, in this forum, make your opposition gently condemning the practise and not the person.

Shrimad Ramanuja was not wrong,

1. what is wrong is when we try to be a person like Shrimad Ramanuja, we first must have atleast half of his knowledge
2. What is wrong is the idea he never respected Advaitis, what is right is he refused to respect the philosophy of advaiti. The topic is the practise and not the very person

As Shri Satay has said, he is OK for debates happening on this forum, but should start, proceed and end is a respectable manner.

Hope I am correct

satay
28 April 2006, 02:16 PM
perfect post Ramkish!

idli: Welcome to the forums and namaste!

I like your post too and here are my thoughts...
I am from the north and my favourite food is rice (chawal). I once tried 'idli' on a friend's request and almost threw up!! No offense but I was not used to it and never had tried it before. It was not shoved down my throat but it was my choice to taste it but I didn't like it so I didn't try it again. What if someone had shoved it down my throat? What would have happened? I could not say for sure but I think I would have vomitted it right out...

Now, I don't like idli that doesn't mean that I don't respect those who love idli like many of my tamil friends.

The point is we can only make suggestions at best and then it is up to the other person to accept it, try it or reject it.

When it comes to Bhagwan, we can only make a hint or suggestion at best...It is the other person's karma and their spiritual capacity to accept the dharmic life.

It is not our job to be salesmen for Bhagwan. He can take care of himself. I refuse to sell him to others who seem to be happy without him.

As far as advaitins, I have not studied advaita vedanta so I could not say if it is right, wrong or what. I am not shri ramanuja or shri madha or shri samkara or any other acharya...I have my own brain and reasoning to understand things from my own personal experiences of the divine and my own abilities...

but one thing is for sure...the label "hindu" demands that we show tolerance and respect to our acharyas, all of our acharyas and all of our schools and sects.

This is my opinion...

And there are the site rules which I and other admins came up with. Even I am not above the site rules and sometimes I have deleted my own posts after posting and reading them and finding them inappropriate.

The purpose of the site is have positive presenation of dharma and dharmis. to act like adults and if we must discuss disagreements then to discuss them in a mature manner and to focus on the topic at hand and not at the person.

idli_sambar
28 April 2006, 03:17 PM
If you ask me yes, we want you to respect them as long as it is not scotch and drugs. If you do not like scotch and drugs, in this forum, make your opposition gently condemning the practise and not the person.
easy to say don't condemn the person. Do you do that in practice? Have you respected everyone in your life though you felt they were evil ? Can you truthfully admit to this? Condemning a practice is percieved here as not respecting the person and their belief. Some can say bull, dog, cat, shiva, vishnu, snake, allah, satan are the same, so respect, but vaishnavas and shaivas cannot as their belief is staunch.


1. what is wrong is when we try to be a person like Shrimad Ramanuja, we first must have atleast half of his knowledge.you don't have to be sri Ramanuja to condemn advaitins same as you don't have to be me to disrespect scotch and beef.

2. What is wrong is the idea he never respected Advaitis, what is right is he refused to respect the philosophy of advaiti. The topic is the practise and not the very person.wrong. If he respected then he would not have condemned. Contrary, can we say acharya was not a good human being but his actions were good? Why differentiate between the person and his actions ?

As Shri Satay has said, he is OK for debates happening on this forum, but should start, proceed and end is a respectable manner..Respect is relative. If I say dosai is not tasty, dosai might think I am not showing respect. I can't say I respect dosai but I don't respect the ingredients and way it is laid on the pan, can I?

idli_sambar
28 April 2006, 03:48 PM
Satay maharaj -- I don't see any reason why you agree with Ramk anna. He is saying respect the person not the position which invariably creates a distinction between the person and his action. Like you I hate those shove the throat bible mongers. Tamilians are the best.

TruthSeeker
28 April 2006, 04:00 PM
Hi, I like idli’s and not cheesburger or scotch or drugs. There may be others who may not like idli’s but the rest. I don’t shove it down others throat. If asked or provoked idli’s are dumb, I have the right to defend it. I do not respect others who like beef and drugs. Does that make me sectarian ? Are you demanding that I show the same respect to people who consume them even though I dislike them ? Bhagavad Ramanuja never respected advaiti’s and condemned them, so is he plain wrong ?

Bhagavad Ramanuja is considered to be avatar of Laxmana or Adi sesha, so there will be an avatar rahasya. Obviously, he was born to establish to establish the philosophy of Vi****advaita. He cannot simply sit in his house and do this. In traditional Hindu way, this requires the Acharya to compose commentaries on the prastana, and it was the requirement for every Acharya to not only establish his system, but also disprove others. As you might have observed, Sri Shankara did the same during his times. His avatar had a different goal.

So what Sri Ramanuja did was nothing unusual and does not imply any disrespect for advaita. This is all cooked up by the followers of his faith. Dont bring disrepute to the glorious tradition of Srivaishnavism in the name of empty sectarianism and misunderstandings on Acharya avatara rahasya. All great Acharyas of the past knew the absolute truth (whatever it is), but their incarnations were to teach diffferent people at different times at different places. Not all people respond identically to the same teachings and philosophies, each person needs to be groomed spiritually in a way that matches his inclinations, and that is how all religions have their rightful place. Forcing a kid to do thousands of pushups will damage the child's health, and making a wrestler lift a 10 pound barbell is a non exercise. Each person needs a different approach to religion in accordance with his Karma and spiritual merit acquired in former births.

ramkish42
28 April 2006, 04:01 PM
easy to say don't condemn the person. Do you do that in practice? Have you respected everyone in your life though you felt they were evil ? Can you truthfully admit to this? Condemning a practice is percieved here as not respecting the person and their belief. Some can say bull, dog, cat, shiva, vishnu, snake, allah, satan are the same, so respect, but vaishnavas and shaivas cannot as their belief is staunch.
I really started loving Idli and Sambar now

The question first should be What? Where? Against Whom? and How?

What do you define by Evil first should be answered. In the bottom of my heart, I will say Evil is I****, Where - definitely not here for this is no place, Against whom? - definitely not against another Hindu and How ? - in the most ethical way as possible

I can see your answers are different. My point here is why it should be taken against another Hindu at first place. Debating, discussing, exchanging thoughts all these stuff is different but do you really purport to condemn? If so condemn what - another vedic religion? If you look at the net result, all that you would had done is you would had destoryed faith of vedic religion on whole

With Advaita, yes I really follow, why advaita alone, for any vedic religion I follow this.



you don't have to be sri Ramanuja to condemn advaitins same as you don't have to be me to disrespect scotch and beef.
Simple analogy - Advaitin is living being (Advaita is philosophy, not advaitin) and he is hindu which is in sharp contrast with other stuff which are non living and no religion objects

Shrimad Ramanuja did condemn Advaita philosophy, so did Shrimad Vedanta Desika and Manavala Maamuni, but every one addressed their opponents as dear, dear friend, learned - they never condemned the very person.

I also remember one of the close friend of my great perceptor, Shrimad Vedanta Desika is a staunch Advaiti, His name was Vidyaaranya, at the time of Shrimad Vedanta Desika his said friend was heading a Shri Shringeri Mutt established by Shri Sankaracharya, I never heard they debated each other out - never heard of insulting words exchanged. Even Shrimad Ramanuja addressed every advaitin with respect. His once upon a time guru, Yadavaprakaasa was a advaitin, never heard Shrimad Ramanuja condemned his gur inspite of the fact, the very guru plotted to kill Shrimad Ramanuja.

Follwing my perceptors I say condemn the practise and not the person. Sometimes I am very strong condemning the practise some may misunderstand me, verily I do not bother


wrong. If he respected then he would not have condemned.
These two are two different activity not mutually exclusive. There are many inbetween stages.


Contrary, can we say acharya was not a good human being but his actions were good? Why differentiate between the person and his actions ?
Very good question. There is no aacharya who is not a good human being. If the sp called aacharya is not a good human being, then such person is not supposed to be trusted.

There are three different things
Action, Intention and Man (Person, but I used man so that I can shrunk these three to AIM which is easy reference). Aacharya is someone whose AIM is perfect and good. Action might be forced or voluntary; based on this intention might be good or bad; based on these Man is normally made, but the point here is Intention and Action can be destroyed out of person, where in person cannot be destoryed, for that right we do not have.

What we can do is to condemn the wrong action if the intentions are good, condemn the malafide intention if the man is good, if entire AIM is bad the only option being a person of good AIM - refer such bad AIM to Police in ihaloka and to God in paraloka.

For two bad AIMs religion and internet is not right place. But streets and gallis are

How to identify a good man is altogether a different topic, for the want of space I abstain


Respect is relative. If I say dosai is not tasty, dosai might think I am not showing respect. I can't say I respect dosai but I don't respect the ingredients and way it is laid on the pan, can I?

The problem I perceive here is you are trying to link the sense of Taste with sense of likingness and respect. Once linked, yes, the very words of Dosai is not tasty amouts to disrecpect to Dosai for it is general statement made with an universal coverage. Instead try saying, "Dosai is not very tasty food for me"

Same way, try saying Ramkish is a bad person, again try with Ramkish is not a good person, again try with Ramkish is not a very good person, Now try Ramkish is Ok but his opinions are wrong.

Hope you will be able to make out the difference

ramkish42
28 April 2006, 04:02 PM
Satay maharaj -- I don't see any reason why you agree with Ramk anna. He is saying respect the person not the position which invariably creates a distinction between the person and his action. Like you I hate those shove the throat bible mongers. Tamilians are the best.
Oh-ho

Not position my dear idly, but the practise

ramkish42
28 April 2006, 04:09 PM
philosophy of Vi****advaita.

Satayji, can you look into this please.

I think this because of auto word replace. Request you allow the search with space before or after the to-be-replaced word so that above kind of things does not happen.

satay
28 April 2006, 04:20 PM
Satayji, can you look into this please.

I think this because of auto word replace. Request you allow the search with space before or after the to-be-replaced word so that above kind of things does not happen.

I believe TruthSeeker has mis-spelled the word vishistadvaita and the system is 'thinking' of another word and replaced it stars...

idli_sambar
28 April 2006, 04:24 PM
Very good question. There is no aacharya who is not a good human being. If the sp called aacharya is not a good human being, then such person is not supposed to be trusted.
[/font]

How did you associate aacharya being "good" ? isn't it because of his actions? Why didnt you say his practice was good? likewise if there is something "good" then there has to be something "bad". the theme this discussion is how bad we vaishnavas behave....cheeeee!


[/Same way, try saying Ramkish is a bad person, again try with Ramkish is not a good person, again try with Ramkish is not a very good person, Now try Ramkish is Ok but his opinions are wrong.
can I say ramkish is a good person but his thinking has gone for a toss ? I don't think you understood my point.
who cares, no one respects idli's here. In a little while of my tenure in this forum I will find people taunting me because I am idli.

ramkish42
28 April 2006, 04:46 PM
How did you associate aacharya being "good" ? isn't it because of his actions? Why didnt you say his practice was good? likewise if there is something "good" then there has to be something "bad". the theme this discussion is how bad we vaishnavas behave....cheeeee!

No, the point is AIM, Action, intention and the man, so the aacharya is good.

Yes the thread talks about how bad Vaishnavs behave, I had pointed out to Moderators that they are using a wrong balance to measure, but verily, somewhere our opinions should be corroborated by action.

Some one condemns me for saying something, I ignored it for time being for I know time has neared to repeat the same saying with more authentic proof. When I show proof, people who condemned will know what I reall purport to say. Sometimes, when I feel, proof is too mature to presented at the very instance, I abstain. That was my story. Apart my this my action speaks here.

I want your action to speak. Want a debate, then get into the debate, no one objects. But not to start off with words like Bogus, False, Evil, Idotic, etc, ultimately what we are fighting against, our own Hinduism. Is not that fellow Hindu is your brother. God alone knows, probably you may debate with a person who is your sagotra, verily your brother by birth. Who knows. Wont you respect your elder brother, someone like me, even if he has bad. How will you convey to your elder brother - "Hey look brother, I know you are good but what you do is wrong" - is not that this way.

Go ahead and do this



can I say ramkish is a good person but his thinking has gone for a toss ? I don't think you understood my point.

Yes your stand point is correct. Does not this statement carries respect much more than saying "I do not like Ramkish"


who cares, no one respects idli's here. In a little while of my tenure in this forum I will find people taunting me because I am idli.
I am sorry if I had hurted your feelings.

What I want to say is instead of making noise in this thread, why do not we show moderators that what real vaishnavs are

Why we should leave our traditional peace for material instincts

Why cannot we show the real meaning of
Vaishnav jan to tene kahiye je
[One who is a vaishnav]
PeeD paraayi jaaNe re
[Knows the pain of others]
Par-dukhkhe upkaar kare toye
[Does good to others, esp. to those ones who are in misery]
Man abhimaan na aaNe re
[Does not let pride enter his mind]
Vaishnav...

SakaL lok maan sahune vande
[A Vaishnav, Tolerates and praises the the entire world]
Nindaa na kare keni re
[Does not say bad things about anyone]
Vaach kaachh man nishchaL raakhe
[Keeps his/her words, actions and thoughts pure]
Dhan-dhan janani teni re
[O Vaishnav, your mother is blessed (dhanya-dhanya)]

Is this that much difficult?

ramkish42
28 April 2006, 04:49 PM
I believe TruthSeeker has mis-spelled the word vishistadvaita and the system is 'thinking' of another word and replaced it stars...
Can you please change find and replace utility with (space)word or word(space) find.

All of a sudden finding such starts looks as if we had posted something wrong. I was surprised myself twice like that

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
28 April 2006, 06:54 PM
Excessive debating is encouraged by all schools that promote concepts like damnation, or grading of people, and beleive in the superiority of one specific God over others. Such people feel the need to "save other souls" from hell or samsara. Nothing much we can do about it. We cant change their philosophy, nor their beleifs, and consequently their actions. Only God can change that.:)

The definition of "excessive" is "too much." Either you don't understand this English phrase very well, you aren't paying attention to what I am saying, or you have a warped opinion on Hindu dharma. I never said that debating other schools is wrong or un-Hindu. I said that "excessive" debating is wrong. When the purpose of the debate is no longer about seeking truth or helping others to find truth and escalates to the point to pump up one's own ego, prove that they are better than everyone else, and becomes a public nuissance or otherwise is disturbing the peace, it is excessive and this is not dharmic.

You are also wrong in your assertion that there is "nothing" we can do about it. First off, when the "grading of people" takes priority over improving one's own sadhana then it becomes adharmic. It is like the tale of the priest and the prostitute. The preist is busy performing sacrifices and the prostitute enters the temple regularly to meditate on God. The priest becomes increasingly more distracted by the prostitute while the prostitute becomes more focused on God. The moral of the story is that such "grading of people" is counterproductive when taken too far. In the story, the prostitute is obviously moving spiritually forward while the priest is moving spiritually backwards due to who is focusing on what. Second, people are not logs that cannot do anything. "Excessive debating" or preaching is easily stopped. On internet forums such as these, the owners can put an end to the nuissance discussion. When it comes to the same in society, a simple "go away and leave me alone" should do the trick and if it doesn't, then a call to the police usually handles the problem.

Namaste. ~BYS~

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
28 April 2006, 07:10 PM
wrong. If he respected then he would not have condemned. Contrary, can we say acharya was not a good human being but his actions were good? Why differentiate between the person and his actions ?


A person and his actions are not the same. The actions could be said to be an outer expansion of the person. More importantly, no one other than God can know and interpret 100% of a person's actions which include his thoughts and intentions. It is not like one has a videotape of a person's entire existence. We can make educated judgments on the consciousness of a person by examining a sizable amount of the person's actions over a sizable amount of time and with some background knowledge of the person's current and previous environment. What is ridiculous, however, is to take one or two actions that a person does and without knowing anything else about the person suddenly pass blanket judgments on to the person's character. Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian and Mother Theresa ate meat. An ignorant Hindu knowing nothing other than these facts about both of these people would say that Hitler was a good man and that Mother Theresa was not a good person. Therefore, people should not be too quick to judge another and at least should have gathered a sufficient amount of facts before making a judgment. Enough said. ~BYS~

satay
28 April 2006, 09:38 PM
Can you please change find and replace utility with (space)word or word(space) find.



I am not sure if I follow you correctly. The swear words and **** etc. words are all censored and if system detects these words even in a part of another word it replaces them with stars...

ramkish42
29 April 2006, 01:19 AM
I am not sure if I follow you correctly. The swear words and **** etc. words are all censored and if system detects these words even in a part of another word it replaces them with stars...

Yes Satayji, I understand.

Considering that Indian languages were the Sha word is used often, many times in combination ta sounds, trying to replace such words looks as if the poster meant something wrong.

If we can prefix or suffix a space for such detection and replace with prefixed or suffixed space along with four *, this could help us a lot. I request you to consider this

ramkish42
29 April 2006, 01:33 AM
Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian

Hitlet was not a vegetarian but was put on a vegetarian diet to cure his flatuent and chronic stomach disorder

There is always a difference. Vegetarian is not person who eats only vegetable foods, as there must be a relation with intention. If a person voluntarily chooses to abstain from non vegetarian food and takes only vegetarian food we can conclude he is vegetarian

Hitler is always ready to eat non vegetarian food but his body will not allow it.

Calling such person a vegetarian is like defining Good people is a one who could not find a chance to do an overt act

I understand this post is irrelevant here but furnishing only for facts

http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/hitler.html

Jai shree krishna

Arjuna
29 April 2006, 04:56 AM
Dear Arjun

As long as you respect Gurus of ISKCON and do not degrade ISKCON with Sahajiyas, they will not get angry

As you are angry when I interpret your texts, they will be angry on comparison with Sahajiya and statements against their gurus.

That is why I suggest, we must have a table - who is incompatible with what

ISKCON hides the truth about Sahajiyas. The fact is that considerable number of Chaitanya's followers were Sahajiyas, possibly even Nityananda Prabhu as well (and certainly his younger wife and her son).

ISKCON baselessly condemns Sahajiyas, which is an aparadha of Vaishnavas. Sahajiya is an inner teaching of Gaudiya-vaishnavism, which is called Rasika or Raganuga. There is no reason to think of Prabhupada's version as "right" and Sahajiya as "wrong". At least we have to ackowledge both and then study each to decide which is more accurate.

Arjuna
29 April 2006, 04:59 AM
Many months ago I did read the whole Bhagavad Gita as it is(Bhagavad-gita with commentary of Prabhupada) in italian language,my mother tongue.
There is an english version at http://vedabase.net/bg/en
Look at what Prabhupada says in the Introduction

By http://vedabase.net/bg/introduction/en

In this present day, people are very much eager to have one scripture, one God, one religion, and one occupation. Therefore, eka? ??stra? devak?-putra-g?tam: let there be one scripture only, one common scripture for the whole world — Bhagavad-g?t?. Eko devo devak?-putra eva: let there be one God for the whole world — ?r? Kr?s?n?a. Eko mantras tasya n?m?ni: and one hymn, one mantra, one prayer — the chanting of His name: Hare Kr?s?n?a, Hare Kr?s?n?a, Kr?s?n?a Kr?s?n?a, Hare Hare/ Hare R?ma, Hare R?ma, R?ma R?ma, Hare Hare. Karm?py eka? tasya devasya sev?: and let there be one work only — the service of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Regards,
Orlando.

His intention isn't bad, but realisation IMO is improper.

Of course, U and anyone are free to follow Prabhupada. But from objective point of view his teaching is rather sectarian and differs from general Gaudiya-vaishnava tradition.

ramkish42
29 April 2006, 06:43 AM
ISKCON hides the truth about Sahajiyas. The fact is that considerable number of Chaitanya's followers were Sahajiyas, possibly even Nityananda Prabhu as well (and certainly his younger wife and her son).

ISKCON baselessly condemns Sahajiyas, which is an aparadha of Vaishnavas. Sahajiya is an inner teaching of Gaudiya-vaishnavism, which is called Rasika or Raganuga. There is no reason to think of Prabhupada's version as "right" and Sahajiya as "wrong". At least we have to ackowledge both and then study each to decide which is more accurate.

There is no reason why one should go with Sahajiya just because they accept few Kaula principles based on Rasika.

Sahajiya clearly disowned Madhava philosphies which are fundamental for Gaudia Vaishnavism. I am wondering from where there perceptors got the name of babaji, where no vaishnav guru is called with the name of babaji. Further Sahajiya do not accept the concept of Shrimat Radha rani married to Shri Krishna, which is fundamental policy of Gaudiya

Sahajiya accepting Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabu cannot be only criteria to qualify them to be Gaudia Vaishnav in strict sense

Sahajiyas as per I know is an independent sect who do not fall in vaishnav not in Shaiva nor in saktha in strict sense.

Arjuna
29 April 2006, 07:45 AM
Sahajiyas once upon a time were Tantris, they existed even before Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Upon the advent of Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabu, they accepted his teachings but retained there Tantric practises, and rejected the basic tenant of Shri Chaitanya - Dualist Philosophy of Shri Madhavachaarya

There was a Tantric buddhist tradition of Sahajayana, which goes to 6th century or even earlier. And Vaishnava-sahajiya surely developed with some influence of the former. However there is no reason to consider Sahajiya and buddhist Sahajayana same simply on the basis of use of a word "Sahaja" in their titles.

Regarding philosophy situation with Chaitanya and his followers wasn't that primitive. Chaitanya's actual philosophy was BHAKTI and not any kind of speculations. Though he personally might have had held to Madhva's theology, situation with his immediate associates and followers was different.

Sushil Kumar De in his "Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal" (Calcutta, 1942) writes:
"We hear of the adorers of Chaitanya's Nagara-bhava, followers of Advaita, admirers of Gadadhara, devotees as well as detractors of Nityananda. Each of Chaitanya's associates and devotees appears to have developed a considerable community of disciples of his own, and taught the cult of bhakti according to the light which each had received in his own way from the Master." (P. 82)

E. C. Dimock in "The Place of the Hidden Moon" (University of Chicago Press, 1989) writes:
"There is a considerable evidence of Sahajiya leanings of many of Nityananda's followers." (P. 91)
In the same work he shows the fact that younger wife of Nityananda, Jahnava, was a Sahajiya guru (P. 98).


According to many Gaudiya Vaishnavs and ISKCON to be very particular, they are called kulabrashtaas - out castes; Sahajiyas perceptors are called babajis, though they accept Krishna as supreme lord, they differ from other vaishnav on many counts., like generally Vaishnavs agree that Shri Radha was married to Shri Krishna, Srivaishnavs call her nappinai and Madhavi's call her Shrimati Radha Rani, Sahajiya's deny this fact, the feel that she was married to some one else later.

This view is certainly not Sahajiya only. Majority of Bangali Vaishnavas consider Radha to be a parakiya, another's wife. This is a fully orthodox view, which was established as the only accurate in official disputation.

idli_sambar
29 April 2006, 10:05 AM
A person and his actions are not the same. The actions could be said to be an outer expansion of the person. yes yes, lets make a distinction between a person and his actions. From now on we will say the good advaitas who wanted Sri Ramanuja's blood only their actions were bad. Ramanuja had to run away from tamilnadu to karnataka because of those good guys. Missionairies are good but their ideals are bad. Hitler was a good guy but his practice was bad. Pakistanis are good but their intentions are bad. Rapists are good, but their actions are bad.

Lets be hypocrites.

This is going offtrack. Coming back to the point, I still say idlis are the best. I believe idli is correct and no one can force idli to say rum and cigarette's are correct too just because dosai likes them and dosai comes from the same family as idli. idli will not lie and go against what he believes.

If anyone does not like idli ban its actions out of this forum but dont ban idli please

ramkish42
29 April 2006, 11:08 AM
If anyone does not like idli ban its actions out of this forum but dont ban idli please

I support this. Further I also request moderator to ask for explanation for before cracking down


From now on we will say the good advaitas who wanted Sri Ramanuja's blood only their actions were bad. Ramanuja had to run away from tamilnadu to karnataka because of those good guys.

Shrimad Ramanuja was threatened was correct but what is wrong is Advaitis behind it, the people who were behind such move as Shaiva Siddantins. Advaitis and Shaiva Siddantins vary in philosophy, to be honest, Shaiva Siddantins are mixture of Advaiti and Dualist


Missionairies are good but their ideals are bad.
Really yes, I do not see an Hindu organisation trying to help Lepers, which missionaries do. Unless the day comes where we try to treat all people as part of our own, we will not taste success like missionaries

satay
29 April 2006, 11:09 AM
yes yes, lets make a distinction between a person and his actions. From now on we will say the good advaitas who wanted Sri Ramanuja's blood only their actions were bad. Ramanuja had to run away from tamilnadu to karnataka because of those good guys. Missionairies are good but their ideals are bad. Hitler was a good guy but his practice was bad. Pakistanis are good but their intentions are bad. Rapists are good, but their actions are bad.

Lets be hypocrites.

This is going offtrack. Coming back to the point, I still say idlis are the best. I believe idli is correct and no one can force idli to say rum and cigarette's are correct too just because dosai likes them and dosai comes from the same family as idli. idli will not lie and go against what he believes.

If anyone does not like idli ban its actions out of this forum but dont ban idli please

You are proving the point of the OP and that's a shame. :o

satay
29 April 2006, 11:14 AM
I support this. Further I also request moderator to ask for explanation for before cracking down


Site rules are posted clearly and have to be followed. We have not banned anyone yet but have confidence that we always give explanation before banning and before handing out warnings.

We do not enjoy warning or banning people but if they cotinue to behave like a child and keep throwing tantrums out they go...final judgement rests with the mods.

now, back to the op....vaishnava behaviour is a SHAME. As dharma adherents vaishnavas should set a good example but they go around bad mouthing other hindu saints and scholars to prove their own guru is right and their own little sects are correct. This is a darn shame and leaves a bad taste in other person's mouth.

orlando
29 April 2006, 12:18 PM
Site rules are posted clearly and have to be followed. We have not banned anyone yet but have confidence that we always give explanation before banning and before handing out warnings.

We do not enjoy warning or banning people but if they cotinue to behave like a child and keep throwing tantrums out they go...final judgement rests with the mods.

now, back to the op....vaishnava behaviour is a SHAME. As dharma adherents vaishnavas should set a good example but they go around bad mouthing other hindu saints and scholars to prove their own guru is right and their own little sects are correct. This is a darn shame and leaves a bad taste in other person's mouth.

Namaste.
Satay,I am sure that when you say "behave like a child" you refer to me!:mad:
Well,if you really think that I behave in a childish manner "my father can beat your father",now I will make you laugh!:D
You will think that I am much more childish than how you though!:D
At hindunet I told to Atanu Banerjee the following exact words:
Dear Atanu Benerjee,if I will fail to save you from the poison of Advaita,after I will have reached Sri Vaikuntha I will have to return in this world by taking a body made of shudda sattva.Lord Vishnu NEVER make go away from Sri Vaikuntha a mukta,however the jivatman,by his own will,may visit again this world.Even I will take a body,I will always be a mukta,this mean that I will still be omniscient.I will want to take birth in the place where you will found and I will meet.I repeat that I will preach you Visistadvaita philosophy.


Then,when by reading Atanu's reply I realized my failure to convert him to Visistadvaita i told him:
Dear Atanu Banerjee,it is obvious that after I will became a mukta,I will have to return to save you from samsara.After all,it is God's leela (play) will.

:D

Regards,
Orlando.

satay
29 April 2006, 12:25 PM
Namaste.
Satay,I am sure that when you say "behave like a child" you refer to me!:mad:


namaste,
I was not thinking of you in particular when I wrote that. I was thinking in general of the behaviour of "all" people that act like children and throw tantrums.

The rest of your post didn't make me laugh at all but good try though. :cool:

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
29 April 2006, 04:09 PM
Hitlet was not a vegetarian but was put on a vegetarian diet to cure his flatuent and chronic stomach disorder

There is always a difference. Vegetarian is not person who eats only vegetable foods, as there must be a relation with intention. If a person voluntarily chooses to abstain from non vegetarian food and takes only vegetarian food we can conclude he is vegetarian


Look up the definition of a vegetarian. You are completely incorrect here. A person who does not eat meat regardless of the reason is a vegetarian. Please consult a dictionary.



Calling such person a vegetarian is like defining Good people is a one who could not find a chance to do an overt act


I am stating the facts. You are posting propaganda.



I understand this post is irrelevant here but furnishing only for facts


You are deliberately attempting to change the subject of this thread and you are not posting anything that is factual. If you don't know what the definition of a vegetarian is, please go back to school. Thanks.

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
29 April 2006, 04:33 PM
Dear Arjun

As long as you respect Gurus of ISKCON

Respect is not something automatic. A guru is a qualified spiritual teacher. While we all should at least respect that every person deep down is a spirit soul, just because someone puts on robes and calls himself a guru doesn't bring automatic respect. I also disagree with Satay in that we should respect "all Hindu gurus." There are a number of ISKCON gurus in prison for things like robbery, drug charges, and murder. One of the gurus was let out of prison after spending about ten years for conspiracy to commit murder and has his own ashram and followers and still calls himself a "guru." I don't respect frauds and will not hesitate to speak out against them. Any institution or religion that expects blind respect without question to those in charge is a cult. Hinduism does not ask us to blindly follow gurus without question and any sects that do are cults. So in my opinion your request is ridiculous and I'm sure that Satay is referrint to respecting all gurus in a general sense. I won't turn a blind eye to people who pretend to be spiritual and then take your money (and in some cases as above your life).

satay
29 April 2006, 04:59 PM
:) It's okay to disagree with me!

Yes, I mean in general we should respect all scholars. That doesn't mean we should turn off our brain or even follow that guru.

For example, I have utmost respect for sri prabhupada but I do not agree with some of his teachings. I have a feeling that he played a bit of political game to promote his sect which is not spiritual at all e.g. he normally criticised other hindu scholars and schools but accepted jesus as some sort of messenger or son of krishna where there is no vedic proof for this...but I digress...

Anyway, I am surprised that no vaishnava is refusing what I am saying about vaishnava behaviour being shameful. Could arrogance be at play here? If arrogance is there and if the feeling that "I am better than others because..." is still there then how is it spiritual ? Is that Bhagwan Krishna teaches us? I don't think so...this is all propaganda spread by some 'gurus'...

idli_sambar
29 April 2006, 08:05 PM
now, back to the op....vaishnava behaviour is a SHAME. As dharma adherents vaishnavas should set a good example but they go around bad mouthing other hindu saints and scholars to prove their own guru is right and their own little sects are correct. This is a darn shame and leaves a bad taste in other person's mouth..
if it leaves a darn taste in other person's mouth, you should not have started a religious discussion forum. You know religion is controversial as no one can agree upon 1 thing at a time even though they believe in the same thing. You will find discussions where 2 philosophies are disagreed upon. If one aacharya is right, how can the other be right as well? Disagreeing is not insulting others or a shameful behaviour. I have not seen any vaishnava bad mouthing others and nor do they have superiority complex. So not sure what your intentions are. SO far i have only seen you flexing muscles as a moderator. If vaishnavas are going to be "punished" because they believe in Vishnu.. this is poor moderation

satay
29 April 2006, 09:03 PM
if it leaves a darn taste in other person's mouth, you should not have started a religious discussion forum. You know religion is controversial as no one can agree upon 1 thing at a time even though they believe in the same thing. You will find discussions where 2 philosophies are disagreed upon. If one aacharya is right, how can the other be right as well? Disagreeing is not insulting others or a shameful behaviour. I have not seen any vaishnava bad mouthing others and nor do they have superiority complex. So not sure what your intentions are. SO far i have only seen you flexing muscles as a moderator. If vaishnavas are going to be "punished" because they believe in Vishnu.. this is poor moderation

I think you have misunderstood what I have been saying. I am not saying you can not disagree. Of course you can.

But don't you agree that as vaishnava we should not behave in childish manner disrespecting other sects and scholars?

If you haven't come across people who call themselves vaishnava and then call other sects as cancer or call other hindu scholars all kinds of childish names then I must say that you are very lucky.

Again, this thread is not about moderation this thread is about vaishnava behaviour. Vaishnavas behave in a very disrespectful manner towards other hindu schools. Is that what is being taught by vaishnava gurus these days? Hard to believe...

About the forum: Again, this forum is a 'hindu forum' not a vaishnava sectarian forum. :rolleyes:

TruthSeeker
30 April 2006, 03:39 AM
The definition of "excessive" is "too much." Either you don't understand this English phrase very well, you aren't paying attention to what I am saying, or you have a warped opinion on Hindu dharma. I never said that debating other schools is wrong or un-Hindu. I said that "excessive" debating is wrong. When the purpose of the debate is no longer about seeking truth or helping others to find truth and escalates to the point to pump up one's own ego, prove that they are better than everyone else, and becomes a public nuissance or otherwise is disturbing the peace, it is excessive and this is not dharmic.


Hinduism or rather vedanta classifies debates into four:

Samvada - which is a discussion between a teacher and his pupil, like Krishna and Arjuna. The pupil must accept every word of his perceptor though he can raise questions and doubts.

vada - This is a serious debate where the two opponents have no preconcieved notions are are willing to listen to each other and arrive at the truth. The two parties agree to certain common means of evidences like scripture and discuss to arrive at the purport. Usually fought between equals. The victor of the debate usually convinces the looser to cross over to his side. For eg, Sri Shankara defeated Mandana Mishra like this and brought him to his fold. All great Acharyas were experts at this, and is usually very common prior to the 19th century.

jalpa - This is a debate aimed at winning at all costs. Never accept the fact of loosing a debate with a sole motive - bring down the opponent under all conditions. The usual debate seen nowadays, and mostly from various kinds of Vaishnavites. Abusing each other is acceptable in this form of debate, and it needs thick skin to be part to such a debate. Whenever I see one on this lines, I take to legs.



vitanda - In this form of debate, a person takes up side with his opponent, and exposes its short comings. This was also common form a debate. Sometimes it is easier to defeat your opponent from his own side and point out his own short comings.



What I meant to say is, excessive debate has not been disallowed in vedanta, but the kind of debate is agreed upon prior to debate. Debates between top Acharyas are usually of the vada type.




You are also wrong in your assertion that there is "nothing" we can do about it. First off, when the "grading of people" takes priority over improving one's own sadhana then it becomes adharmic. It is like the tale of the priest and the prostitute. The preist is busy performing sacrifices and the prostitute enters the temple regularly to meditate on God. The priest becomes increasingly more distracted by the prostitute while the prostitute becomes more focused on God. The moral of the story is that such "grading of people" is counterproductive when taken too far. In the story, the prostitute is obviously moving spiritually forward while the priest is moving spiritually backwards due to who is focusing on what. Second, people are not logs that cannot do anything. "Excessive debating" or preaching is easily stopped. On internet forums such as these, the owners can put an end to the nuissance discussion. When it comes to the same in society, a simple "go away and leave me alone" should do the trick and if it doesn't, then a call to the police usually handles the problem.

Namaste. ~BYS~

By asserting that "nothing" can be done, I meant that nothing can be done at the grass root level. You can ban users or report to the police, that will merely check the externals. That makes no change at the roots, which mean it will continue on another forum, or another website. The only real change can be brought about by a good impartial discussion, and rarely by preventing it by brute force.

Modernization of religion is very essential, and it is only advaita that has taken the right way. Neo-vedantins or Neo-advaita, for all the criticisms against it, has made great strides in this respect. Scripture reqires a modern and scientific interpretation, it is only advaitins who can really come out of the dogma and show the right way. Orthodox people, brought up in a traditional way cannot think outside their own boxes, or think of it as a blasphemy to do do, and hence Vaishnavites can rarely break their shackles.

TruthSeeker
30 April 2006, 03:49 AM
yes yes, lets make a distinction between a person and his actions. From now on we will say the good advaitas who wanted Sri Ramanuja's blood only their actions were bad. Ramanuja had to run away from tamilnadu to karnataka because of those good guys. Missionairies are good but their ideals are bad. Hitler was a good guy but his practice was bad. Pakistanis are good but their intentions are bad. Rapists are good, but their actions are bad.


Nonsense. How could you generalize an entire tradition because a handful of them were bad? Ramanuja was persecuted by a bigot, and not by an advaitin. You know advatins are not reallly supposed to discriminate based on Shiva and Vishnu. But this Chola king is no advaitin because he was a bigoted Shaivite.




This is going offtrack. Coming back to the point, I still say idlis are the best. I believe idli is correct and no one can force idli to say rum and cigarette's are correct too just because dosai likes them and dosai comes from the same family as idli. idli will not lie and go against what he believes.

If anyone does not like idli ban its actions out of this forum but dont ban idli please

Honestly, I do not expect Vishistadvatins who beleive that all souls are divine amsas and that the world is a sport of Vishnu, to be involved in abusing others, or converting and trying to save others. This is the biggest hypocrisy I have seen. Be truthful to what your philosophy teaches.

TruthSeeker
30 April 2006, 03:57 AM
Dear Atanu Benerjee,if I will fail to save you from the poison of Advaita,after I will have reached Sri Vaikuntha I will have to return in this world by taking a body made of shudda sattva.Lord Vishnu NEVER make go away from Sri Vaikuntha a mukta,however the jivatman,by his own will,may visit again this world.Even I will take a body,I will always be a mukta,this mean that I will still be omniscient.I will want to take birth in the place where you will found and I will meet.I repeat that I will preach you Visistadvaita philosophy.


Then,when by reading Atanu's reply I realized my failure to convert him to Visistadvaita i told him:
Dear Atanu Banerjee,it is obvious that after I will became a mukta,I will have to return to save you from samsara.After all,it is God's leela (play) will.


By you own words, it is solely God's leela to save others from samsara. Dont take on this burden yourself, and insult your God.:D

satay
30 April 2006, 12:50 PM
In my opinon, vaishnavas on this forum are either naive or keeping a close eye and thus promoting hypocrisy. I am still shocked that no one is acknowledging that this type of behaviour is going on.

This reminds me of my days at CF where bigots are a dime a dozen but this type of bigotry is in our back yard I had no idea. :mad:

idli_sambar
30 April 2006, 12:54 PM
Nonsense. How could you generalize an entire tradition because a handful of them were bad? Ramanuja was persecuted by a bigot, and not by an advaitin. You know advatins are not reallly supposed to discriminate based on Shiva and Vishnu. But this Chola king is no advaitin because he was a bigoted Shaivite.Commonsense. I am not generalizing and you did not get the point still. Raja Raja was a great chola king but that is not the point Ramki anna.

Honestly, I do not expect Vishistadvatins who beleive that all souls are divine amsas and that the world is a sport of Vishnu, to be involved in abusing others, or converting and trying to save others. This is the biggest hypocrisy I have seen. Be truthful to what your philosophy teaches.
what are you talking about and what did I say?

edited by satay

satay
30 April 2006, 01:04 PM
Mod Note

Do not break rules of the site by making personal insults on this forum.

Thank you.

satay

willie
30 April 2006, 02:23 PM
Well here we have it, a debate going from debate to bickering and the yelling of 2 year olds.

I seem the me that was has happened the the hinduism has been hijacked, like all other religions, split in to different schools of thought that are not fighting each other so see who can get the most adherents.

People end up following some, so called, holyman who bends the minds of his followers and make them attack the followers of other holymen. No wonder religion is not moving forward in the the modern world and is stuck in the darkages.

Every religions faces this fight between the progressives, fundamentalist and the psuedorelgionists and hinduism is no different and not better than any of the others.

Hinduism seem the have intellectualized the whole debate idea , perhaps to stop the bickering that would have torn it apart years ago.And in some sence that worked , while people has some faith in the credentials of the religious leaders. But in the modern world there is competition from other ideas and thoughts and other religions leaders. So when people get tired of the bickering the will vote with their feet and walk ove to someone elses way of thinking.

So get back to the debate based on concepts like reincarnation, karma and what happens to the soul after death. This is where the battle is to be fought and where modernization need to take place.

Singhi Kaya
30 April 2006, 03:00 PM
Mr Willie you seem to have this amazing ability to start from one point and reach a point which generally hovers around how bad hinduism is just like other religions and how it needs mordernization with modern views. I don't this have been mentioned before or not~but hinduism and any religion for that matter is not a collection of views of what most man think. Religious and spiritual ideas are not voted for and decieded upon.
That said one must rationally judge religious tenants with personal judgement.
Hinduism is very large. Philosophically it tallies with modern sceintific observations than any other religions. Hindu society does have a problem, but one has to remember that we have suffered constant agrresion for many many years now.

If you have sepcific points on hinduism where you have doubt pls start a thread and ask experienced persons here.

This thread was about a trend in one particular sect. Please add if you have any observation on this sect.

Personally my take on vaishnavas is that they are more aggressive about protecting their faith~for a change I find that refreshing within hindu society. May be some modern cults border on intolerance, but to hold the view of superioirty when convinced within after rational debates is absolutely fine. Only one should be open to other thoughts and critically evaluate any doubts. Good judgement and adherence to truth will always point to truth. It's a G-d gifted thing in humans~ow there would have been no chance for us to be saved. So keeping judgement alive, one feel superior about what he is convinced about, I see no problem. To convince others one can get into civilized debate~and when loosing one must accept humbly and critically analyze one's thought. I'm sure most vaishnava's are not lacking on this front.

TruthSeeker
30 April 2006, 03:51 PM
Mr Willie you seem to have this amazing ability to start from one point and reach a point which generally hovers around how bad hinduism is just like other religions and how it needs mordernization with modern views. I don't this have been mentioned before or not~but hinduism and any religion for that matter is not a collection of views of what most man think. Religious and spiritual ideas are not voted for and decieded upon.
That said one must rationally judge religious tenants with personal judgement.
Hinduism is very large. Philosophically it tallies with modern sceintific observations than any other religions. Hindu society does have a problem, but one has to remember that we have suffered constant agrresion for many many years now.

If you have sepcific points on hinduism where you have doubt pls start a thread and ask experienced persons here.

This thread was about a trend in one particular sect. Please add if you have any observation on this sect.

Personally my take on vaishnavas is that they are more aggressive about protecting their faith~for a change I find that refreshing within hindu society. May be some modern cults border on intolerance, but to hold the view of superioirty when convinced within after rational debates is absolutely fine. Only one should be open to other thoughts and critically evaluate any doubts. Good judgement and adherence to truth will always point to truth. It's a G-d gifted thing in humans~ow there would have been no chance for us to be saved. So keeping judgement alive, one feel superior about what he is convinced about, I see no problem. To convince others one can get into civilized debate~and when loosing one must accept humbly and critically analyze one's thought. I'm sure most vaishnava's are not lacking on this front.

I would say that a debate is not very meaningful, except from an academic point of view. Do you think I would change over from advaita if somebody defeats me in a debate? My faith in advaita is based on my guru, not based on polemics. Polemics have their place in the world, but no place in matters of God, which is beyond human understanding.

Debates discriminate between a good debator and a poor one, and can never be a pointer to the truth. I would be easily be willing to concede that the highest truth preached in most Hindu scripture is only Saguna Brahma. And consequently, I dont find Vaishnavism objectionable in anyway, from a philosophical point of view. However, I do find the portrayal of Saguna Brahma as a human look alike God is against vedanta. No one who reads Mandukya and Turiya will ever come to the conclusion that mukti is all about travelling to a far off place, where you dance and frollic freely without misery, or serve God everyday. Perhaps Sri Ramanuja did all these for the sake of people in medieval times, who must have found it more understandable than the advaita of Sri Shankara. If the reason is anything else, it is just plain ridiculous. I understand the need of a personal God( which is what advaitins are expected to beleive in, until the dawn of wisdom) for the sake of developing devotion towards God, but it should not go to the extent of condemning others.

satay
30 April 2006, 04:44 PM
but to hold the view of superioirty when convinced within after rational debates is absolutely fine.

namaste singhi,
nice to see you back here posting again.

Could you help me understand what you mean here?

How is having superiority comlex in line with the instructions given to us about 'shed the ego' and 'no attachment' etc. by Bhagwan himself.

Isn't that having a feeling of 'i am better than others because I believe in --- (fill any dogma here)' in direct contradiction with gita?

orlando
30 April 2006, 04:55 PM
Perhaps Sri Ramanuja did all these for the sake of people in medieval times, who must have found it more understandable than the advaita of Sri Shankara. If the reason is anything else, it is just plain ridiculous. I understand the need of a personal God( which is what advaitins are expected to beleive in, until the dawn of wisdom) for the sake of developing devotion towards God

Namaste.
Shri TruthSeeker,I can assure you that you are wrong about Ramanuja's reason.Srimad Ramanuja-acharya him-self was contrary to Advaita and he really believed that the supreme truth is a personal God.
Please read the following things from a biography of Srimad Ramanuja.
One day, after delivering a discourse on the Chandogya Upanishad, Yadava asked Ramanuja to massage his body with oil, as was the customary service to be performed by a student in those days. While giving the massage to his teacher, another student came to Yadava for some clarification on a point from the morning discourse. The boy had failed to grasp the meaning of the seventh verse of the first chapter, which began with tasya yatha kapyasam pundarikam evam akshini. Yadava proceeded to expound an interpretation which described the sublime qualities of the Godhead in a manner which was flagrantly objectionable. On hearing the words of his teacher, the heart of Ramanuja, which was full of love for the Supreme Godhead, was saddened, and hot tears streamed down from his eyes and fell on the thigh of Yadava. Looking up at the touch of the hot tears, Yadava could understand that something was troubling Ramanuja. When he inquired about Ramanuja's distress, Ramanuja replied, "O great and wise master, I have been sorely afflicted at heart to hear such an unbecoming explanation from a noble soul like you. How sinful it is of you to debase the Supreme, who is endowed with all gracious qualities and who is the source of all beautiful things in this world. From the mouth of such a learned man as yourself I would never have expected such a low and deceitful interpretation!"

Yadava became so angry that he could hardly control himself. "Well then," he scorned, "maybe you would like to give your own interpretation since you obviously think you know better than I!"

In a very gentle voice Ramanuja replied, "Revered sir, there is no need to give a low-minded interpretation to the verse when the real meaning is direct and glorious."

"Then let us hear this meaning of yours which is so glorious!" said Yadava. Ramanuja then stood and with great humility recited the meaning of the verse. "The two eyes of the Supreme are as lovely as two lotuses that are blossomed by the rays of the sun."

"I see," said Yadava. "You speak as though there actually was such a 'Supreme Person.' That is due to your childish ignorance. You have not learned your lessons properly. You should always remember that the Supreme is without form, without name, and without attributes. That is the teaching of the great Shankara. In the future you should not voice your foolish sentiments!" The words of Yadava were painful to Ramanuja's ears, but out of respect for his teacher he remained silent.

A few days later a second incident occurred. While explaining a verse from the Taittiriya Upanishad beginning with satyam jnanam anantam brahma, Yadava said that Brahman was intelligence, truth, and the infinite. Hearing this explanation, Ramanuja politely added, "Brahman is endowed with the qualities of intelligence, truth, and the infinite— this means that He is not covered by ignorance as are ordinary living entities, He is never untruthful, and His energies are unlimited, not limited. The Supreme Brahman is the reservoir of all good qualities, yet He is superior to those qualities, as the sun globe is superior to sunlight."

The agitation which Yadava felt within his mind made his voice tremble. "You young fool!" he shouted. "Your conclusions do not agree with those of Shankara or any of the previous masters! If you are going to persist with this useless talk about a personal God, why come here at all simply to waste my time? Why don't you start your own school and teach whatever you like? Now get out of my classroom immediately!"

Please read the whole Srimad Ramanuja's biography at http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/sampradayas_fs.html

It is enough short.Please read it.

Regards,
Orlando.

orlando
30 April 2006, 05:13 PM
namaste singhi,
nice to see you back here posting again.

Could you help me understand what you mean here?

How is having superiority comlex in line with the instructions given to us about 'shed the ego' and 'no attachment' etc. by Bhagwan himself.

Isn't that having a feeling of 'i am better than others because I believe in --- (fill any dogma here)' in direct contradiction with gita?

Namaste.
Shri Satay,I am really afraid that you didn't understand the true reason of vaishnava behavior.It has nothing to do with ego.But with mercy.
I will explain better.As a Sri vaishnava I believe that Advaita Vedanta will never give mokshna to a jiva (soul).So a soul will have to continue to incarnate and suffer in material world.A true vaishnava feels compassion toward an advaitin but he/she doesn't consider him/her-self superior to an advaiting because 'i am better than others because I believe in --- (fill any dogma here)'.

Regards,
Orlando.

satay
30 April 2006, 06:25 PM
Namaste.
Shri Satay,I am really afraid that you didn't understand the true reason of vaishnava behavior.It has nothing to do with ego.But with mercy.
I will explain better.As a Sri vaishnava I believe that Advaita Vedanta will never give mokshna to a jiva (soul).So a soul will have to continue to incarnate and suffer in material world.A true vaishnava feels compassion Orlando.

namaste orlando,
How is your 'compassion' different than the christian missionary's attempt of 'love' that he feels for me when he comes to convert me and save my soul from the devil?

Do you understand what I am saying? How is your 'shoving your compassion' in my throat different than a christian missionary's 'saving my soul' attempt?

This mentality of 'saving' others belongs in adharmic religions. Dharma adherents understand that we are doing what Bhagwan wants us to do and karma is at play here as well and as such we should not try to borrwo this very dubious nature of 'compassion' from adharmic maleccha religions.
ps:
You do not have to call me 'shri', just 'satay' will do...

Singhi Kaya
01 May 2006, 05:59 AM
namaste singhi,
nice to see you back here posting again.

Could you help me understand what you mean here?

How is having superiority comlex in line with the instructions given to us about 'shed the ego' and 'no attachment' etc. by Bhagwan himself.

Isn't that having a feeling of 'i am better than others because I believe in --- (fill any dogma here)' in direct contradiction with gita?

I'm not talking about superiority complex but being able to accept that everything are not equal. Rationally I feel adaitva is a higher position on reality than dvaita. It's no harm to express that and argue it out. Similarly I also feel Islam is an asurik doctrine, no harm in arguing it out. We are all talking out of EGO. When we accuse others of bigotry, isin't it our ego who which makes us feel superior of not being sectarian?.


So instead of bringing ego and the person involved here, we need to rationally view the argument. If the central theme of a vaishnava argument is irrefutable~accusing him of being intolerant is ludicrous to my mind. Unless he kills you for not following what he says.

Also I somewhat sarcastically referred to my reputation~all because I took up a fight against Islam and it's bigotry~easy to see who are egoists in their mind. It is a trivial incindent (I don't mind at all)~but at the sametime somewhat alarming given this we call this a hindu forum. Your logic of keeping the place clean becomes an injustice in this context because you were ready to accept lies and harmful speculations inspite of claiming to believe otherwise. These situations are test of EGO to me. Being polite and pretending to be tolerant can be hypocracy. I see a similar mindset active here against vaishnavas~I find a couple of them here to be illogical and abusive. But other's who have also suffered very well put their logic.

idli_sambar
01 May 2006, 09:03 AM
I'm not talking about superiority complex but being able to accept that everything are not equal. Rationally I feel adaitva is a higher position on reality than dvaita. It's no harm to express that and argue it out.

I agree with you on your point. I feel vice versa that vdvaita higher than advaita. I dont want to call it vadvaita as it is almost dvaita. sometimes i think it should be qualified dualism than qualified monism.

Similarly I also feel Islam is an asurik doctrine, no harm in arguing it out. We are all talking out of EGO. When we accuse others of bigotry, isin't it our ego who which makes us feel superior of not being sectarian?.
yes yes correct. The double standards is all here are saying it is ok to be sectarian with muslims and christians but not with hindus.

So instead of bringing ego and the person involved here, we need to rationally view the argument. If the central theme of a vaishnava argument is irrefutable~accusing him of being intolerant is ludicrous to my mind. Unless he kills you for not following what he says.
you are a great dosai. We srivaishnavas are the cream of vaishnavas.

atanu
01 May 2006, 09:48 AM
---------Disagreeing is not insulting others or a shameful behaviour. I have not seen any vaishnava bad mouthing others and nor do they have superiority complex. ----


Dear Idli_Sambar,

I simply state that I disagree.

Should I show you texts of Mr. Dey calling other Gurus (who agreed to disagree with him) as rascals, cheaters etc.? And His followers, in the name of defending Krishna's name use similar vocabulary. Then, should you yourself read the language used against Shankara by some gurus? I can paste those if you wish. You can also check up forums where uncivil language is used exclusively by a particular set of devotees not only against opponent humans but also against vedic dieties whom they percieve to be belonging to opposite camp. It is surely demonstratable that such behaviour is more common among a particular group.

And your own outburst against the personal views of the owner of the thread is notable. One could easliy beg to differ. After all God lives, has been living, and will live peacefully despite all the murderous apparent differences within Him/Her.



But I surely know that it is not good to generalise.

Regards

satay
01 May 2006, 09:53 AM
Namaste shingi,
My post was in response to your this line in post 67.



but to hold the view of superioirty when convinced within after rational debates is absolutely fine.


Now you say,


I'm not talking about superiority complex but being able to accept that everything are not equal.


Okay fine. Yes, using our brain and reason we can sort of see that not everything is equal. I say sort of because ultimately in the matters of supreme we can not really know the whole picture while bound in the material body.



We are all talking out of EGO. When we accuse others of bigotry, isin't it our ego who which makes us feel superior of not being sectarian?.


I think indirectly you are calling me a bigot. No, I do not feel superior of not being sectarian. In post #1 I say, “this concerns me as a hindu”…this meaning the behaviour of vaishnava that shove bhagwan down other people’s throats and by doing so clearly undermine the power of bhagwan. By assuming the position of a salsmen these vaishnava are inadvertently insulting Bhagwan.

My question to you is: Where are the instructions from him where he asks us to be his salesmen?

Did he say in gita that go out there and shove this message down other people’s throats? Did he say anywhere that do this because you have compassion for others and you must save other people’s souls?
Did he? If he did, please tell me where…because I can not find the relevant shalokas.




So instead of bringing ego and the person involved here, we need to rationally view the argument.

Ego is already there when you think that you are superior to the person or the philosophy you are arguing against.

What you think is rational may not be rational to others. This depends on many different things including their karma.

My point is ‘why force the argument (rationally or otherwise).



If the central theme of a vaishnava argument is irrefutable~accusing him of being intolerant is ludicrous to my mind.

How is it ludicrous? Don’t the hindus go around shouting we are very tolerant of other faiths? Isn’t it that tolerance means ‘respect’ here.

We all know there are asuric forces at play but have we no understanding that ‘karma’ is at play and have we lost faith in bhagwan that we must take things in our hands?

No, I think this vaishnava behaviour is in direct line with Christian missionary behaviour. I reject the Christian missionary nonsense and by the same reasoning I reject the vaishnava missionary nonsense.



Also I somewhat sarcastically referred to my reputation~all because I took up a fight against Islam and it's bigotry~easy to see who are egoists in their mind. It is a trivial incindent (I don't mind at all)~but at the sametime somewhat alarming given this we call this a hindu forum. Your logic of keeping the place clean becomes an injustice in this context because you were ready to accept lies and harmful speculations inspite of claiming to believe otherwise. These situations are test of EGO to me. Being polite and pretending to be tolerant can be hypocracy. I see a similar mindset active here against vaishnavas~I find a couple of them here to be illogical and abusive. But other's who have also suffered very well put their logic.


Nonsense! This you say to take the focus away from the OP. Let’s focus on the OP. If you have problems with the moderation or your reputation points start a new thread or pm the mods. I started this thread not as a mod but as a member.

satay
01 May 2006, 10:01 AM
yes yes correct. The double standards is all here are saying it is ok to be sectarian with muslims and christians but not with hindus.

What are you talking about? If you want to be sectarian (hindu or not) and shove something down my throat then be prepare for the vomit that will come out.

We have no instructions from bhagwan to be sectarian and save other peoples' souls so what the 'hindu' missionaries are doing is not vedic and thus must be rejected.

Unless you show me instrcutions...

orlando
01 May 2006, 10:13 AM
Namaste all.
Satay you wrote:My question to you is: Where are the instructions from him where he asks us to be his salesmen?

Did he say in gita that go out there and shove this message down other people’s throats? Did he say anywhere that do this because you have compassion for others and you must save other people’s souls?
Did he? If he did, please tell me where…because I can not find the relevant shalokas.


You eve said:We have no instructions from bhagwan to be sectarian and save other peoples' souls so what the 'hindu' missionaries are doing is not vedic and thus must be rejected.

Unless you show me instrcutions...


I will sure Prabhupada's translation.Bhagavad-gita,Chapter 18.Please note verses 68 and 69.
By http://vedabase.net/bg/18/en


BG 18.61: The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy.

BG 18.62: O scion of Bharata, surrender unto Him utterly. By His grace you will attain transcendental peace and the supreme and eternal abode.

BG 18.63: Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do.

BG 18.64: Because you are My very dear friend, I am speaking to you My supreme instruction, the most confidential knowledge of all. Hear this from Me, for it is for your benefit.

BG 18.65: Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend.

BG 18.66: Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.

BG 18.67: This confidential knowledge may never be explained to those who are not austere, or devoted, or engaged in devotional service, nor to one who is envious of Me.

BG 18.68: For one who explains this supreme secret to the devotees, pure devotional service is guaranteed, and at the end he will come back to Me.

BG 18.69: There is no servant in this world more dear to Me than he, nor will there ever be one more dear.

Regards,
Orlando.

atanu
01 May 2006, 10:16 AM
[/font]
--------
The problem I perceive here is you are trying to link the sense of Taste with sense of likingness and respect. Once linked, yes, the very words of Dosai is not tasty amouts to disrecpect to Dosai for it is general statement made with an universal coverage. Instead try saying, "Dosai is not very tasty food for me"

----


"Respect is relative. If I say dosai is not tasty, dosai might think I am not showing respect. I can't say I respect dosai but I don't respect the ingredients and way it is laid on the pan, can I?" As said by Shri Idli_Dosai.


Namaste Ramkrish ji,

Your replies appear very balanced and my respect goes up for you. I personally agree with you. It is simple and correct to say: "I do not like the taste of Dosai" rather than " dosai is not tasty" like shri Idli _sambar says.

And, unfortunately, this is the typical mind set that was the subject of the post. Whether, you agree or or not is irrelevant here, but, I am inclined to agree with Shri Satay here. It is (my personal experience again) that exoteric devotees are not much different in any brand of religion. We see so-called most devout Bush waging war on so-called most devout Bin Laden. I have personally experienced similar things in religious forums, not not amounting to physical violence (perhaps on account of physical separation). In some sites, wherein policy of guest posts are allowed, guests would come in and call an opponebnt Dog. Or call sage Ramakrishna or Vivekananda a cheater. Or call an opponent rascal. This is always done with cowardice, under the guise of Guest name.


I can show you example after example of this.

In this experience, I saw a pattern, invariably, devotees who saw God as an external controller of whatever faith, did this. I usually call them proud yadus who even Lord did not care to protect.


Regards

satay
01 May 2006, 10:34 AM
namaste orlando,
Thanks for the sholkas. But I asked for the 'instructions' where Bhagwan has asked us to 'save other people's souls' and to do 'preaching'.

Where are those instructions? Kindly, point me to the sholka where he says, "now go and spread this message as you are responsible for saving other people's souls".




I will sure Prabhupada's translation.Bhagavad-gita,Chapter 18.Please note verses 68 and 69.
By http://vedabase.net/bg/18/en


BG 18.61: The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy.



This quote is irrelevant to my question.

If Lord is situated in everyone's heart then we must accept this instruction as it is. Everyone includes the atheists, advaitains, christians and all those other groups that do not believe in the message of gita.




BG 18.62: O scion of Bharata, surrender unto Him utterly. By His grace you will attain transcendental peace and the supreme and eternal abode.

Yes, surrender onto him. Where does he say, “go and make other people surrender on to me?” Where?



BG 18.63: Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do.

Here Bhagwan gives us instruction to use our brain and will and lets us choose what we want. Where is the “now go out and save other peoples soul out of compassion?”



BG 18.64: Because you are My very dear friend, I am speaking to you My supreme instruction, the most confidential knowledge of all. Hear this from Me, for it is for your benefit.

Yes, of course, it is our benefit to hear his instructions. Now where does he say, “all others who don’t believe in this message must be saved”



BG 18.65: Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend.

Yes, and?



BG 18.66: Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.

Yes, and?

[quote]
BG 18.68: For one who explains this supreme secret to the devotees, pure devotional service is guaranteed, and at the end he will come back to Me.
.

This is good Orlando. Perfect! But you have conveniently overlooked his instruction in 18.67, read it again!!!


BG 18.67: This confidential knowledge may never be explained to those who are not austere, or devoted, or engaged in devotional service, nor to one who is envious of Me.

atanu
01 May 2006, 10:44 AM
- I do not respect others who like beef and drugs. Does that make me sectarian ?


Yes, I believe so. Beef eaters may similarly have hatred/disrespect for you. This goes on ad infinitum. God is not different for a beef eater or a vegetarian. Faith in some set of values (actually preferences) do not make disrespect a correct behaviour under any circumstance.




- Bhagavad Ramanuja never respected advaiti’s and condemned them, so is he plain wrong ?


Precisely, Sambar Ji, this is what is bothering. If what you say is correct then I also have a right to disrespect Ramanuja. And then you will call me names.

If you differ on faith, accept that but respect Narayana within. Samadrishti has been taught by Lord Krishna and not disrespect. "Those who see same Lord existing equally everywhere are dear to me".


Still one can oppose with respect. One opposes the concept of a person and not the person. And fortunately, some of us believe that all these so-called opposing views emerge and dissolve in one Pragnya only.

Om

orlando
01 May 2006, 10:47 AM
namaste orlando,
Thanks for the sholkas. But I asked for the 'instructions' where Bhagwan has asked us to 'save other people's souls' and to do 'preaching'.

Where are those instructions? Kindly, point me to the sholka where he says, "now go and spread this message as you are responsible for saving other people's souls".



This quote is irrelevant to my question.

If Lord is situated in everyone's heart then we must accept this instruction as it is. Everyone includes the atheists, advaitains, christians and all those other groups that do not believe in the message of gita.


Yes, surrender onto him. Where does he say, “go and make other people surrender on to me?” Where?


Here Bhagwan gives us instruction to use our brain and will and lets us choose what we want. Where is the “now go out and save other peoples soul out of compassion?”


Yes, of course, it is our benefit to hear his instructions. Now where does he say, “all others who don’t believe in this message must be saved”


Yes, and?


Yes, and?



BG 18.68: For one who explains this supreme secret to the devotees, pure devotional service is guaranteed, and at the end he will come back to Me.
.[/B]

This is good Orlando. Perfect! But you have conveniently overlooked his instruction in 18.67, read it again!!!


BG 18.67: This confidential knowledge may never be explained to those who are not austere, or devoted, or engaged in devotional service, nor to one who is envious of Me.


Namaste Satay.
Haha,your post gave me a good laugh!:D
About BG 18.68: For one who explains this supreme secret to the devotees, pure devotional service is guaranteed, and at the end he will come back to Me. please note that even an advaitin and a not-vaishnava in general maybe austere,devoted,engaged in devotional service and not envious of God!!

However there must be in the scriptures something that say one should save save other peoples soul.I must find it.
Thanks for the good laugh!!!:D

Regards,
Orlando.

satay
01 May 2006, 10:53 AM
[QUOTE=satay]Namaste Satay.
Haha,your post gave me a good laugh!:D
About BG 18.68: For one who explains this supreme secret to the devotees, pure devotional service is guaranteed, and at the end he will come back to Me. please note that even an advaitin and a not-vaishnava in general maybe austere,devoted,engaged in devotional service and not envious of God!!

However there must be in the scriptures something that say one should save save other peoples soul.I must find it.
Thanks for the good laugh!!!:D

Regards,
Orlando.

I have no idea what you are laughing about. The instruction of 18.67 is clear!

Yes, find the verse in gita (an authority of vaishnava) in which bhagwan asks us to 'save other people's souls' and we must do this out of 'compassion' as you had said in one of your posts in this thread.

I wait for your answer....

But I must warn you that you will NOT find such a verse or instruction, to the contray, 18.67 clearly says "the knowledge should never be explained to..."


Your 'saving of other souls out of compassion" nonsense belongs in adharmic religions. It has no place in vaishnava, hindu or other dharmic traditions.

orlando
01 May 2006, 11:01 AM
I did laugh about your comments to Bhagavad-gita verses like Yes, surrender onto him. Where does he say, “go and make other people surrender on to me?” Where? or Here Bhagwan gives us instruction to use our brain and will and lets us choose what we want. Where is the “now go out and save other peoples soul out of compassion?”

satay
01 May 2006, 11:03 AM
I did laugh about your comments to Bhagavad-gita verses like Yes, surrender onto him. Where does he say, “go and make other people surrender on to me?” Where? or Here Bhagwan gives us instruction to use our brain and will and lets us choose what we want. Where is the “now go out and save other peoples soul out of compassion?”


:) Those are not meant for laughing. Those were meant for you to think about the meaning of what Bhagwan is saying.

Try to think for self. Even a parrot can repeat the gita if we teach him that...
Don't become a parrot. Experience Bhagwan's words!

idli_sambar
01 May 2006, 11:21 AM
Dear Idli_Sambar,


I simply state that I disagree.

Should I show you texts of Mr. Dey calling other Gurus (who agreed to disagree with him) as rascals, cheaters etc.? And His followers, in the name of defending Krishna's name use similar vocabulary. Then, should you yourself read the language used against Shankara by some gurus? I can paste those if you wish. You can also check up forums where uncivil language is used exclusively by a particular set of devotees not only against opponent humans but also against vedic dieties whom they percieve to be belonging to opposite camp. It is surely demonstratable that such behaviour is more common among a particular group.

some gurus are rascals and those who copy and become famous are cheaters. I find nothing wrong in calling them so but I dont agree we should not do it just because they are hindus. You know there is no point getting everyone in a religious forum and asking them to go against their soul. heart in hearts, everyone thinks their guru is right and the other guy is false, wrong. A srivaishnava will think shankara is wrong in his heart but people like ramki anna are afraid to admit it. Someone like you is also trying to be nice while in your heart you think all gurus are false except Shankara. You need to respect people who believe in scriptures for they go by what is said there. If you want respect all gurus even if they are rascals, wise and knowledgeable people like Mr. Dey or Mr. Night are not going to come into this forum and discussions will be mediocre as usual. If they are ordinary discussions based on feelings this forum will be a failure.

Singhi Kaya
01 May 2006, 11:22 AM
Namaste shingi,
My post was in response to your this line in post 67.



Now you say,
Sorry for the confusion~I mean what I said later.


I think indirectly you are calling me a bigot. No, I do not feel superior of not being sectarian. In post #1 I say, “this concerns me as a hindu”…this meaning the behaviour of vaishnava that shove bhagwan down other people’s throats and by doing so clearly undermine the power of bhagwan. By assuming the position of a salsmen these vaishnava are inadvertently insulting Bhagwan. At this point I'm not saying anything to you~just pointing out that it's the argument, not the person which is important. If the vaisnava argument is irrfutable then we need to accept it. I haven't said that it is (I believe it is not, and till now in this forum). But just because vaishnavas preach doesn't make them guilty. I haven't found not all vaishnava's as preachers~they hold there view point is higher. What's wrong with that? Same with advaitin's ow why we would stick to what we are? Q is whether vaisnava doctrine particularly in terms of preaching is correct .... I haven't said it is.


My question to you is: Where are the instructions from him where he asks us to be his salesmen? Did he say in gita that go out there and shove this message down other people’s throats? Did he say anywhere that do this because you have compassion for others and you must save other people’s souls? Did he? If he did, please tell me where…because I can not find the relevant shalokas It's not about being salesman, it's about trying to establish the truth as one has experienced. Seers didn't spend the life in a forest but did establish the religion we belong today? Were the supreme Arya Rishi's just salesman and egoists? Bhagvan did more serious stuff than just shove down a dogma, he eliminated many of his opponents. Shankara did refute buddhists, or did he not? Now was Adi Shankaracharya an Egotist? The danger of christianity is not that they preach, but what they preach.


But coming back more to reality, I don't think position held by some immature vaishnava's is correct. Even vaishnava's are yogis. They believe in karma and reincarnation. That makes abrahamic type of preaching invalid~whether dvatic view is absolute can still be argued. But certainly a mere belief is inconsequential in hinduism. I think most vaishnavas here accept this. Only one or two very young posters seem to have an abrahamic view of things. Not all. Other's were simply arguing out their points. May be slightly more aggressively.




Ego is already there when you think that you are superior to the person or the philosophy you are arguing against. Firstly here no one is thinking he/she is superior~only his/her dogma is higher truth.

Ego is everywhere, all the time we are alive and dead, untill we become free. If one keeps with truth and questions oneself when doubts arises, listens to others before being dogmatic, one will progress. TCan anyone think his view is inferior and still hold it?? Only thing important is "Do I judge with complete rationality and honesty to myself?"


What you think is rational may not be rational to others. This depends on many different things including their karma. No it may not~doesn't mean we are not allowed to speak of it in a public place.


My point is ‘why force the argument (rationally or otherwise). It is an individual choice isn't it. I have reasoned out that there is nothing wrong rationally placing one's view to other's in an effort propagate truth. Without such a thing, hinduism would itself not exist. One must be honest to oneself and be respectful of other views. Whether I want to do it depends on my knowledge level, my conviction and purpose. There is no forcing here. I argue (only when other party agrees to) and then I win or loose. I take lesson and question my understanding. Where is the forcing?



How is it ludicrous? Don’t the hindus go around shouting we are very tolerant of other faiths? Isn’t it that tolerance means ‘respect’ here. Sorry for a strong word. But just because someone things his view is superior to ours we cannot force him to stop ar accuse him. Does it not mean we hold the exact same view with our own dogma? Or else why would one get upset? So he comes out with what he believes makes him bad compared to us who keep it to ourselves? Does it makes sense to you...it does not to me.


We all know there are asuric forces at play but have we no understanding that ‘karma’ is at play and have we lost faith in bhagwan that we must take things in our hands? Why do you think sitting and waiting for bhagvan to take things in his hand is better karma than fighting it out ourselves? Both are karmas~why being inactive when you are convinced otherwise is wrong? Isin't that just moha?
Did krishna fought or did Arjuna fought the battle?
Singhi's position:When I'm convinced of the truth, I must act. I'll not act if I have doubts. I'll continously question myself and practice yoga and act according to my dharma. So if I'm wrong, God will point that out in time.

Satay's position: Why should we act, even if we know that asriks are at work. Bhagvan will take care.

You decide Satay.


No, I think this vaishnava behaviour is in direct line with Christian missionary behaviour. I reject the Christian missionary nonsense and by the same reasoning I reject the vaishnava missionary nonsense. Only a few are in this forum, not all. Not most of them. And those few if have noticed are very young. And also they don't attack personally or get agitated. Certainly mucg less than we get by them...who is the winner?




Nonsense! This you say to take the focus away from the OP. Let’s focus on the OP. If you have problems with the moderation or your reputation points start a new thread or pm the mods. I started this thread not as a mod but as a member. No not nonsense, but not related to OP. So I won't comment.


In summary~If vaishnavism reduces to some sort of abrahamism where belief is key, then there is a problem. I don't disagree some of them have such view points. But I don't think one can generalize to the level that preaching is bad. Advaitins also place their views here.

idli_sambar
01 May 2006, 11:26 AM
What are you talking about? If you want to be sectarian (hindu or not) and shove something down my throat then be prepare for the vomit that will come out.

converted christians think they are having amrutha(nectar) and not vomit. If they think jessus is their personal god, why is it a problem? You should be happy they are happy.

We have no instructions from bhagwan to be sectarian and save other peoples' souls so what the 'hindu' missionaries are doing is not vedic and thus must be rejected.
Unless you show me instrcutions...
we have clear instructions from krishna where he says he is the lord and above all other gods. He also called those who believe the world is false are condemned. Are you saying we have to go aganist what god preached? do I respect lord or respect others who go against the lord?

satay
01 May 2006, 11:40 AM
[FONT=Arial]converted christians think they are having amrutha(nectar) and not vomit. If they think jessus is their personal god, why is it a problem? You should be happy they are happy.


There is no question of "happy" or "unhappy". There is a quesion of shoving. In their case, they have exact instruction to shove their faith down other peoples throats.



[FONT=Arial]
[FONT=Arial]we have clear instructions from krishna where he says he is the lord and above all other gods. He also called those who believe the world is false are condemned.


And your point is?

Please show me instructions where Bhagwan says, "go out and preach this message and save other people's souls"

Where is this instruction?

Singhi Kaya
01 May 2006, 11:48 AM
His point was "world is real" as per krishna~yet advaitins say it's maya.
Now I think he is correct to point this out to advaitins*. Beyond that concepts similar to saving souls should not come~if it does, then wrong.


*I also think in current world circumstances this will be most worthless thing to spend energy on.

ramkish42
01 May 2006, 11:53 AM
some gurus are rascals and those who copy and become famous are cheaters. I find nothing wrong in calling them so but I dont agree we should not do it just because they are hindus. You know there is no point getting everyone in a religious forum and asking them to go against their soul. heart in hearts, everyone thinks their guru is right and the other guy is false, wrong. A srivaishnava will think shankara is wrong in his heart but people like ramki anna are afraid to admit it. Someone like you is also trying to be nice while in your heart you think all gurus are false except Shankara. You need to respect people who believe in scriptures for they go by what is said there. If you want respect all gurus even if they are rascals, wise and knowledgeable people like Mr. Dey or Mr. Night are not going to come into this forum and discussions will be mediocre as usual. If they are ordinary discussions based on feelings this forum will be a failure.

I agree with the view that Shri Sankara bhagavatpada view of hinduism is wrong for there are lot of unbridgable holes in the advaiti philosophy and I am not scared to say this.

But I revere Shri Sanakara for his bequest. Without him there will be no vedic sect as such today. Shri Sankara has salvaged hinduism from clutches of Buddhism and Jainism for this all hindus are indebted to him. He is first to stop Carvakaas and Mimamsakaas who tried to change in entire hinduism a mere ritual driven sect burrying deep its sprituality. What ever he did and said, was verily to establish spritualism of Hinduttva

Thus I revere him a lot

I do not subscribe to the highlighted statement of Idli Sambar. By any means Shri Sankara Bhagavatpada is not an ordinary person. He is not a Kapaali or a Carvakaa.

As such in Hinduism we do not revere a person for his age nor for the money but for knowledge alone. As to Shri Sankara his vedic knowledge is par excellence. We have found few sections of veda exists not by reading them but by the commentaries offered by Shri Sankara and references he has made to those texts.

I cannot allow somebody to belittle 5 great perceptors of Hinduism for any reason

atanu
01 May 2006, 11:54 AM
some gurus are rascals and those who copy and become famous are cheaters. I find nothing wrong in calling them so but I dont agree we should not do it just because they are hindus.


Rascal means scroundel. Let others decide whether it is OK to call another scroundel because of difference of opinion (or for any other reason whatsoever)?





You know there is no point getting everyone in a religious forum and asking them to go against their soul. heart in hearts, everyone thinks their guru is right and the other guy is false, wrong.



Venting anger by using words like rascal does not save one's own soul.




A srivaishnava will think shankara is wrong in his heart but people like ramki anna are afraid to admit it.


No. I said that some fortunately have gone above mental differences. Sages fight till death but they do not disrespect. Vashista fought Visvamitra and won but still respected Visvamitra by addressing him as a brahmajnani.

And I have said: Fortunately some of us know that conceptual differences emerge and dissolve in one Lord Pragnya. Such find no cause for use of ill words, since they know the differences to be shallow, existing in ego.




Someone like you is also trying to be nice while in your heart you think all gurus are false except Shankara.


That is your opinion and I must respect it, though I do not agree at all.

I have conviction that all paths are paths laid down by Bhagwan alone. He takes care everywhere. Who am I to judge and take a false burden upon myself when Lord has taught me to renounce doership? Those who have renounced doership are never tired, never sad, never angry and never defeated.




Best Wishes

Singhi Kaya
01 May 2006, 12:01 PM
some gurus are rascals and those who copy and become famous are cheaters. I find nothing wrong in calling them so but I dont agree we should not do it just because they are hindus. You know there is no point getting everyone in a religious forum and asking them to go against their soul. heart in hearts, everyone thinks their guru is right and the other guy is false, wrong. A srivaishnava will think shankara is wrong in his heart but people like ramki anna are afraid to admit it. Someone like you is also trying to be nice while in your heart you think all gurus are false except Shankara. You need to respect people who believe in scriptures for they go by what is said there. If you want respect all gurus even if they are rascals, wise and knowledgeable people like Mr. Dey or Mr. Night are not going to come into this forum and discussions will be mediocre as usual. If they are ordinary discussions based on feelings this forum will be a failure.

If this is the level of your refutation of advaita, and this is how you see fellow hindu's and acharyas, then Satay was defintely right. Also being a hindu, why is mental conception of reality so Important? Does vaishnavism believe that mere mental belief leads to salvation?

satay
01 May 2006, 12:07 PM
idli proves my point.
In post #1 I said,



Have we forgotten that we are "hindus" and as such should have and should show respect to "all" sects even if we do not agree with their teachings?



To this one vaishnava has already admitted that he does not identify himself as "hindu".

Idli, do you identify as "hindu"?

ramkish42
01 May 2006, 12:14 PM
His point was "world is real" as per krishna~yet advaitins say it's maya.
Now I think he is correct to point this out to advaitins*. Beyond that concepts similar to saving souls should not come~if it does, then wrong.


*I also think in current world circumstances this will be most worthless thing to spend energy on.
Advaitins do say "Brahmam Satyam; Jagat Mitya"

To this Vaishnav responds:

This statement is not God for it refers to god, hence this is also Mitya (False). Having said the statement is false, it goes without saying the statement is not true and what is true is the opposite which is Brahmam Mitya and Jagat Satyam which is verily against vedic doctrines.

The basic problem is inconsistency. As Madhavacharya observed, Knowledge of veda is abundant, once you have so many texts there will be lot of contradictory statements in it. Now you have two choices, either reject contradictory statements or bridge the gaps so that both views can exist at the same time.

This is where a Vaishnav stands. We are here to bridge the gaps. We are not here to reject the authority of veda and its doctrines

However let us do it in acceptable manner and let us not belittle others.

On the other hand, let me assue this. Vaishnav succeeds in a debate, now the real question is will the opponent will ever consider your philosophy if you belittle him and address him with wrong words. Never ever. Your entire purpose fails at this juncture. Hence, I ask why? When you know such attempt is not going to result in success really why to venture.

Start a debate, proceed in acceptable fashion and close the debate in an amicable manner. Simple and clear

idli_sambar
01 May 2006, 12:15 PM
Satay maharaj -- there is no instruction to go and preach and save the world. Opposite ---Krishna says not to do so. Anyone attracted to our philosophy only does it because of his good deeds and past karma.

Kaya anna you are right as usual.

Singhi Kaya
01 May 2006, 12:19 PM
I agree with the view that Shri Sankara bhagavatpada view of hinduism is wrong for there are lot of unbridgable holes in the advaiti philosophy and I am not scared to say this.

But I revere Shri Sanakara for his bequest. Without him there will be no vedic sect as such today. Shri Sankara has salvaged hinduism from clutches of Buddhism and Jainism for this all hindus are indebted to him. He is first to stop Carvakaas and Mimamsakaas who tried to change in entire hinduism a mere ritual driven sect burrying deep its sprituality. What ever he did and said, was verily to establish spritualism of Hinduttva

Thus I revere him a lot

I do not subscribe to the highlighted statement of Idli Sambar. By any means Shri Sankara Bhagavatpada is not an ordinary person. He is not a Kapaali or a Carvakaa.

As such in Hinduism we do not revere a person for his age nor for the money but for knowledge alone. As to Shri Sankara his vedic knowledge is par excellence. We have found few sections of veda exists not by reading them but by the commentaries offered by Shri Sankara and references he has made to those texts.

I cannot allow somebody to belittle 5 great perceptors of Hinduism for any reason

You are also the saving face of the vaishnava sampradaya in this thread. It's for my own reputation level, I can't help you;).

Mr Idli as acted as a classic hindu by starting to abuse fellow hindu's.
The common theme of hinduism is reincarnation and realization of god through "yoga". Even if our perception of the ultimate reality varies, there can be no more compulsion than just to point out the inconsistency to each other. None of us are asuriks and want to kill other's for not following our cult or present Gd as a material demi-godling.

Getting back to the great Sri Shankaracharya~I think without him India would have joined the league of ancient egyptian civilization.

Singhi Kaya
01 May 2006, 12:30 PM
Advaitins do say "Brahmam Satyam; Jagat Mitya"

To this Vaishnav responds:

This statement is not God for it refers to god, hence this is also Mitya (False). Having said the statement is false, it goes without saying the statement is not true and what is true is the opposite which is Brahmam Mitya and Jagat Satyam which is verily against vedic doctrines.

The basic problem is inconsistency. As Madhavacharya observed, Knowledge of veda is abundant, once you have so many texts there will be lot of contradictory statements in it. Now you have two choices, either reject contradictory statements or bridge the gaps so that both views can exist at the same time.

This is where a Vaishnav stands. We are here to bridge the gaps. We are not here to reject the authority of veda and its doctrines

However let us do it in acceptable manner and let us not belittle others.

On the other hand, let me assue this. Vaishnav succeeds in a debate, now the real question is will the opponent will ever consider your philosophy if you belittle him and address him with wrong words. Never ever. Your entire purpose fails at this juncture. Hence, I ask why? When you know such attempt is not going to result in success really why to venture.

Start a debate, proceed in acceptable fashion and close the debate in an amicable manner. Simple and clear

I personally am not a pure maya vadi. I consider myself a shakta and thus both jagat and brahma are true to me. But I also believe that they are same.(Not exactly, actually Brahma>=Jagat). Personally most advaitins I think refer to maya as the delution of mind and ego~similar to buddhism, which holds everything to be real and being capable of observing the reality as it is, with equanamity and mindfullness is nibbana. Most advaitins I have talked to are buddhists with a conception of supreme self added to it.

But my contention is even simple~the differences we see above are only at the highest level regarding the ultimate nature of reality. I agree we must argue them out for consistency, for what we believe shapes our actions. But no more than that. There is no question of saving or anything like that. I know your view is very different and I haven;t seen any illogical point from you. But some, particularly young gaudiya vaishnavas doesn't share this mind set~I have now seen some post which definitely seemed abrahamic.

idli_sambar
01 May 2006, 12:45 PM
Idli, do you identify as "hindu"?
didnt you see my name -- I am idli sambar(yummy) raja raja among hindu food.

ramkish42
01 May 2006, 01:02 PM
You are also the saving face of the vaishnava sampradaya in this thread. It's for my own reputation level, I can't help you.

Thank you. For the fact I am more happy if someone calls me a fool or ***** for I do not know a particular thing. 1. It shows me that I am not great, 2. It also shows me what should I know

I do not want to build up my reputation marks for every action of mine is with a reason. Out mystic quote was indeed an idea to discontinue the very word. I really got wild when great gurus are abused by some member. As I read more and more some sectarian texts I can understand the real intention of the sect. I am happy otherwise


Mr Idli as acted as a classic hindu by starting to abuse fellow hindu's. The common theme of hinduism is reincarnation and realization of god through "yoga". Even if our perception of the ultimate reality varies, there can be no more compulsion than just to point out the inconsistency to each other. None of us are asuriks and want to kill other's for not following our cult or present Gd as a material demi-godling.
Reason is young and enthusiasm. The texts which Vaishnav get introduced on philosophical levels happens to be debating book. Many vaishnavs also assume that Advaiti is such weak philosophy can be taken over in minutes with the guide books. Once they see the face of debate they come to know what is the problem. I always advice new members to slow down.

Verily none of us are asurik. When met in person each carry much reverance for other. I am also surprised that people who want to debate do not debate face to face


Getting back to the great Sri Shankaracharya~I think without him India would have joined the league of ancient egyptian civilization.
True.

idli_sambar
01 May 2006, 01:10 PM
Rascal means scroundel. Let others decide whether it is OK to call another scroundel because of difference of opinion (or for any other reason whatsoever)? Venting anger by using words like rascal does not save one's own soul..
lets decide. Calling a scoundrel not a soundrel is a bad thing just like calling shovers as shove down the throaters is a good thing. I was not referring to shankara when syaing other gurus are rascals. I was referring to gurus like the one who had bad video tapes when police raided his residence and one like the recent kanchi controversy.
We do not save the soul, god does.

I said that some fortunately have gone above mental differences. Sages fight till death but they do not disrespect. Vashista fought Visvamitra and won but still respected Visvamitra by addressing him as a brahmajnani..
Same here. Ramki anna and me fight but I think he is a jnani because he is. I don’t know about you.


And I have said: Fortunately some of us know that conceptual differences emerge and dissolve in one Lord Pragnya. Such find no cause for use of ill words, since they know the differences to be shallow, existing in ego. .
Such should also not find ill words used by others since they know differences does not exist.


I have conviction that all paths are paths laid down by Bhagwan alone. He takes care everywhere. Who am I to judge and take a false burden upon myself when Lord has taught me to renounce doership? Those who have renounced doership are never tired, never sad, never angry and never defeated..
I don’t know what you say but it looks really deep like a church sermon

ramkish42
01 May 2006, 01:19 PM
I personally am not a pure maya vadi. I consider myself a shakta and thus both jagat and brahma are true to me. But I also believe that they are same.(Not exactly, actually Brahma>=Jagat). Personally most advaitins I think refer to maya as the delution of mind and ego~similar to buddhism, which holds everything to be real and being capable of observing the reality as it is, with equanamity and mindfullness is nibbana. Most advaitins I have talked to are buddhists with a conception of supreme self added to it.
True. Most advaitins and Buddhist share some common points. Buddhist are sarva sunyavadin - they say everything is Sunya - nothing. I am not sure from nothing how could something can arise, in our present case entire earth with all its beauty.

The nature of Advaiti philosophy should be read with a mind set that India is full of buddhist, Jains, Mimaamsakas and Carvakas. Once you preset your mind to this level, you can appreciate Advaiti philosophy.

I always suggest advaiti to read works of Shri Madhavacharya so that their idea of delusion can come to a compromise


But my contention is even simple~the differences we see above are only at the highest level regarding the ultimate nature of reality. I agree we must argue them out for consistency, for what we believe shapes our actions. But no more than that. There is no question of saving or anything like that. I know your view is very different and I haven;t seen any illogical point from you. But some, particularly young gaudiya vaishnavas doesn't share this mind set~I have now seen some post which definitely seemed abrahamic.

I made some point realted to this in some other thread, I think so, or probably in this thread.

It is like a big feast. Lord has offered us a lot of material on this feast. I like something and other like, probably something else. I do feel it otherwise when I am invited to taste the other food stuff. This is reality and there is nothing bad about this. This shows love of person who invites you - towards you and towards the food stuff. If you really agitated, simple, make a counter offer. If some one calls me to taste scotch, I respond share with me a glass of sweet lemon juice first. If some one calls me to taste brinjal I invite him to taste a jilabee first

If still you are agitated show your agitation with vigour

orlando
01 May 2006, 01:29 PM
About Gaudiya-vaishnava,I think it should be better to talk about ISKCON followers.Swami Prabhupada desidered that his disciples preached Krishna Consciousness.Even old ISKCON followers agree that they have to preach their religion in order to save the souls from samsara.
Regards,
Orlando.

Singhi Kaya
01 May 2006, 01:40 PM
About Gaudiya-vaishnava,I think it should be better to talk about ISKCON followers.Swami Prabhupada desidered that his disciples preached Krishna Consciousness.Even old ISKCON followers agree that they have to preach their religion in order to save the souls from samsara
Regards,
Orlando.

And the bolded part is entirely wrong as per sanatana dharma~saving souls is a christian missionaries job. Your job as a vaishnava is to spend lot of time understanding it. Then spend time understanding advaita. Finally if convinced about your point put it sincerely before an advaitin. No need to become a preacher so quickly. Krishna unlike Allah doesn't give any special boons to convert souls to his fold~he knows all are his, and will make way for salvation for all of us. But ofcourse you can offer a helping hand to other's when you are convinced you can help~not before and nothing more.

orlando
01 May 2006, 01:44 PM
Namaste,what do you mean by "nothing more"?
What could I do of something more?

orlando
01 May 2006, 01:46 PM
However I don't consider wrong at all the fact that ISKCON followers preach their religions.I consider them a blessing for the western society.

satay
01 May 2006, 01:46 PM
[FONT=Arial]
We do not save the soul, god does.

Exactly my point! So why all this bickering about other sects? Everyone is practicing dharma depending on his or her own spiritual capacity and karma.

But the OP talks about the behaviour of those vaishnava that insult acharyas of other sampradayas/sects/philosophies. If you are not doing this, you don't have to worry about the OP. if you have not noticed this behaviour then you are very lucky.

To those that try to save my soul (vaishnava or not)I say, "don't bother and don't shove your nonsense in my throat. or else be prepared when I vomit it out on you."

Singhi Kaya
01 May 2006, 01:47 PM
It means nothing:D

Singhi Kaya
01 May 2006, 01:48 PM
However I don't consider wrong at all the fact that ISKCON followers preach their religions.I consider them a blessing for the western society.

I agree there~reasons are more complex.
Did you came to know about vaishnavism through ISKCON first?

satay
01 May 2006, 01:49 PM
Satay maharaj -- there is no instruction to go and preach and save the world. Opposite ---Krishna says not to do so. Anyone attracted to our philosophy only does it because of his good deeds and past karma.

Kaya anna you are right as usual.

Exactly! so then the so called vaishnava preachers tryig to save other people's soul should stop preaching and learn first what Bhagwan has instructed us to do.

orlando
01 May 2006, 01:52 PM
Shri Singhi Kaya,first I come to know about Hinduism,Vaishnavism and Srimad Ramanuja-acharya in a book.I found Sri Vaishnavism in internet at http://www.ramanuja.org

satay
01 May 2006, 01:54 PM
The problem (with iskcon or other sects) is not preaching but the 'superiority complex' the preachers or adherents of these sects have.

That 'superiority complex' is in direct contradiction with the instructions given to us in Gita. And this complex of I am better and I must save other souls and I must do this out of compassion must be shed if we are to follow Bhagwan's message.


I think we have beaten this thread to the max now. So let's recap and give all your positions and let's close this thread.

orlando
01 May 2006, 02:04 PM
Namaste Satay.
I don't know if you are speaking as a mod or a member but I am sure that before this thread will be closed,there is a thing that you should note.
In the seventh Canto of Srimad Bhagavata Purana you can see that Shri Pralada Maharaja preached vaishnavism to his schoomates.
You may read the seventh Canto at
http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto7/c7-contents.html

Regards,
Orlando.

ramkish42
01 May 2006, 02:05 PM
My stance is this

1. If one wants to debate, let us debate in reasonable manner
2. There is no consideration for a member if he insults any aacharya
3. Before any action from moderator I request for a notice asking for explanation
4. While condemning actions in public, moderator should also consider Politically correct statement but made with bad intentions - such statements should also be condemned

Singhi Kaya
01 May 2006, 02:06 PM
Lets also thank Ramkish, Mr Atul, truthseeker, Satay and young Orlando for expressing views in correct manner and removing some doubts.

satay
01 May 2006, 02:12 PM
Were the supreme Arya Rishi's just salesman and egoists?


Are you a supreme Arya Rishi? Is anyone on this forum?

These are rehtorical questions. I do not expect an answer.


Shankara did refute buddhists, or did he not? Now was Adi Shankaracharya an Egotist? The danger of christianity is not that they preach, but what they preach.

Now we are talking two different things. One is shankara's refutation of buddhism the other is christianity. They are different.

But my question to you is: Are you Adi Shakara?



Firstly here no one is thinking he/she is superior~only his/her dogma is higher truth.


really? You don't have to convince me...I have seen it otherwise...:rolleyes:



It is an individual choice isn't it. I have reasoned out that there is nothing wrong rationally placing one's view to other's in an effort propagate truth. Without such a thing, hinduism would itself not exist.


Can you tell me what "hinduism" is? You said that it exists...where do I find it?

Again, this is rehtorical...hinduism is a concept do not dare to even think for a moment that it will not exist even if all vedas and scriptures are burnt and all hindus are slaughtered.


Sorry for a strong word. But just because someone things his view is superior to ours we cannot force him to stop ar accuse him. Does it not mean we hold the exact same view with our own dogma? Or else why would one get upset? So he comes out with what he believes makes him bad compared to us who keep it to ourselves? Does it makes sense to you...it does not to me.


Vaishnava behaviour leaves bad taste in other people's mouths. We are not in the business of saving souls. I do not belong to a dogma nor do I preach any. The OP talks about 'concern as a hindu'. I am concerned as a hindu of the vaishnava behaviour just like a brother is concerned about his other brother might be doing something that is against the 'way of life principles'.



Why do you think sitting and waiting for bhagvan to take things in his hand is better karma than fighting it out ourselves? Both are karmas~why being inactive when you are convinced otherwise is wrong? Isin't that just moha?
Did krishna fought or did Arjuna fought the battle?
Singhi's position:When I'm convinced of the truth, I must act. I'll not act if I have doubts. I'll continously question myself and practice yoga and act according to my dharma. So if I'm wrong, God will point that out in time.


when you say "I must act" what is that you must act upon and what is that you think "you" yourself control? Do you control anything? (again more rehtorical questions)



Satay's position: Why should we act, even if we know that asriks are at work. Bhagvan will take care.



This is not my position but I will leave that for another thread. Let's continue with the vaishnava behaviour on the internet forums which is shameful.



But I don't think one can generalize to the level that preaching is bad. Advaitins also place their views here.

Then why haven't we converted the whole world to hinduism yet? What's the problem?

The problem is we have no instructions in our scriptures that tell us to go out and preach. If I am wrong, please provide me with instructions or point me to the right texts...

Singhi Kaya
01 May 2006, 02:14 PM
My stance

1. Preaching and proper debate is Ok, though I find it not the top priority within sanatana dharma~but when done with real good intension, it is fine.
2. But some vaishnavas definitely have a problem. I'm not sure if others have it too, but it is not apparant. I hope this is more to do with young excitement than anything else.
3. Lets not loose respect for other and especially hindu's and our guru's. Some point's may be humbly questioned. As for me, I respect most traditions which includes all hinduism, buddhism, jainins, taoism, paganism, Inca, greeks and what not. I don't think all are equally correct, but all are an outcome af genuine human quest for truth. Similarly I have only vengience for asurik ones without a drop of respect.

Regards
S

satay
01 May 2006, 02:15 PM
Namaste Satay.
I don't know if you are speaking as a mod or a member but I am sure that before this thread will be closed,there is a thing that you should note.
In the seventh Canto of Srimad Bhagavata Purana you can see that Shri Pralada Maharaja preached vaishnavism to his schoomates.
You may read the seventh Canto at
http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto7/c7-contents.html

Regards,
Orlando.

Give me instructions from the Gita please. I don't want to see this and that preached so I will preach also. I am not pralada and you are not either.
Unless you are pralada maharaj yourself stop trying to save my soul.

idli_sambar
01 May 2006, 02:24 PM
Exactly! so then the so called vaishnava preachers tryig to save other people's soul should stop preaching and learn first what Bhagwan has instructed us to do.
Preaching is the domain of advaita. I have not seen any vaishnavas doing that except bhakta of god and ramkish anna. Vaishnavas have objected, argued against false impressions, misinterpretations and confusion set by others. when they object against misinterpretations, they look like the villain. Advaitas try to make idlis out of dosai flour because they think both are the same. But it will not have the same great idli taste.

ramkish42
01 May 2006, 02:26 PM
Give me instructions from the Gita please. I don't want to see this and that preached so I will preach also. I am not pralada and you are not either.
Unless you are pralada maharaj yourself stop trying to save my soul.
Not for the purpose of debating but for logic, does not your doubt sounds, if you are not Mahatma Gandhi do not preach non violence

Singhi Kaya
01 May 2006, 02:34 PM
Namaste Satay,

Our scripture doesn't call for preaching in the way abrahamic religions does. But at the same time it tells to hold no bars when it comes to protecting the dharma and destroying the asuriks.

My position is that in current yuga, preaching ~ particularly to those who contunously attack our dharma is a part of this protection. That's all. As you see, I'm not very keen on preaching within dharma. But when done with good intentions of pointing out inconsistencies~it can only make us stronger.

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

About acting against asuriks. I only know I have to follow my dharma and do my duty. Why should I speculate what God will do or not do? If my actions are contrary to dharma, you have a point. But is it? As I have said we have then burn most of our vedas, Gita , ramayana and mahabharata and even puranas, the chaandi and many heart and soul of hinduism if we say that opposing asuriks is against dharma. Krishna starts and ends with reminding Arjuna not to get deluded and just do his duty. Are we following our supreme guru and rishis's when we speculate about how rise of asuriks is to do with karma or how God will eleminate them in time?

I always Remember a great sloka from gita, where lord tells arjuna only to be the nimitta in this battle. It is lord who is fighting anyways. We focus on the 2nd part of this statement. We only feel happy to imagine lord is controling and fighting it anyways. But the burning question is, are we even prepared to be just nimitta for the occation?? Well, are we?? If not, then will lord be fighting for us from heaven?

satay
01 May 2006, 03:21 PM
Not for the purpose of debating but for logic, does not your doubt sounds, if you are not Mahatma Gandhi do not preach non violence

I know what you are saying but Non-violence is a tenet of Dharma...

'saving other souls' is not a business we are in let adharmis do that.

satay
01 May 2006, 03:35 PM
Namaste Satay,

Our scripture doesn't call for preaching in the way abrahamic religions does.

And that's the crux of my point. So therefore, my conclusion is as follows:

1. there is no point in preaching to other hindus or other sects as we know that we are all at the stage we are due to our karma and even if we wanted to we can not "all" surrender to Bhagwan...due to our karma

2. there is no point in calling other acharyas asuric, rascals etc. childish names and there is no point in calling other sects as having cancer etc. simply because they do not agree with your sect.

3. it is our duty to stand up against adharmic forces.

4. standing up against intolerance is not 'intolerance'. if anything, that is cowardice.

5. sticking to your dogma is no different than a christian sticking to his dogma. dogma is not what dharma teaches and as such we should not stick to any dogma.

6. we should shed all 'superiority complex' or nature of "holier than thou" attitudes just bring bad taste in other people's mouths and leaves vaishnava tradition with a wrong impression which it does not deserve.

namaskar....thank you all for the wonderful discussion!

idli_sambar
01 May 2006, 05:37 PM
you have not addressed the root cause but went ahead and complained vaishnavas are disrespectful. They may be disrespectful, but you have to find out what is causing them to be.

The problem is Satay maharaj, each sect in hinduism thinks the other is adharmic. How do you go against that thinking? If you do, you are harming sentiments of either sects. All sects insisting they tell the truth what the vedas purport. If at all you want to repair this thinking, you should go back in time and undo all divisions from happening. Now it is already done and nothing can be done about it. You cannot rewrite vedas and make a dictionary where each tom reading it will know what the words are.

And I don’t know why you are against vaishnava thinking when the same exists with shaivas and other religions. Christians have so many denominations and each one does not agree with other nor do they respect each other division. Same with muslims.

And you talk about hinduism. Nothings wrong with hinduism and it is strong still. Idlis, dosai's, rotis and vada pav's are still consumed without comparing one with another. The only thing wrong is when religious discussions are started and it gives rise to tempers. The religious forums are the one that start the divisions, not the people here or vaishnavas. I am sure you will not ban the forum for propagating disharmony.

willie
01 May 2006, 09:27 PM
Another rousing discussion that has led no where.

It seems to me that hindus are divided just like the christian and the moslems but refused the admit it. This leads to these heated discussions that go nowhere and lead to hard feelings. I just wonder what all the fuss is about? If discussion and arguements cannot be held with out people getting mad them it only shows the those in these discussions should no be in the dicussion at all.

I don't really see the point in talking about holymen who are long dead, after all, they cannot be contacted to find out what they really meant.

I don't really go in for the name calling but if it pleases others they call away. I have been yelled by experts and it does not bother me a bit.

Hindism need modernization and it needs it bad. Looks at other religions , islam is not very modern and what has it gotten for it? Judaism in modernizing now and christianity has some groups working on moving into the modern world.

satay
01 May 2006, 09:56 PM
you have not addressed the root cause but went ahead and complained vaishnavas are disrespectful. They may be disrespectful, but you have to find out what is causing them to be.

Okay, tell me what the root cause is…



The problem is Satay maharaj, each sect in hinduism thinks the other is adharmic.

Really? How do you know what each sect thinks? Does a sect have a brain to think? Or do you mean that people of each sect think that the other sects are adharmic? In that case, have you asked “all” people of all sects what they think of other sects? If not, your statement is clearly wrong.



How do you go against that thinking? If you do, you are harming sentiments of either sects. All sects insisting they tell the truth what the vedas purport. If at all you want to repair this thinking, you should go back in time and undo all divisions from happening. Now it is already done and nothing can be done about it. You cannot rewrite vedas and make a dictionary where each tom reading it will know what the words are.

This is all hand waving and nonsense. It is like a baby throwing tantrums when asked to behave himself. I am not calling you a baby…I am calling the behaviour similar to that of a tantrum throwing baby.



And I don’t know why you are against vaishnava thinking when the same exists with shaivas and other religions.

I care about vaishnava thinking because the vaishnavas that behave like babies are presenting their version of hinduism which leaves a bad taste in other people’s mouths. I have not seen any shivas do this not on any of the forums I have been.
As far as christians and muslims, I simply do not care what they do. They are a story from another thread.

Vaishnavas can not hand wave and blame the world for their superiority complex behaviour. First step of recovery is to recognize that there is a problem. They should come out of their denial.



The only thing wrong is when religious discussions are started and it gives rise to tempers. The religious forums are the one that start the divisions, not the people here or vaishnavas. I am sure you will not ban the forum for propagating disharmony.

I have no idea what you are talking about and in what context. Religious discussions are how we discuss religion. Can vaishnavas do it in a respectful manner without calling other sects cancer and without shoving down their sectarian nonsense?

satay
01 May 2006, 10:00 PM
Hindism need modernization and it needs it bad. Looks at other religions , islam is not very modern and what has it gotten for it? Judaism in modernizing now and christianity has some groups working on moving into the modern world.


what do we suggest we do willie? Start another thread on it.

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
01 May 2006, 10:56 PM
Namaskaar. This thread was unfortunately very successful. The Vaishnavites who participated on this thread did a great job at answering Satay's question by simply demonstrating the behavior that Satay was asking about. :( ~BYS~

atanu
02 May 2006, 03:14 AM
Preaching is the domain of advaita.

--Advaitas try to make idlis out of dosai flour because they think both are the same. But it will not have the same great idli taste.

Idli_sambar, Advaitins do not say that idli and any other thing have the same taste.

And to one earlier mail regarding renunciation of doership you praised my preachings. Thanks.

atanu
02 May 2006, 03:37 AM
lets decide. Calling a scoundrel not a soundrel is a bad thing just like calling shovers as shove down the throaters is a good thing. ---.

There is nothing to decide. I had already said: let others decide. And others have decided.




Same here. Ramki anna and me fight but I think he is a jnani because he is. I don’t know about you.

It is an afterthought. A turn around really. This post is a success afterall, whatever Shri Willie may say.





Such should also not find ill words used by others since they know differences does not exist.

Agreed. Play in the world knowing it for what it is.




I don’t know what you say but it looks really deep like a church sermon

Lord Krishna: Arjuna I do everything.

atanu
02 May 2006, 04:23 AM
Advaitins do say "Brahmam Satyam; Jagat Mitya"

To this Vaishnav responds:

This statement is not God for it refers to god, hence this is also Mitya (False). Having said the statement is false, it goes without saying the statement is not true and what is true is the opposite which is Brahmam Mitya and Jagat Satyam which is verily against vedic doctrines.



Namaskar,

I had written a long reply which got lost. Will make it short now.

The full statement is Jagat Mithya, Brahman Satya, Brahman Jagat. I do not find any flaw in this from VA or Dvaita perspectives. I can cite a RV verse which says the same.


However, you have pointed a nice apparent flaw. But is the address of a person that person? A shruti is not the truth, if separated from the truth wherefrom the shruti emerged. To know a person one has to reach that person using the address.

In case of Brahman who is seer and the seen both, what happens? When one cognizes an external God, who has cognized whom? So, Mandukya says: Only proof of Turiya is in identity with it.

This is the main point of debate and cannot be resolved untill one attains Turiya and Turiyatta. Upanishads and sages definitely teach of ONE SELF.

As the Self only has true power of cognition and intelligence, there cannot be a second who can cognize the Self. One can cognize the Self by being the Self.

Best wishes and regards

ramkish42
02 May 2006, 07:18 AM
Hi Atanu


I had written a long reply which got lost. Will make it short now.
I am sorry for this. I too had faced this many times. What I do is before pressing submit button, I used to copy the entire stuff to notepad and then I will press submit button, if something goes wrong, I can just copy and paste again


The full statement is Jagat Mithya, Brahman Satya, Brahman Jagat. I do not find any flaw in this from VA or Dvaita perspectives. I can cite a RV verse which says the same.
This poses another query. If I further proceed with the syllogism based on the parameters suggested by you, then this results to mithya satya, which is more confusing.

By and large, I am just out of a debate physically but not mentally, hence do no want to proceed with a debate on this at this juncture. If it is destined for us to continue we will continue in some other time and in some other thread (as I feel, Shri Satay has intentions to close this thread and our discussions might derail)


However, you have pointed a nice apparent flaw. But is the address of a person that person? A shruti is not the truth, if separated from the truth wherefrom the shruti emerged. To know a person one has to reach that person using the address.

In case of Brahman who is seer and the seen both, what happens? When one cognizes an external God, who has cognized whom? So, Mandukya says: Only proof of Turiya is in identity with it.

This is the main point of debate and cannot be resolved untill one attains Turiya and Turiyatta. Upanishads and sages definitely teach of ONE SELF.

As the Self only has true power of cognition and intelligence, there cannot be a second who can cognize the Self. One can cognize the Self by being the Self.

Best wishes and regards
I used to respond to people who put this suggestion on me with vedayasya na vedasaha. As per your contention, Atma is verily god, and for god, upanishads say those who say have realised it do not realise, and those who say have not realise have realised it in real. With this analogy, I can conclude attempt to realise soul will be futile, for once one says he has realised it, upanishad says he has not

As the atma quest is not over yet, thrist to know atma is yet to be quenched and hunger to realise atma yet to be satiated we will find some amicable way to knowing each others philosophy

May lord bestow you with his best

Jai shree krishna

atanu
02 May 2006, 07:40 AM
Hi,

I also will be going out on a longish tour. God willing, will discuss on return in a different thread.


Hi Atanu

This poses another query. If I further proceed with the syllogism based on the parameters suggested by you, then this results to mithya satya, which is more confusing.


This should not be, since asat and mithya are different words; at least for philosophers who consider the variations in Vak to be eternal.



I used to respond to people who put this suggestion on me with vedayasya na vedasaha. ---- to realise soul will be futile, for once one says he has realised it, upanishad says he has not


I think this is incorrect. Keno says: I think I Know, I think I know not !!!!!!!!!!! Realisation and knowing are different. Knowing is through mind, which is incapable. Mind cannot see its source as a different I. When the identity of seer and the seen is realised, then "I" is not there.

Lord has already bestowed you and me with the best. Only the wayward wife, called mind, must join its Lord faithfully.

Om Namah Shivayya

idli_sambar
02 May 2006, 09:20 AM
Okay, tell me what the root cause is…
Its unfortunate you don't know the root cause but complain about the behaviour.

Really? How do you know what each sect thinks? Does a sect have a brain to think? Or do you mean that people of each sect think that the other sects are adharmic? In that case, have you asked “all” people of all sects what they think of other sects? If not, your statement is clearly wrong.
Sects have brains to think and people within the sect think other sects are adharmic. Do we need to poll for all people of all sects to say the same to know the differences. The fact that you think vaishnava sect behaviour is shameful is an irony. How did you know that without asking "all" vaishnavas?

This is all hand waving and nonsense. It is like a baby throwing tantrums when asked to behave himself. I am not calling you a baby…I am calling the behaviour similar to that of a tantrum throwing baby.
A childish declaration "vaishnava behaviour shameful" deserves a childish response.

I care about vaishnava thinking because the vaishnavas that behave like babies are presenting their version of hinduism which leaves a bad taste in other people’s mouths. I have not seen any shivas do this not on any of the forums I have been.
As far as christians and muslims, I simply do not care what they do. They are a story from another thread.

Vaishnavas can not hand wave and blame the world for their superiority complex behaviour. First step of recovery is to recognize that there is a problem. They should come out of their denial.
If you really cared about vaishnava thinking you would have asked the right questions before writing about our shameful behaviour. Vaishnavas go by what their aacharyas taught and condemn the same behaviour they condemned. Insulting this behaviour is insulting the aacharyas and their belief in vedas both. Its like saying vedas and aacharyas had superiority complex and shameful behaviour.

I have no idea what you are talking about and in what context. Religious discussions are how we discuss religion. Can vaishnavas do it in a respectful manner without calling other sects cancer and without shoving down their sectarian nonsense?
No one is shoving sectarianism. As I said vaishnavas only defend when they are attacked.
The only other solution is to exclude vaishnavas from this forum if you find it objectionable they discuss maha Vishnu (as though it is sectarian haha!). In that way Atanu and Willy can be really satisfied the thread has become super successfull.

satay
02 May 2006, 10:08 AM
Its unfortunate you don't know the root cause but complain about the behaviour.


What is unfortunate is that people like you support this behaviour and then dare to call themselves vaishnavas.




Sects have brains to think

What!! Now this is amazing!..."sects" are a group, a concept, an entity that does not exist physically and can not be touched so therefore, it can not have a brain just like it can not have a hand or a leg. ..it can not drink water, it can not eat food, it can not think!!
Sect as an entity does not exist physically so it does not have a brain!!



and people within the sect think other sects are adharmic. Do we need to poll for all people of all sects to say the same to know the differences. The fact that you think vaishnava sect behaviour is shameful is an irony. How did you know that without asking "all" vaishnavas?

there is a difference between what you are saying and what I said. I said in my OP "some vaishnava that I came across on different forums" not "all" vaishnavas! It can not be "all" because I consider myself a "vaishnava" and I do not subscribe to the sectarian nonsense as some children vaishnava do.
Please read the OP before getting angry.





A childish declaration "vaishnava behaviour shameful" deserves a childish response.


In the OP I say "behaviour of some vaishnava". Please you have lost the argument already do not put words in my mouth!




If you really cared about vaishnava thinking you would have asked the right questions before writing about our shameful behaviour. Vaishnavas go by what their aacharyas taught and condemn the same behaviour they condemned. Insulting this behaviour is insulting the aacharyas and their belief in vedas both. Its like saying vedas and aacharyas had superiority complex and shameful behaviour.


The acharyas that I know of never taught such nonsense...this all political agenda of some children to debate like this and call other sects cancer and adharmic. But you have obviously studied only the politically charged versions of some vaishnava and can not see the truth.

you call yourself hindu/vaishnava yet you subscribe to disrespecting other sects and openly admit it. That behaviour is very shameful.




No one is shoving sectarianism. As I said vaishnavas only defend when they are attacked.

this is nonsense. the vaishnavas that I am talking about "shove nonsense" down other people's throats when they didn't ask to receive any.

Clearly, they have not understood what Bhagwan is saying in gita!!



The only other solution is to exclude vaishnavas from this forum if you find it objectionable they discuss maha Vishnu (as though it is sectarian haha!). In that way Atanu and Willy can be really satisfied the thread has become super successfull.
This is all nonsense and not related to the discussion on hand. The discussion is about "some vaishnavas that I have come across whose behaviour is shameful".

Please, either read the OP first or stop replying to the thread. You obviously have proven my point and have lost the argument.

It is shameful that you subscribe to this nonsense. :eek:

Singhi Kaya
02 May 2006, 11:27 AM
Namaste all,

I see this thread being dragged on and somehow the real truth though has been said more than onces have got lost amids the barage of posts.

>Do not have superiority complex about yourself or your dogma~humbly judge others.

>At the same time don't be afraid to say if you see something wrong at a social level. A person may be right or wrong, not my job to correct him. But at higher levels of society and idelogy I have the right~if it effects us.

> As listener's, let's not judge other's complex, superior or inferior. Let's see if it is true or false. If overwhelming evidence says it is true but the idea is counter to our personal ideology have the humility and abilty to accept you might be wrong. Don't kill the messenger as a bigot because he has said something which doesn't suit our idea. We will be bigot's and asurik in that case. lend him ear and judge without a drop of hypocracy.

To end while speaking let's speak the truth to best of our ability and be open to the fact that we might be wrong. While listning lets be prepared to hear what we hold dear may be wrong. Truth matters, nothing else. At the end a person may be just a egositical junk with nothing to add~buzz him. But please be careful not to buzz off the truth in the process.

Thanks...

satay
02 May 2006, 11:47 AM
The fact is that as Hindus we should be "tolerant" to all sects and all acharyas.

No hindu acharya called other schools and sects cancer, adharmic and junk. This is all political propaganda.

All this missionary/shove it down your throat nonsense has been picked up from other adharmic religions and we should not subscribe to such junk.

As dharma adherents we must not only preach tolerance but put it in practice also at least when it comes to the sects under hindu umbrella.

I am still shocked to see that there are people that subscribe to such primitive nonsense when clearly there is no need for it.

I don't think there is any reason to continue discussing this (unless someone has anything else to add?). I think my point of the OP has been proven already which is sad.

idli_sambar
02 May 2006, 11:54 AM
What!! Now this is amazing!..."sects" are a group, a concept, an entity that does not exist physically and can not be touched so therefore, it can not have a brain just like it can not have a hand or a leg. ..it can not drink water, it can not eat food, it can not think!!
Sect as an entity does not exist physically so it does not have a brain!!
sects cannot be empty or plastic. It is comprised of people and people have brains.


there is a difference between what you are saying and what I said. I said in my OP "some vaishnava that I came across on different forums" not "all" vaishnavas! It can not be "all" because I consider myself a "vaishnava" and I do not subscribe to the sectarian nonsense as some children vaishnava do.
Please read the OP before getting angry.
What is an OP?

In the OP I say "behaviour of some vaishnava". Please you have lost the argument already do not put words in my mouth!

The acharyas that I know of never taught such nonsense...this all political agenda of some children to debate like this and call other sects cancer and adharmic. But you have obviously studied only the politically charged versions of some vaishnava and can not see the truth.
The aacharyas never taught nonsense. But they have asked us to follow their teachings and duties as vaishnavas.

you call yourself hindu/vaishnava yet you subscribe to disrespecting other sects and openly admit it. That behaviour is very shameful.
This is the double standards in your message that you have one rule for us and another rule where you show your disrespect for christians. Why cant you treat them as brothers and sisters and respect them too? Does your vaishnava birth stop at hinduism and make you act like a barbarian in front of other religions. Is that what a "Hindu" by your definition supposed to do -- treat other religions like dirt? That behaviour is shameful as well.
Please, either read the OP first or stop replying to the thread. You obviously have proven my point and have lost the argument.

It is shameful that you subscribe to this nonsense.
You give up so easily and claim victory. We are not there yet to a point where you can personally attack me.

Singhi Kaya
02 May 2006, 12:12 PM
The fact is that as Hindus we should be "tolerant" to all sects and all acharyas.

No hindu acharya called other schools and sects cancer, adharmic and junk. This is all political propaganda.

All this missionary/shove it down your throat nonsense has been picked up from other adharmic religions and we should not subscribe to such junk.

As dharma adherents we must not only preach tolerance but put it in practice also at least when it comes to the sects under hindu umbrella.

I am still shocked to see that there are people that subscribe to such primitive nonsense when clearly there is no need for it.

I don't think there is any reason to continue discussing this (unless someone has anything else to add?). I think my point of the OP has been proven already which is sad.

I'm not contradicting you~just pointing that we should not be rigidly be dogmatic with anything and judge everything in context.

In this context some vaishnava preachers are not correct~we all agrre. But let's not make tolerance a mental dogma and end up being intolerant. Tolerence comes fro Atma not from mind. It is not a dogma.

ramkish42
02 May 2006, 12:21 PM
Can we move on and mind some real business leaving this thread behind pls.

Request Idli and Singhi not to post any new on this thread pls. Lets move and lets try to do what we are here for

satay
02 May 2006, 04:18 PM
sects cannot be empty or plastic. It is comprised of people and people have brains.


What is an OP?


The aacharyas never taught nonsense. But they have asked us to follow their teachings and duties as vaishnavas.

This is the double standards in your message that you have one rule for us and another rule where you show your disrespect for christians. Why cant you treat them as brothers and sisters and respect them too? Does your vaishnava birth stop at hinduism and make you act like a barbarian in front of other religions. Is that what a "Hindu" by your definition supposed to do -- treat other religions like dirt? That behaviour is shameful as well.
You give up so easily and claim victory. We are not there yet to a point where you can personally attack me.


My point has been proven once again. I say no more and rest my case. :)

idli_sambar
02 May 2006, 07:19 PM
Glad you accepted your behaviour finally. I rest my case too ;)

satay
02 May 2006, 07:35 PM
Glad you accepted your behaviour finally. I rest my case too ;)
Once again, the thread was about vaishnava that behave like children calling other sects and acharayas cancer and adharmic. But apparently, you still have no idea what the thread was about it. It has been stated at least 4 times what the thread is about but I don't know why it is not clear to others...it must be...it must be my english...

It is clear that you subscribe to bigotry and to the idea that hindu sects other than the one you belong to are adharmic and cancer.

As a member, I leave this thread but as a mod I am going to warn you as the type of behaviour you bring to the site is against the rules.

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
02 May 2006, 07:48 PM
As I said vaishnavas only defend when they are attacked.


False. If a thief enters a home and the homeowner comes at the thief and the thief kills the homeowner, in the eyes of the law that is not self-defense, that is murder.

Likewise, when Vaishnavas enter a forum and immediately start criticizing other traditions and preaching their own to those who don't even follow the same faith and then those being preached at and criticized argue back and tell such Vaishnavas that their behavior is deplorable, the Vaishnavites are not defenders but offenders.

The Vaishnavas will be the first to start a fight and then as soon as the pressure heats up, they claim to be defending themselves. Bogus.

~BYS~

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
02 May 2006, 08:07 PM
I re-read the original post in this thread and all Satay is asking is basically why more Vaishnavas on internet forums fail to at least tolerate other sects. Tolerance does not have to mean acceptance. Being able to tolerate others for their views even if you disagree with them is a minimum requirement to be a decent human being. Additionally, there is a certain point where people have to know when it is appropriate to share their views and when opinions should be kept to oneself. Try going around city streets at night hollering at everyone and you will either get arrested, beaten up, or killed. Tolerance is a fundamental quality of being human.

Idli, I am not impressed by your statements on this thread. Instead of answering the question, you have continued to post alibis. In other words, instead of addressing the issue you are accusing the people who have brought up the issue. If you are not going to address the question and instead just start blaming everyone else, I will expect that I will see no more posts from you on this thread. ~BYS~

Ram
03 May 2006, 07:06 AM
Namaste.
Shri Satay,I am really afraid that you didn't understand the true reason of vaishnava behavior.It has nothing to do with ego.But with mercy.
I will explain better.As a Sri vaishnava I believe that Advaita Vedanta will never give mokshna to a jiva (soul).So a soul will have to continue to incarnate and suffer in material world.A true vaishnava feels compassion toward an advaitin but he/she doesn't consider him/her-self superior to an advaiting because 'i am better than others because I believe in --- (fill any dogma here)'.

Regards,
Orlando.

As another Srivaishnava, I would have to advice you not on pass judgements on others and their moksa. According to our beleifs, we exist due to the Lord's leela, and we cease to when he wills so. If an advaitin is so devoted to God, what do you think prevents moksha? Religion and beleifs can never give moksha to anyone - only true devotion and true spirit of surrender of ego can...

Are you suggesting that people who do not share your beleifs cannot get moksha?

Ram
03 May 2006, 07:23 AM
About Gaudiya-vaishnava,I think it should be better to talk about ISKCON followers.Swami Prabhupada desidered that his disciples preached Krishna Consciousness.Even old ISKCON followers agree that they have to preach their religion in order to save the souls from samsara.
Regards,
Orlando.

Saving souls is not the job of a Vaishnava. Do you even know that you are saved in the first place? What guarantees have been given to you, and by whom? Dont forget that you have incarnated thousands of times in the past and you have not been saved yet.

Ram
03 May 2006, 07:34 AM
The problem (with iskcon or other sects) is not preaching but the 'superiority complex' the preachers or adherents of these sects have.


People follow the DONTs of the religion, but forget the DOs of the faith. That is the root of the problem.

As far as I know, a Srivaishnava is required to follow the Pancharatra Aradana everyday consisting of five elaborate prayers. That should leave him no time for idle talk or spend time in bullying others. When a Vaishnava himself does not do this, he probbaly has no rights or qualifications to preach others. Virtualy, all your waking time is to be spent in the worship and meditation of Vishnu, if you go by the dictates of Sri Ramanuja.

However, these teachings of the guru are not followed. The importance has been stressed on things that are non essential - passing judgement on others, trying to save others, feeling compassion for others ( when you are still pitiably placed in bondage yourself)....

orlando
03 May 2006, 07:53 AM
As another Srivaishnava, I would have to advice you not on pass judgements on others and their moksa. According to our beleifs, we exist due to the Lord's leela, and we cease to when he wills so. If an advaitin is so devoted to God, what do you think prevents moksha? Religion and beleifs can never give moksha to anyone - only true devotion and true spirit of surrender of ego can...

Are you suggesting that people who do not share your beleifs cannot get moksha?

Namaste.
Shri Ram,I can assure that I am not so sectarian as you think.
I am sure that even people who don't share my beleifs can get moskha:for example vaishnavas of Madhva-sampradaya,Gaudiya-sampradaya,Vallabha-sampradaya,another sampradaya that I don't remember,Ramanand and vaishnava in general.
I think that even an advaitin can get moskha,but he must devoted to Srimad-Narayana.You should know that advaitin consider Lord Vishnu and the devas (like Lord Shiva) at equal level.An advaitin devoted to Lord Shiva,Durga,Ganesha ecc can't get moksha.

Regards,
Orlando.

Ram
03 May 2006, 08:55 AM
Namaste.
Shri Ram,I can assure that I am not so sectarian as you think.
I am sure that even people who don't share my beleifs can get moskha:for example vaishnavas of Madhva-sampradaya,Gaudiya-sampradaya,Vallabha-sampradaya,another sampradaya that I don't remember,Ramanand and vaishnava in general.
I think that even an advaitin can get moskha,but he must devoted to Srimad-Narayana.You should know that advaitin consider Lord Vishnu and the devas (like Lord Shiva) at equal level.An advaitin devoted to Lord Shiva,Durga,Ganesha ecc can't get moksha.

Regards,
Orlando.

How about people unrelated to Hinduism? Christians, Jews, Pagans etc - all these cant get moksha? For what fault of theirs- just because they had no access to your version of God? They do not even know about Vishnu or vedas...

Dear Bhakta, dont get carried away by some theology like this, God cannot be given certain stereotyped characteristics and be called the only God. All people are doing the same thing and the world has seen problems due to this. Probably you can understand that the Gods referred to by every religion must be Vishnu only, whom they dont call Vishnu because that is not a word in their langauge or country.

Does God belong only to Hindus? Only to Indians? He incarnates only in India? Anyone who thinks so must be extremely narrow minded...

orlando
03 May 2006, 09:22 AM
How about people unrelated to Hinduism? Christians, Jews, Pagans etc - all these cant get moksha? For what fault of theirs- just because they had no access to your version of God? They do not even know about Vishnu or vedas...

Dear Bhakta, dont get carried away by some theology like this, God cannot be given certain stereotyped characteristics and be called the only God. All people are doing the same thing and the world has seen problems due to this. Probably you can understand that the Gods referred to by every religion must be Vishnu only, whom they dont call Vishnu because that is not a word in their langauge or country.

Does God belong only to Hindus? Only to Indians? He incarnates only in India? Anyone who thinks so must be extremely narrow minded...

Reveread vaishnava,I already know that God doesn't belong only to Hindus.
Christians,Jews don't follow Vedas.So I don't find wrong their religion.They can get moskha.
But a hindu,whom is expected to follow the sacred texts of his own religion,must be devoted to Lord Vishnu in order to get moksha.
Well,of course Lord Shiva is the greatest among vaishnavas,so an hindu devoted to Lord Shiva one will may became a vaishnava and only then he/she will can get moskha.
Regards,
Orlando.

idli_sambar
03 May 2006, 12:22 PM
False. If a thief enters a home and the homeowner comes at the thief and the thief kills the homeowner, in the eyes of the law that is not self-defense, that is murder.


Likewise, when Vaishnavas enter a forum and immediately start criticizing other traditions and preaching their own to those who don't even follow the same faith and then those being preached at and criticized argue back and tell such Vaishnavas that their behavior is deplorable, the Vaishnavites are not defenders but offenders.

The Vaishnavas will be the first to start a fight and then as soon as the pressure heats up, they claim to be defending themselves. Bogus.

~BYS~
The topic was started by the owner of the forum who said "vaishnava behaviour is shameful". That is an attack on vaishnavas. Goes against the rule "No trolling -- no topic that disrupts peace and harmony". by the way he insulted me too personally in the discussion; but I can understand he does not realize his act.
Have you found me preaching vaishnavism anywhere in this thread?
Bhagavad Ramanuja debated and condemned advaita. If his behaviour was deplorable, it is a direct insult to the great guru who wanted people to follow the right path he laid.
The intention of this thread was to make vaishnavas look bad and you got what you want.
Regarding the thief analogy I find it amusing that you guys say it is ok to act like barbarians with shove the throaters(christians) but internally we have to act like saints.

BYS your message is going against the rules set by the forum. Of course now why would they warn you :rolleyes:

Ram
03 May 2006, 01:05 PM
Bhagavad Ramanuja debated and condemned advaita. If his behaviour was deplorable, it is a direct insult to the great guru who wanted people to follow the right path he laid.


Are you trying to say that others are wrong just because advaita was condemned by Bhagavad Ramanuja? Then you must look to Madhvas to hear about Sri Ramanuja. Go to forums on dvaita, and you can occasionally come across people making fun of him and also condemning his philosophy. So Vishsitadvaita must also be wrong because it was condemned? Raghavendra Swamigal I beleive has severely condemned Swami Desikan in one of his works. Now that must be sweet for you too, and not deplorable because these were also great gurus who wanted people to follow the right path they laid. There are a few Madhvas who claim that Sri Ramanuja is an avatar of a demon named Vatapi( I have seen this posted on another forum) - so these people are also justified in their actions? You are still living in the 12 century...it is time to get a modern outlook on religion, and learn to accept and tolerate other views.

Ram
03 May 2006, 01:15 PM
Reveread vaishnava,I already know that God doesn't belong only to Hindus.
Christians,Jews don't follow Vedas.So I don't find wrong their religion.They can get moskha.
But a hindu,whom is expected to follow the sacred texts of his own religion,must be devoted to Lord Vishnu in order to get moksha.
Well,of course Lord Shiva is the greatest among vaishnavas,so an hindu devoted to Lord Shiva one will may became a vaishnava and only then he/she will can get moskha.
Regards,
Orlando.

That is sheer hypocrisy. Our scripture does not talk about Jesus or anybody like that, and you think that these people are eligible for moksha.

Yet, you are not willing to grant such a possibility to the devotees of Shiva, when a number of puranas and upanishads speak of Shiva in terms of the highest Brahman. At the best, you can blame the sages who compiled these Puranas, and misled people away from the truth. What is the need for these puranas you choose to dismiss, if they contain untruth?

Yet, you choose to give the benefit to non Hindus, and choose to pass judgements on Hindus following their own scripture.

orlando
03 May 2006, 01:27 PM
That is sheer hypocrisy. Our scripture does not talk about Jesus or anybody like that, and you think that these people are eligible for moksha.

Yet, you are not willing to grant such a possibility to the devotees of Shiva, when a number of puranas and upanishads speak of Shiva in terms of the highest Brahman. At the best, you can blame the sages who compiled these Puranas, and misled people away from the truth. What is the need for these puranas you choose to dismiss, if they contain untruth?

Yet, you choose to give the benefit to non Hindus, and choose to pass judgements on Hindus following their own scripture.

Reveread vaishnava,please read the following verses:
Matsya Purana (53.65, 68-69) states –

pancangam ca puranam syad akhyanam itarat smrtam
sattvikesu ca kalpesu mahatmyam adhikam hareh

rajasesu ca mahatmyam adhikam brahmano viduh
tadvad agnes ca mahatmyam tamasesu sivasya ca

sankirnesu sarasvatyah pitrnam ca nigadyate

" A Purana consists of five elements, as opposed to an Akhyana.The sattvika Puranas glorify Hari; the rajasika Puranas glorify Brahma, and the tamasika Puranas glorify Siva and Agni. Puranas dealing with mixed modes of nature glorify Sarasvati and the fore-fathers."

The divisions of the eighteen Puranas is defined by Lord Shiva to Uma in the Padma Purana (Uttara Khanda 236.18-21):

vaisnavanam naradiyam ca tatha bhagavatam subham
garudam ca tatha padmam varaham subha-darsane

sattvikani puranani vijneyani subhani vai
brahmandam brahma-vaivarta markandeyam tathaiva ca

bhavisyam vamanam brahmam rajasani nibodha me
matsyam kaurmam tatha laingam saivam skandam tathaiva ca

agneyam ca sad etani tamasani nibodha me


" O beautiful lady, one should know that the Visnu, Naradiya, Bhagavata, Garuda, Padma and Varaha are all in the mode of goodness. The Brahmanda, Brahma-vaivarta, Markandeya, Bhavisya, Vamana and Brahma are in the mode of passion. The Matsya, Kurma, Linga, Siva, Skanda and Agni are in the mode of ignorance."

By http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/srimad-bhagavatam.html
Sri Krsna has clearly expressed in Bhagavad-gita that goodness is superior to passion and ignorance. 8 Similarly, Sri Suta Gosvami explains in the Bhagavata (1.2.24) that "Passion is better than ignorance because it can lead to realization of the Absolute Truth."9 In this verse Suta speaks about which type of worship produces the ultimate benefit, and his conclusion is that one can only achieve the best result by worshipping Lord Visnu. The sattvika Puranas recommend the worship of Visnu / Krsna, whereas the rajasika and tamasika Puranas advocate the worship of minor deities and therefore do not lead the aspirant towards the Absolute Truth.

It is noteworthy that the sattvika Puranas commence with a questioner inquiring from a learned speaker about the nature of the Absolute. The speaker’s answers are clear, direct and unambiguous, leaving no room for misinterpretation. However, in the tamasika and rajasika Puranas questions are put to the speaker which do not pertain to the Absolute Truth. For example, in the Linga Purana the sages request Suta to speak about the glories of the Lingam form of Lord Siva. We may conclude from this that although Sri Suta Gosvami is learned in transcendental subject matters and expert in explaining them, the questions by the sages here restrict him from speaking on it. All rajasika and tamasika Puranas contain this characteristic defect and therefore are not reliable sources of transcendental knowledge.

One may ask at this point why Srila Vyasadeva wrote these Puranas. According to the various desires of the materially conditioned jivas, he arranged the Puranas. Nevertheless, all Puranas contain glorification of Lord Visnu. This was included by Vyasa in order that those in the lower modes of passion and ignorance will slowly develop interest in the Supreme Lord Hari while studying the rajasika and tamasika Puranas. 10 Therefore in the Hari Vamsa (3.323.34) it is said –

vede ramayane caiva purane bharate tatha
adav-ante ca madhye ca harih sarvatra giyate

"In the Vedas, the Ramayana, Puranas and Mahabharata, from the very beginning to the end, as well as within the middle, only Hari, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is explained."

Yet it must be understood that although rajasika and tamasika Puranas do not speak extensively on the Absolute Truth, this does not mean that they give no valid knowledge at all. If this was the case why would acaryas such as Madhva cite from Puranas such as Skanda, Brahma, Brahmanda, Brahma-vaivarta etc which are not sattvika by nature? The Puranas in the lower modes may also give some insight into the Absolute Truth, although not to the same extent as the sattvika Puranas.

By this we may conclude that the sattvika Puranas are the ultimate pramana. This is also declared by the Padma Purana - sattvika moksa-dah proktah: "The sattvika Puranas give salvation."


Regards,
Orlando.

ramkish42
03 May 2006, 01:42 PM
Raghavendra Swamigal I beleive has severely condemned Swami Desikan in one of his works

Can I have any reference to this?

I have a whole bunch of Dvaita texts many authors take reference of Srivaishanavism tenants. It has to remembered, Young Madhavacharya was guided by a Srivaishnava on Chaandogya Upanishad, upon which Shri Madhavacharya desisted attendting Advaitic schools.

satay
03 May 2006, 01:48 PM
The topic was started by the owner of the forum who said "vaishnava behaviour is shameful". That is an attack on vaishnavas.


I said no such thing! Here is what I said in Post#1 (OP: Original Post)



The purpose of my post on this thread is a behaviour of "Vaishnavas" that I have encountered on different forums. As a hindu, I am concerned about this behaviour.

Most of the vaishnavas that I have come across on the internet are very sectarian in nature and generally sarcastic or down right angry at other hindu sects. One does not have to go out of this forum even to see this behaviour.


Now, where does it say "vaishnava behaviour is shameful"?



Goes against the rule "No trolling -- no topic that disrupts peace and harmony". by the way he insulted me too personally in the discussion;

if I did insult you then please report that post. I am not the only mod of this forum. When a mod posts as a member all rules apply to him and no one is above the rules. Please, report the offending posts and other mods will take action.



Have you found me preaching vaishnavism anywhere in this thread?

this thread is not personally directed at you.



Bhagavad Ramanuja debated and condemned advaita. If his behaviour was deplorable, it is a direct insult to the great guru who wanted people to follow the right path he laid.

Are you Bhagavad Ramanuja?



The intention of this thread was to make vaishnavas look bad and you got what you want.

No, the intent of the thread is clear in the OP (read post 1 for reference). The outcome of the thread is what the OP talked about and it has been proven by some vaishnavas here (sadly).



Regarding the thief analogy I find it amusing that you guys say it is ok to act like barbarians with shove the throaters(christians) but internally we have to act like saints.

This is just hand waving as usual; when the opponent has nothing left to defend his argument he normally tries to blame others, shift gears, shift focus or just generally tries to change the flow of the thread.

Changing the flow of the thread is not going to solve the problem...



[FONT=Arial]BYS your message is going against the rules set by the forum. Of course now why would they warn you :rolleyes:

As a mod, I don't think so but of course you are free to believe whatever you want.

:rolleyes:

Ram
03 May 2006, 01:53 PM
You think I have not studied scripture? And I do not know about the classifications of scriptures as sattvik, rajasik and tamasik? I reject the very idea as a human interpolation or as an artavada.

Please note that a purana cannot call another purana as tamasik. That judgement should come from a shruti. Which means a Padma Purana verse cannot be used to decide which scriptures are satvik or tamasic. Such pramana should come from vedas to have any value.

You have not answered me why Sage Vyasa compiled scriptures that lead people towards ignorance. What is the need?

satay
03 May 2006, 01:56 PM
You think I have not studied scripture? And I do not know about the classifications of scriptures as sattvik, rajasik and tamasik? I reject the very idea as a human interpolation or as an artavada.

Please note that a purana cannot call another purana as tamasik. That judgement should come from a shruti. Which means a Padma Purana verse cannot be used to decide which scriptures are satvik or tamasic. Such pramana should come from vedas to have any value.

You have not answered me why Sage Vyasa compiled scriptures that lead people towards ignorance. What is the need?

Why aren't there more vaishnavas like you around? :)

Since when we hindus became "missionaries" and salesmen for vishnu? Totally undermines Bhagwan...and still I have not been able to make this point across to some....
unreal...it must be me!! (shaking my head in disgust)

orlando
03 May 2006, 02:07 PM
You think I have not studied scripture? And I do not know about the classifications of scriptures as sattvik, rajasik and tamasik? I reject the very idea as a human interpolation or as an artavada.

Please note that a purana cannot call another purana as tamasik. That judgement should come from a shruti. Which means a Padma Purana verse cannot be used to decide which scriptures are satvik or tamasic. Such pramana should come from vedas to have any value.

You have not answered me why Sage Vyasa compiled scriptures that lead people towards ignorance. What is the need?

If at http://www.srivaishnavam.com/index.html you go in the FAQ,you will find the following:
35.It is said that Sri Vysa is also an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. Then why he wrote various rajasic and tamasic puraanams glorifying anya devatas. [B]
[B]The same Sri Vyasa has categorically stated that the tamasic and rajasic puranas are only for those who have tamasa-rajasa attribues and want to suffer in the samsara. For those who want to be satvika, curious to know the tatva-hita-purusharthas as told in Veda and aspiring for moksha, only the satvika puranas are to be accepted. All portions of the tamasa and rajasa puranas that contradict the Veda are to be simply rejected.

I don't say that all the Shiva Bhakta are rajasic or tamasic.I noted that many shaivites are sattvik people who don't (still) know the supremacy of Sriman-Narayana.So it isn't their fault.
Regards,
Orlando.

Ram
03 May 2006, 02:07 PM
Can I have any reference to this?

I have a whole bunch of Dvaita texts many authors take reference of Srivaishanavism tenants. It has to remembered, Young Madhavacharya was guided by a Srivaishnava on Chaandogya Upanishad, upon which Shri Madhavacharya desisted attendting Advaitic schools.

I think it is in his gloss on Isavasya. I will check and tell you.

Dvaita definitely took ideas from Srivaishnavism but they reject many ideas too - the fundamental tenet of Brahman being upAdana KArana has been rejected by Madhvas, which no other school of vedanta does.

Make no mistake - Dvaitins have ruled out any possibility of Srivaishnavas attaining mukti. Any one who rejects their nine premeyas can't get mukti - that is what they beleive. They make mockery of our sampradaya and our concept of prapatti - the very unique trademark of Srivaishnavam.

Please dont feel bad. I personally like advaitins though I do not accept their philosophy, because they never pass judgements on me. I agree a lot with Dvaita ( much more than advaita) but I am very disappointed to see judgements passed by them even on our Acharyas - very narrow minded, I would say.

ramkish42
03 May 2006, 02:19 PM
I choose to answer all by myself


Please note that a purana cannot call another purana as tamasik.
Based on which statement this suggestion is made


That judgement should come from a shruti.
Can you provide some reference to your contentions


Which means a Padma Purana verse cannot be used to decide which scriptures are satvik or tamasic. Such pramana should come from vedas to have any value.
Padma purana can verily decide this. As the system goes, Puranas and Itihasas are gifted to us to understand veda well.

More over, padma purana merely classifies puranas in three classes. The authority vested on Padma purana is the authority vested with Maharishi Veda Vyasa, hence, I suppose, Maharishi Veda Vyasa can do so


You have not answered me why Sage Vyasa compiled scriptures that lead people towards ignorance. What is the need?
If I am ignorant, I cannot blame it on Maharishi Veda Vyasa, but should blame myself. But if I feel I am learned again Maharishi Veda Vyasa has nothing to do with such contention.

Vyasa never lead anyone in the path of ignorance, verily it is people who move towards the path.

When some made commentaries to Vedanta Sutras of Maharishi Veda Vyasa they said "LET ME INTERPRET THE SUTRAS SO THAT IT WILL BEFIT MY TENANT", thus lead to ignorance

Waiting for your citations

Jai shree krishna

ramkish42
03 May 2006, 02:31 PM
Make no mistake - Dvaitins have ruled out any possibility of Srivaishnavas attaining mukti. Any one who rejects their nine premeyas can't get mukti - that is what they beleive. They make mockery of our sampradaya and our concept of prapatti - the very unique trademark of Srivaishnavam.
Again just by trust on Nine Premeyas one cannot attain Moksha according to Dvaita.

Dvaita also insists even in Moksha treatment of one atma differs from that of another. Just by being Dvaiti, one cannot attain moksha

All I would like to say is Mockery is made by youngsters or our contemporaries, but great gurus of dvaita never made mockery of srivaishnavites. Philosophical debates are common and presenting other view is again acceptable. But let us use the very word MOCKERY carefully for it denotes malafide intention which I deny to ascribe it to any great perceptor


Please dont feel bad. I personally like advaitins though I do not accept their philosophy, because they never pass judgements on me. I agree a lot with Dvaita ( much more than advaita) but I am very disappointed to see judgements passed by them even on our Acharyas - very narrow minded, I would say.
I do not feel bad for these things. Verily you do not even know me.

Judgements and comments - it depends on your circle; who constitutes the majority. In my native place I see many Shaiva Siddantins and Advaitis, I see entire opposite picture painted here

People who know me, know me for prowess - if someone tries to convert me, I will cast doubt on that person on his own religion. I treat all others like me, hence, personally, I do not feel like converting a person or so

If you see any dvaiti forums of such sort, pls do inform me, let me take a look into that

Ram
03 May 2006, 02:38 PM
Based on which statement this suggestion is made

Can you provide some reference to your contentions


Obviously. A Purana calls itself sattvik and calls some others other as tamasic. How is such a logic acceptable to all Hindus?




Padma purana can verily decide this. As the system goes, Puranas and Itihasas are gifted to us to understand veda well.

More over, padma purana merely classifies puranas in three classes. The authority vested on Padma purana is the authority vested with Maharishi Veda Vyasa, hence, I suppose, Maharishi Veda Vyasa can do so


There are too many issues....

1. Why did Maharishi Vyasa do that? Why some works need to be dubbed as untruthful?

2. What makes you so sure that it is not a human interpolation?




If I am ignorant, I cannot blame it on Maharishi Veda Vyasa, but should blame myself. But if I feel I am learned again Maharishi Veda Vyasa has nothing to do with such contention.

Vyasa never lead anyone in the path of ignorance, verily it is people who move towards the path.

When some made commentaries to Vedanta Sutras of Maharishi Veda Vyasa they said "LET ME INTERPRET THE SUTRAS SO THAT IT WILL BEFIT MY TENANT", thus lead to ignorance

Waiting for your citations

Jai shree krishna

In that case there was no need to compose any tamasic puranas, so that there would have been some chance for tamasic people to use only Sattvik Puranas and become sattvik. It shows the crookedness of the author, if this is assumed to be true. I would say it looks like the bible tale of the story of the serpant, Adam and Eve, where someone is delibeartely tempted to be evil and then punished for it.

Your logic would be appropriate from the point of view of Dvaita, which beleives in eternal damnation and punishment of tamasic jivas. For Srivaishnavas, who beleive that all people are liberated by the grace of Sriman Narayana, there is no need to beleive that some scriptures are composed deliberately to confuse people.

Arjuna
03 May 2006, 02:40 PM
Reveread vaishnava,please read the following verses:
[...]
By this we may conclude that the sattvika Puranas are the ultimate pramana. This is also declared by the Padma Purana - sattvika moksa-dah proktah: "The sattvika Puranas give salvation."
Regards,
Orlando.

Different Puranas state different things. In Brahmanda-purana it is said that worship of Devi is superior to worship of Vishnu and Shiva, for example. There is no reason to take the statement of one Purana as true and another as false, since Puranas (at least Mahapuranas) are of equal authority.

In any case, it is not texts (that too Puranas!) which give salvation, but verily only God.

And That God, Brahman of Vedanta and Anuttara of Shaivism, is given various names according to traditions. Vaishnavas call Him (Who in reality is both He and She and neither or two) as Krishna or Shrimannarayana, Shaktas call Him Kali, Lalita or Kalakarshini, Shaivas call Him Shiva or Rudra.

All these traditions are rooted in Shruti, Vedic and Agamic, and possess corresponding additional texts such as Puranas etc.

If we take things too literal, then every sampradaya claims that only in it one may achieve God-realisation or Mukti. This is obviously ridiculous! It is GOD who decides to make one free.

We can speak of hierarchy of doctrines, but we cannot deny the possibility of salvation even in "lower teachings". All traditions come from Shiva (= GOD), though not all represent the Truth equally.

Ram
03 May 2006, 02:56 PM
Again just by trust on Nine Premeyas one cannot attain Moksha according to Dvaita.

Dvaita also insists even in Moksha treatment of one atma differs from that of another. Just by being Dvaiti, one cannot attain moksha


But that is accepted by all religions. Simply having some beleifs dont suffice. There is a need for spiritual practice and Dvaita is clear that jnana is a prerequisite to moksha. Only Srivaishnavism has a different opinion on the matter.



All I would like to say is Mockery is made by youngsters or our contemporaries, but great gurus of dvaita never made mockery of srivaishnavites. Philosophical debates are common and presenting other view is again acceptable. But let us use the very word MOCKERY carefully for it denotes malafide intention which I deny to ascribe it to any great perceptor.


If you think that Sri Ramanuja condemned advaita, the same way Sri Madhva condemned Vishistadvaita. It appears that Srivaishnavas here have take the former very seriously while ignoring the latter. Then why dont you accept that Sri Ramanuja just had a difference of opinion with advaita - why should Vaishnavites go about talking about some cancer and poison, when they cant even mutually agree with each other. I certainly reject advaita, but I dont really see a need to uproot it as a cancer - that would be ridiculous. You have to simply accept every religion as the personal opinion of some philosophers, and nothing more. And since you cant obey two masters simultaneously, you can follow only one at a time. That means you can keep away from the ones you do not agree with. I find the whole idea of trying to save others as repulsive.








Judgements and comments - it depends on your circle; who constitutes the majority. In my native place I see many Shaiva Siddantins and Advaitis, I see entire opposite picture painted here.

People who know me, know me for prowess - if someone tries to convert me, I will cast doubt on that person on his own religion. I treat all others like me, hence, personally, I do not feel like converting a person or so.


OK.




If you see any dvaiti forums of such sort, pls do inform me, let me take a look into that

It is not as if everyone is going take up with you. Philsophical debates are fine, but you have seen that it stoops into name calling and it is shameful that some Vaishnavas call others as cancerous. Dont expect me to support sectarianism and bigotry on any account. If somebody pokes at Sri Ramanuja or Srivaishnavism I will be here to defend it - but I dont mind others promoting their own views here and I dont see a need to debate on every little issue and belittle others. Debates should be just confined to just debates - should not get serious or personal.

ramkish42
03 May 2006, 03:03 PM
Obviously. A Purana calls itself sattvik and calls some others other as tamasic. How is such a logic acceptable to all Hindus?
Does that mean Padma purana is absolutely wrong. Remember, we have no practise of accepting things in part and parcels and leave out the rest. If you have to accept you have to accept it as a whole or reject it as a whole. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

If Yes, then if you can reject Padma purana for some logic, why the same logic cannot allow me to reject few puranas.

Anyways, the idea of Tamasic puranas is not reject the authority of the puranas but the very idea is results of such puranas. If the bliss dereived by such puranas are inferior to that of Moksha, if such purana contains data and information that cannot lead to moksha but other material benefits, based on this puranas are classified. This does not amount to rejecting the authority of the purana but it only says, if one listens to such purana the result will not be Moksha. If tamasic purana says, Indra is more superior and pray only Indra, by adhereing to such commands, we will get material benefits and not Moksha

Hope this will be more clear as far as the classification goes

There is another analogy for interpreting vedanta sutras, I think I had posted it in some other thread, hopefully in - Is Vamachara marga Dharmic



There are too many issues....

1. Why did Maharishi Vyasa do that? Why some works need to be dubbed as untruthful?

2. What makes you so sure that it is not a human interpolation?

Again, classification does not amount to untruthfulness but lesser benefits. I do not want to answer allegations for it will lead to another debate which I am trying to avoid, hence if you rephrase probably I can throw more light on this.

If you still feel that interpolation exists, then the same interpolation is valid for whole Hindu scriptures as such, veda, agamas, nigamas, itihasas, puranas, smritis, sutras and commentaries. Thus, by trying to prove interpolation exists, you are making an atheist out of yourself. As I do not want to be a part of this, I abstain from making any comments on this


In that case there was no need to compose any tamasic puranas, so that there would have been some chance for tamasic people to use only Sattvik Puranas and become sattvik. It shows the crookedness of the author, if this is assumed to be true. I would say it looks like the bible tale of the story of the serpant, Adam and Eve, where someone is delibeartely tempted to be evil and then punished for it.
It is fully allowed for a jiva to aim for moksha or not. Some say this place as it allows service in better way is better than moksha. We believe Chiranjivi Anjeneya has opted for this.

Again there is no point in asking why make other version which will not grant Moksha. Verily this is play of god, we say this play is like a child that plays with its toys - lila. Hence, I can say, whom so ever wants what so ever, there is way for it in Hinduism. There is no point in questioning it. If aim is Moksha, better go with Saatvic, if no, there are a lot of other things which we can opt for


Your logic would be appropriate from the point of view of Dvaita, which beleives in eternal damnation and punishment of tamasic jivas. For Srivaishnavas, who beleive that all people are liberated by the grace of Sriman Narayana, there is no need to beleive that some scriptures are composed deliberately to confuse people.
Pls shed this idea of confusion. Nothing is here to confuse but it is here only to offer different benefits - what you choose is what you get

Jai shree krishna

ramkish42
03 May 2006, 03:25 PM
If you think that Sri Ramanuja condemned advaita, the same way Sri Madhva condemned Vishistadvaita.
Where and when and how, Shri Madhavacharya condemned Visishtadvaita

In fact, when questioned why he is presenting an opposite view, he humbly replied, "As Shri Sankara told what he know, so do I, I am telling what I know"


Then why dont you accept that Sri Ramanuja just had a difference of opinion with advaita - why should Vaishnavites go about talking about some cancer and poison, when they cant even mutually agree with each other.
I do not know, why you are putting this question to me. I agree Shrimad Ramanuja had a difference of opinion and logically shown advaita cannot be right tenant. I also agree vaishnavites should not call other philosphy as cancer and poison.

I entered only to answer your doubts on Padma purana and views on Dvaita, there is no point in ascribing all this on me


I find the whole idea of trying to save others as repulsive.
As if I am against this, sincerely believe you have not read my other posts in the same thread. I share the same view


It is not as if everyone is going take up with you. Philsophical debates are fine, but you have seen that it stoops into name calling and it is shameful that some Vaishnavas call others as cancerous. Dont expect me to support sectarianism and bigotry on any account. If somebody pokes at Sri Ramanuja or Srivaishnavism I will be here to defend it - but I dont mind others promoting their own views here and I dont see a need to debate on every little issue and belittle others. Debates should be just confined to just debates - should not get serious or personal.
My request to pass the reference to see whether such things really happens or not. I am not interested in debating - I know, Dvaitin, Gaudias and Suddha advaitins do not share my view, but I see no reason to debate - as long as path is Bhakthi - Charanagati marga, all paths are acceptable

Ram
03 May 2006, 03:42 PM
Does that mean Padma purana is absolutely wrong. Remember, we have no practise of accepting things in part and parcels and leave out the rest. If you have to accept you have to accept it as a whole or reject it as a whole. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

If Yes, then if you can reject Padma purana for some logic, why the same logic cannot allow me to reject few puranas.


Where are you getting this from? It is quite possible to take bits and pieces as valid. If Sri Ramanuja or Madhva had taken Shaiva Puranas as tamasic, they had to be completely rejected. But, wherever it has suited them, they have quoted from it - which means Puranas can be accepted in parts.




Anyways, the idea of Tamasic puranas is not reject the authority of the puranas but the very idea is results of such puranas. If the bliss dereived by such puranas are inferior to that of Moksha, if such purana contains data and information that cannot lead to moksha but other material benefits, based on this puranas are classified. This does not amount to rejecting the authority of the purana but it only says, if one listens to such purana the result will not be Moksha. If tamasic purana says, Indra is more superior and pray only Indra, by adhereing to such commands, we will get material benefits and not Moksha


Vishistadvaita does not beleive in ananda-taratamya in mukti, so how does it matter if levels of bliss vary at intermediate stages. There is no doubt that all jivas will finally enjoy sayujya mukti someday.

By the way, Shiva's authority also stems from shruti too, not just from Shiva Purana. The logic that is used to prove the supremacy of Narayana is far fetched, and interprets Shiva as another name of Vishnu in too many places. For eg, Svetavastara Upanishad is by and large a Shaivite Upanishad interpreted as a Vaishnava Upanishad by replacing Rudra, Shiva etc with Vishnu for logical consistancy. There are just too many places.

If you know Tamil, why dont you take a look at Tiruvaimozhi - verse 3.4.8 and tell me what it means? Dont just interpolate the meaning of the verse, tell me what it directly means...



It is not that I am not aware of how Sri Ramanuja or Desika prove these things. I am conversant with all their works. I simply hold that it was just a historical need to establish such a rigid monotheistic religion. I think that God should not be bound by names and forms and that we should not discriminate between different forms of the divine - be it Shiva or Vishnu or Devi. My family is particlarly addicted to Goddess Shakti and I dare not even say anything against the mother, and consequently Lord Shiva. We do not think that Shakti is a material Goddess like you mentioned, but is a Goddess of the supreme nature. Padma Purana asserts that Durga is nothing but Vishnu Bhakti. There is another verse in Padmapura where Krishna says that he is Durga. Of course, I know you will interpolate these verses. People never want to stop arguing which God is superior.:)


As I mentioned in an earlier post, even if Vishnu was much greater than Shiva, I am incompetent to grade Gods. When I see Shiva and Vishnu someday, I will grade them - if at all they appear different.

Ram
03 May 2006, 03:56 PM
Where and when and how, Shri Madhavacharya condemned Visishtadvaita

In fact, when questioned why he is presenting an opposite view, he humbly replied, "As Shri Sankara told what he know, so do I, I am telling what I know"


If rejection means condemnation, then it should not be difficult to observe. Vishsistadvatins have been ruled out of eligiblility for liberation, that is outright rejection. Madhvacharya requires you to accept the supremacy of Sri Hari over all Gods, accept Vayu as the jivottama, accept pancha-bedhas among other criteria, and along with aparoxa-jnana as pre-requisites for moksha.



My request to pass the reference to see whether such things really happens or not. I am not interested in debating - I know, Dvaitin, Gaudias and Suddha advaitins do not share my view, but I see no reason to debate - as long as path is Bhakthi - Charanagati marga, all paths are acceptable

Yes, but I have my views extended beyond the scope of Vaishnavism. I simply dont think only Vaishnavas can get mukti. I think Bhakti is possible outside Vaishnavism too. Also Karma and Jnana Yoga are just another form of Bhakti Yoga.

ramkish42
03 May 2006, 03:59 PM
Where are you getting this from? It is quite possible to take bits and pieces as valid. If Sri Ramanuja or Madhva had taken Shaiva Puranas as tamasic, they had to be completely rejected. But, wherever it has suited them, they have quoted from it - which means Puranas can be accepted in parts.

Seems you had answered this without reading my post in full.

There is no idea of rejecting authority of Tamasic puranas, the idea is only that it cannot lead to Moksha.

No book can be accepted in parts. Either you have subscribe to the whole book or to reject it in whole. Srivaishnavs reject Kapila smriti as it says "Particles are reason for this world", there are many acceptable statement, still it is rejected in whole.

Once a quote is made and approved, that books is authoritative, but not all authoritative texts can give Moksha.

Other citations of your relating to shiva, shakti, steming from veda are irrelevant for I never commented on such things. Probably, I think you are trying to address someone else and missed their names here. Even if it is addresses me, I am not he right person for this for verily both the Ram's of this thread have not met Shiva nor vishnu nor great Jnanis like Shrimad Ramanuja to discuss this topic. Enough Said.

Jai shree krishna

ramkish42
03 May 2006, 04:12 PM
Rejection is Not approving - not accepting
Condemning is disapproval making it morally culpable - demonstrating the evil intention etc

As Shri Chanakya rightly observed having a different opinion does not amount to rejecting the old one but trying to complement the old one with new ideas and making it adaptable for different situations.

Jai shri krishna

Ram
03 May 2006, 04:18 PM
There is no idea of rejecting authority of Tamasic puranas, the idea is only that it cannot lead to Moksha.


Which is quite incorrect - that is why I cited from both Padma Purana and also Nammazhvar.



No book can be accepted in parts. Either you have subscribe to the whole book or to reject it in whole. Srivaishnavs reject Kapila smriti as it says "Particles are reason for this world", there are many acceptable statement, still it is rejected in whole.


If this were true, Shankya Philosophy can hardly become the basis of the tattva for us. You know that vedanta has simply borrowed the Shankaya system for representing the evolution of the Prakriti, but rejected the philosophy itself.

Similarly, in Rahasya thrayasara Swami Desikan says that concepts can be borrowed from other smritis or sutras as long as they dont contradict the vedas. He says this specificaly with respect to the Yoga sutras of Patanjali. That is, he says that Yoga system has to be rejected philosophically, but the practice of Yoga can be accepted. Do you know why Srivaishnavas reject the Yoga system - one, for denying the material causalty of the world from the Brahman, and two, the goal of Yoga is self realization, but the goal of veanta is Brahman realization. There is no doubt that Srivaishnavism accepts the limbs of the Yoga system, but rejected its central tenets. Which should contradict what you said.





Other citations of your relating to shiva, shakti, steming from veda are irrelevant for I never commented on such things. Probably, I think you are trying to address someone else and missed their names here. Even if it is addresses me, I am not he right person for this for verily both the Ram's of this thread have not met Shiva nor vishnu nor great Jnanis like Shrimad Ramanuja to discuss this topic. Enough Said.


I am replying only to the charge that Shiva and Devi cannot grant mukti, but only material desires. You must realize that Srivaishnavism accepts that even Garuda can grant mukti - read Vedanta Desika's Garuda Panchasat. So why reject Shiva or Devi for this matter?

idli_sambar
03 May 2006, 06:40 PM
Are you trying to say that others are wrong just because advaita was condemned by Bhagavad Ramanuja? Then you must look to Madhvas to hear about Sri Ramanuja. Go to forums on dvaita, and you can occasionally come across people making fun of him and also condemning his philosophy. So Vishsitadvaita must also be wrong because it was condemned? Raghavendra Swamigal I beleive has severely condemned Swami Desikan in one of his works. Now that must be sweet for you too, and not deplorable because these were also great gurus who wanted people to follow the right path they laid. There are a few Madhvas who claim that Sri Ramanuja is an avatar of a demon named Vatapi( I have seen this posted on another forum) - so these people are also justified in their actions? You are still living in the 12 century...it is time to get a modern outlook on religion, and learn to accept and tolerate other views.
oh anna! are you trying to send me on a goose chase and pick a fight with another vaishnava group? why would it sweet for me if anyone condemns the aacharya. I am only concerned about the shameful vaishnava tag applied here. If idlis argue they are supposed to be thrown in the trash can. This is considered shove into throat preaching whereas it is not preaching at all. If preaching as offence, that means Bhagavad Ramanuja who chanted the sacred mantra to ineligibles at the time, is an offender. Although he never did it with intention of saving those souls or to convert. He defeated advaitas in debates and set so many wrongs right. As a sri vaishnava you should be proud of that man. The bad news is if you are proud of aacharya and stand by those rules it is taken as superiority complex.
I respect anyone who stands by their aacharya and follows the rules they laid out. If they stand behind Shankara I respect that. But they have to be open to opposing arguments against their philosophy. They give up when they don't have an answer and go crying injustice to mods who sympathise with them.

satay
03 May 2006, 06:45 PM
They give up when they don't have an answer and go crying injustice to mods who sympathise with them.

Bogus.

No advaitan to my knowledge has come to the mods crying injustice as a matter of fact, no advaitan has come to the mods period for anything...

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
03 May 2006, 08:10 PM
The topic was started by the owner of the forum who said "vaishnava behaviour is shameful".

Moderator Note:

That is not what Satay has said. If you continue to deliberately take what someone says out of context in order to mis-represent what they have said, you will be banned from the forum. This is your last warning.

Do you have any questions or comments about moderation policy? If so, please send a private message to Bhakti Yoga Seeker or contact one of the administrators of this website. ~BYS~

Arjuna
06 May 2006, 02:22 AM
In the Brahmanda-purana (Lalitopakhyana section) Devi says: “My male form bewildering the milk-maids.” In the same place Vishnu says to Virabhadra: “The ancient Shakti of the Lord is divided into four forms, that Shakti becomes Bhavani in enjoyment, in battle she takes the form of Durga, in anger that of Kali, and she is also my male form.”

In Kurma-purana when Himavan praises Devi says: “I salute thy form called Narayana, o Lalita, which has a thousand heads, which is of infinite energy, having a thousand arms, the ancient Purusha, reclining on the waters.”

Brihatparashara-smriti says: “He who with delighted mind worships Durga, Katyayani, Vagdevata, obtains the world of Vishnu.”

Padma-purana says: “One who bathes the image of Chandika with the juice of the sugarcane and places her on a golden vehicle, enjoys the presence of Vishnu [after death].”

Vamana-purana says: “One who on the full moon day of the month Magha worships Devi according to rule, he obtains the benefit of the Ashvamedha sacrifice and [after death] he shines in the world of Vishnu.”

(Passages cited by Shri Bhaskararaya in his Lalitasahasranama-bhashya, comm. upon the name Vishnurupini.)

Ram
06 May 2006, 03:27 AM
oh anna! are you trying to send me on a goose chase and pick a fight with another vaishnava group? why would it sweet for me if anyone condemns the aacharya. I am only concerned about the shameful vaishnava tag applied here. If idlis argue they are supposed to be thrown in the trash can. This is considered shove into throat preaching whereas it is not preaching at all. If preaching as offence, that means Bhagavad Ramanuja who chanted the sacred mantra to ineligibles at the time, is an offender. Although he never did it with intention of saving those souls or to convert. He defeated advaitas in debates and set so many wrongs right. As a sri vaishnava you should be proud of that man. The bad news is if you are proud of aacharya and stand by those rules it is taken as superiority complex.
I respect anyone who stands by their aacharya and follows the rules they laid out. If they stand behind Shankara I respect that. But they have to be open to opposing arguments against their philosophy. They give up when they don't have an answer and go crying injustice to mods who sympathise with them.

You are perfectly right - during the times of Bhagavad Ramanuja. We live in an entirely different world which is a global village. Infact, showing religeous intolerance can get you in jail in many nations.

You have to first understand one thing. Every Acharya in the world usually said they are the only way to truth. Can all of them be true or all of them liars? Use your own intelligence to judge this. The same argument applies to Sri Ramanuja also.

If you are a disciple of Sri Ramanuja, it means that you need to seek no other way than his teachings to attain the abode of Vishnu. To enforce this forcibly, Sri Ramanuja naturally opposed all beleifs and condemned them, and established his religion. This is purely to win the trust of those who place their trust in him. To the follower of Sri Ramanuja, he alone is the way, and there is no point in following multiple Acharyas at the same time. Similarly, other Acharyas are the only ways to those who follow them in that birth. No Acharya who says that you may follow me or anybody else, do whatever you like - are ever going to be taken seriously.

Vaishnavism is exclusive because it is a very evolved spiritual movement, and incorporates only sattvik forms of rituals, meditation and worship. This is not quite true of Shaivism and Shaktism which have very unorthodox means of rituals, sacrifices etc. Some forms of Shakti worship also includes in it bhuta pretas, yakshis and other durdevatas, and even involves sex rituals, and even human sacrifice. Similarly several forms of Shaivism are very unvedic. Vaishnava Acharyas have critically banned any association with Shaivism because of such potential downfalls in these religions. Since a Vaishnavite is rarely ever likely to encounter spiritual downfall because of the sattvik nature of Vaishnavism, he has been ordered to simply stay away from Shaivism because immature people can go to the extreme of adopting unorthodox spiritual ways. That does not mean Shiva and Durga and unworthy of worship - provided the means of approach is sattvik. Vishnu worship alone is Vaishnavism, but Shaivism and Shaktism span worship of Shiva, Durga, ...alll the way to Gramadevatas, Durdevastas, Bhuta Ganas, Maadans, etc. Tantriks who deal with evil spiritis are often Kali Bhaktas, but have you heard of a single Vishnu Bhakta associated with evil spirits - they are incompatible. That is why Vaishnavism and Shaivism dont mix, and Vaishnavism is exclusive. Sri Ramanuja ruled out non Vaishnavite worship comprehensively, and ensured that none of his followers would fall into unvedic systems.



The "only way" of all Acharyas are only signficant to this extent. Problems have resulted from people reading too much into their Acharyas words and then indulging in attacking others. Even the so called Abrahamic religions that are rigidly exclusive are also exclusive only due to this. For people of higher spiritual understanding, the facts stand out glaringly.

Arjuna
06 May 2006, 03:59 AM
Vaishnavism is exclusive because it is a very evolved spiritual movement, and incorporates only sattvik forms of rituals, meditation and worship. This is not quite true of Shaivism and Shaktism which have very unorthodox means of rituals, sacrifices etc.

Such is a view of Vaishnavas :)
Shaivas and Shaktas usually consider Vaishnavism to be an inferior doctrine.

But in truth all these can differ. External Viashnavism is not better or worse than any other external cult. Mystical Vaishnavism is not better or worse than any other mystical tradition.


Some forms of Shakti worship also includes in it bhuta pretas, yakshis and other durdevatas, and even involves sex rituals, and even human sacrifice. Similarly several forms of Shaivism are very unvedic.

1. Shakti worship doesn't include worship of any kshudra-devatas and bhutapretadi entities. Tantras prescribe methods to control these beings which is very different from worshipping them. In fact these beings worship Kaulas!
2. Sex rituals and even a human sacrifice is a part of Vedic cult, as well as of Agamic. Vaishnavism also has sexual rituals as its part, though none human sacrifices (while animal sacrifices are rare). It is Vaishnavism which departed much from Vedic teaching and not Shaiva and Shakta religions.



Vishnu worship alone is Vaishnavism, but Shaivism and Shaktism span worship of Shiva, Durga, ...alll the way to Gramadevatas, Durdevastas, Bhuta Ganas, Maadans, etc. Tantriks who deal with evil spiritis are often Kali Bhaktas, but have you heard of a single Vishnu Bhakta associated with evil spirits - they are incompatible. That is why Vaishnavism and Shaivism dont mix, and Vaishnavism is exclusive. Sri Ramanuja ruled out non Vaishnavite worship comprehensively, and ensured that none of his followers would fall into unvedic systems.

In Shaiva and Shakta tradition only ONE God is worshipped, who is represented by Shiva-Shakti union. Same is the case of Vaishnavism with Vishnu-Lakshmi or Radha-Krishna.
If U want to speak about God’s aspects or powers, then Vaishnavas worship 10 Avataras (or even more), Chaturvyuha (Vasudeva, Sankarshana, Pradyumna, Aniruddha), Vishvaksena, Sudarshanachakraraja, Apamarjana, Garuda, Shri and Bhu Devis, Balabhadra and Subhadra, various Shaligramas etc.

There is a practice of occult manipulations (prayogas) current in Shrivaishnavism. Though it is less known than that of Shaktism or Shaivism, it does exist. Some prayogas are given in Jayakhya-samhita, for example.

ramkish42
06 May 2006, 05:57 AM
If U want to speak about God’s aspects or powers, then Vaishnavas worship 10 Avataras (or even more), Chaturvyuha (Vasudeva, Sankarshana, Pradyumna, Aniruddha), Vishvaksena, Sudarshanachakraraja, Apamarjana, Garuda, Shri and Bhu Devis, Balabhadra and Subhadra, various Shaligramas etc.

This is advantage of Vaishnavism as well as Hinduism as such.

As Shaivites treat many rudras as one, when Shaktas treat Durga, Kali, Lalitha and ten mahavidya devis as one, so does vaishnav.

Vaishnav worship 10 avatars, Chaturvyuha as Vishnu himself

What you have mentioned is not 10 + 4 gods but one.

But the advantage I was mentioning here with other devatas you had mentioned Sudharshana, Garuda, Sesha, we worship them not as god but as Bhaktas of lord. Mentioned devotees as Mukta jivas as per SriVaishnavas further Vaishnav as such prefers to worship and serve devotees of lord than lord himself. This feature is also found in common with many sects.

Salagrama is considered as image of Lord and Sri-Bhu-Nila are considered as Consorts of Lord

Arjuna
06 May 2006, 07:52 AM
This is advantage of Vaishnavism as well as Hinduism as such.

As Shaivites treat many rudras as one, when Shaktas treat Durga, Kali, Lalitha and ten mahavidya devis as one, so does vaishnav.

Vaishnav worship 10 avatars, Chaturvyuha as Vishnu himself

What you have mentioned is not 10 + 4 gods but one.

But the advantage I was mentioning here with other devatas you had mentioned Sudharshana, Garuda, Sesha, we worship them not as god but as Bhaktas of lord. Mentioned devotees as Mukta jivas as per SriVaishnavas further Vaishnav as such prefers to worship and serve devotees of lord than lord himself. This feature is also found in common with many sects.

Salagrama is considered as image of Lord and Sri-Bhu-Nila are considered as Consorts of Lord

I know these things and just mentioned these in reply to Ram's post, which was inaccurate.

Shaktas also worship 10 Mahavidyas as one Devi only.
Shiva is viewed as essentially one with Devi. Some texts (Puranic) consider him as a greatest devotee of Lalita Tripurasundari.

Sudarshana as U may know is also viewed as Parabrahman Himself (while sometimes as a devotee as well). He is worshipped usually together with Narasimha, and this cult is an esoteric one in Pancharatra.

Ram
06 May 2006, 08:47 AM
Such is a view of Vaishnavas :)
Shaivas and Shaktas usually consider Vaishnavism to be an inferior doctrine.


That is not a problem. But as puranas will show only sattvik jivas can ever have a glimpse of Vishnu. That is why I called Vaishnavam as sattvik. There are no instances on asuras and rakshasas ever obtaining a vision of Vishnu, unlike Ravana, Banasura, Bhasmasura and the whole horde of demons who were able to satisfy Shiva and Brahma and obtain boons and haunt innocent people.

Shiva worship is sattvik provided the means adopted are sattvik. It is not unform, as puranas will show. A lot of asurs are able to obtain a vision of Shiva while it is not possible with Vishnu. The only asura who was able to please Vishnu was Prahlada, about who we know much better.

Some forms of Shaktaism even have narabali or human sacrifice, and animal sacrifice is a part and parcel of it.






But in truth all these can differ. External Viashnavism is not better or worse than any other external cult. Mystical Vaishnavism is not better or worse than any other mystical tradition.


That is not the issue. If somebody access Shiva through sattvik marga, it is possibly equal to that of Vishnu. But in case of Vishnu, there are no tamasic margas available. There is no way somebody can get distracted in Vaishnavism.





1. Shakti worship doesn't include worship of any kshudra-devatas and bhutapretadi entities. Tantras prescribe methods to control these beings which is very different from worshipping them. In fact these beings worship Kaulas!
2. Sex rituals and even a human sacrifice is a part of Vedic cult, as well as of Agamic. Vaishnavism also has sexual rituals as its part, though none human sacrifices (while animal sacrifices are rare). It is Vaishnavism which departed much from Vedic teaching and not Shaiva and Shakta religions.


There is exactly one school of Shaivism based on vedanta, that of Srikanta. There is no other because there is no scriptural authority in favour. There are dozens of Vaishnavite schools based on the vedanta sutras, so much for your empy claims.

It should not take long for you to realize that the two verses in vedanta sutras 4.17 and 4.21 have ruled out any possibility of advaita being correct.(except through interpolation) That should automatically rule out the correctness of the doctrines of Shaivism from vedanta perspective, since it is advaitic.




In Shaiva and Shakta tradition only ONE God is worshipped, who is represented by Shiva-Shakti union. Same is the case of Vaishnavism with Vishnu-Lakshmi or Radha-Krishna.
If U want to speak about God’s aspects or powers, then Vaishnavas worship 10 Avataras (or even more), Chaturvyuha (Vasudeva, Sankarshana, Pradyumna, Aniruddha), Vishvaksena, Sudarshanachakraraja, Apamarjana, Garuda, Shri and Bhu Devis, Balabhadra and Subhadra, various Shaligramas etc.


All avatars are equivalent to Vishnu in every way.




There is a practice of occult manipulations (prayogas) current in Shrivaishnavism. Though it is less known than that of Shaktism or Shaivism, it does exist. Some prayogas are given in Jayakhya-samhita, for example.

Sorry, quote from some authritative texts. Show me one instance of any tamasic soul ever able to propitiate Lord Vishnu. Occultism for obtaining siddhis is possible with some mantras like Sudarshana mantra. But unlike those of black magic tarntrism which is purely Shaivite in origin, there is no counterpart in Vaishnavism.

You cannot establish that any well knows traditions of Vaishnavism have anything to do with non sattvik means of worship.


Anyway, if you want to debate please start another thread as the purpose of this thread is entirely different, and I dont want to derail it. Ideally, I would not even entertain this discussion because nearly 90% of all commentaries on the vedanta are Vaishanvite. and it is a closed case. I dont want to argue against Durga Ma, but that does not mean I will be willing to give in to you on the scriptural leaning towards Vaishnavam. If you attach any importance to Bhagavan Krishna's words, listen to this:

mattah parataram nanyat kincid asti dhananjaya
mayi sarvam idam protam sutre mani-gana iva

O conqueror of wealth , there is nothing whatsoever superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.

If Bhagavad Gita is a secondary authority to you, I guess that is an asampradayik position, and we have no further debate. If you value Krishna's words, you would not use words like -



It is Vaishnavism which departed much from Vedic teaching and not Shaiva and Shakta religions.


We just follow Krishna, should we not? How dare you call it deviation from vedanta?

willie
06 May 2006, 09:01 AM
I have followed this discussion along and have begun to wonder how much is a superiority complex or how much is a fear complex. Seem that while most of the different sects seem to keep to themselves and away from the other, they know everything that they precieve as wrong with the other and what makes theirs ideas the way to conduct worship.

However, some must be wondering if the other side is really right. And that their own ideas are not that close to the vedic thought.

Arjuna
06 May 2006, 09:05 AM
To Ram:

U forget that God is beyond gunas, and all three gunas are material qualities related to Prakriti. Limitation of sattva is not much better than limitation of rajas or tamas.

Agamas show the direct path beyond gunas, thus verily they are not bound by sattva.

sarabhanga
07 May 2006, 03:11 AM
Namaste Arjuna,

The Gunas are Qualities, but only Samkhya and some interpretations of Patanjali's Yoga (and perhaps the Jainas ~ I am not sure) would understand Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas, as "material" qualities.

Materials may be described as relatively sattvik or rajasik or tamasik, although only the Tamas Guna is essentially material in nature.

Sattva is pure Æther (Akasa ~ Without Rein), which exists beyond and implicitly permeates the various dimensions of Creation.

Rajas is essential Fire (Agni), the fire of Time (Kala); and

Tamas, the created Object, is the World of our perception, three-dimensional Space and three material elements:
Vayu (Air), Jala (Water), and Bhu (Earth).

The prime Triunity becomes subtlely manifest as the Pañcabhuta (Five Elements) through an initial tripartition of pure Sattva (producing 3 Gunas), followed by the tripartition of Tamas (providing 5 Bhutas in total).

Ram
07 May 2006, 04:28 AM
To Ram:

U forget that God is beyond gunas, and all three gunas are material qualities related to Prakriti. Limitation of sattva is not much better than limitation of rajas or tamas.


Say something practical. Definitions for sattva, rajas and tamas have been given in the Gita. You need to rise above rajas and tamas, into sattvik first before going beyond gunas. That is the flaw with your logic. You are attempting to go beyond gunas without even overcoming tamas.

atanu
08 May 2006, 03:37 AM
---------
If Bhagavad Gita is a secondary authority to you, I guess that is an asampradayik position, and we have no further debate. If you value Krishna's words, you would not use words like -

We just follow Krishna, should we not? How dare you call it deviation from vedanta?

Namaskar Ram Ji,

You are correct. Gita says: Vasudeva is all, one who knows so knows. But what about those who disregard the vedas and upanishads? Vedas say: Aditi is all, father, mother, earth, heaven etc. etc.. Vedas also say: Aditi has truly become all, since you Soma entered Her. Upanishads say OM is all, the past, future, the present etc. etc. Bhagavatam says: Lord Girisha you are the support of OM and you are the OM. Krishna says onw who knows me as unborn mahesvara knows.


Forgetting the eternal truth, when one tries to belittle other devotees, it only shows immaturity, no doubt due to belief of a kaledioscopic partitioned personality called God, who is nothing but a supremely glorified human being.

From many of the christian claims, it would seem that before christ's advent, no one knew the correct path and all were lost. So, with this position; a time constrained faith, unless Krishna is not known as unborn eternal mahesvara. Whatever is taught in Gita already existed in Upanishads, which exist in Vedas, which are eternal.

To know krishna as supreme person, purushottama, separate from oneself, one will require one's own cognition apparatus. What is that ever present cognition apparatus? Is Krishna different from that cognition? When one has a vision of Krishna's sweet form, who is cognizing? On enquiry, one will realize that Lord alone cognises. Prajna Brahman. Pragnya is not different from oneself. It is the power of awareness of Self -- the turiya being.


It is sad that instead of knowing that which is the mother of thoughts and our very being, we impose thoughts (a product) as Supreme.


Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
08 May 2006, 04:18 AM
There is exactly one school of Shaivism based on vedanta, that of Srikanta. There is no other because there is no scriptural authority in favour. There are dozens of Vaishnavite schools based on the vedanta sutras, so much for your empy claims.



Namaskar,

Very typical of course, exemplifying the theme of the thread. Then what are shata Rudriyas, Trishatis, etc? Unvedic? What are the upanishadic teaching that it is pragnya of shivo advaitam turiya (Self) that is sarvesvara? What is the teaching that avimukta Lord Shiva is situated directly as Brahman at Varanasi (the point between two eyebrows)? What value is the upanishadic teaching that in the light of jnana nothing else but sadashiva alone remains? What is the validity of the teaching that Rudra is sarva and eko? What is the value of the teaching that Rudro maharishi is the progenitor of Hiraynagarbha (sarvesvara)? And what does the shruti "Eko hi rudro dvittiya na tasthu" mean? What does the shruti 'mahesvara param parastad' mean? On the other hand, Lord Krishna says :One who knows me as unborn mahesvara knows. Also, Rig Veda, 9th chapter has a verse: Soma janitaa all: earth, heaven, surya, agni, indra, and vishnu.


All above and more are all unvedic?


If asuras have a refuge called Shiva, then all should be weeping with joy. Because none here is non-asuric, and based on your assertion, none is fit to worship anyone. It is grace and kindness that asuras also may worship and adore. Giving immortality to devas is relatively painless and only obstacle is the halahala, which shiva consumes. Being refuge of an asura is true greatness, task of param parastad alone.

But he is not a mere person -- He is the truth itself, creator of vedas. His body is vedas.

so much for your empy claims (i have C&P your statement).

Om

atanu
08 May 2006, 04:35 AM
That is not the issue. If somebody access Shiva through sattvik marga, it is possibly equal to that of Vishnu. But in case of Vishnu, there are no tamasic margas available. There is no way somebody can get distracted in Vaishnavism.




As if being born with sattwik or tamasic gunas is jivas will? Chitraketu was a staunch devotee of Vishnu but still he has to visit hell (bhagavatam). Demeaning shiva is a sure way to hell. That is what I understand. Shiva does nothing, he is pure auspiciousness, but Devi, -- vishnu's power of cognition and desire, will ensure that.

Arjuna
08 May 2006, 05:45 AM
Namaste Arjuna,

The Gunas are Qualities, but only Samkhya and some interpretations of Patanjali's Yoga (and perhaps the Jainas ~ I am not sure) would understand Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas, as "material" qualities.

Materials may be described as relatively sattvik or rajasik or tamasik, although only the Tamas Guna is essentially material in nature.

Sattva is pure Æther (Akasa ~ Without Rein), which exists beyond and implicitly permeates the various dimensions of Creation.

Rajas is essential Fire (Agni), the fire of Time (Kala); and

Tamas, the created Object, is the World of our perception, three-dimensional Space and three material elements:
Vayu (Air), Jala (Water), and Bhu (Earth).

The prime Triunity becomes subtlely manifest as the Pañcabhuta (Five Elements) through an initial tripartition of pure Sattva (producing 3 Gunas), followed by the tripartition of Tamas (providing 5 Bhutas in total).

Namaste Sarabhanga,

What U say is also exactly right, and i am aware of this kind of interpretation. But gunas are also seen as three qualities of Prakriti, and thus she is called Trigunatmika.
Perhaps the reason of these different interpretations is variation in meaning of these three words: sattva, rajas and tamas. Sattva literally means "being" or "existance" (derivation from "sat"), rajas means "energy" and tamas — "darkness". Thus Ur interpretation must have been the original one. However later these three became three gunas of Prakriti, which is material base of creation. This is not only Sankhya teaching, but the teaching of Shaivagama, which accepts Sankhya tattvas (which come into Ashuddha category) but adds above tattvas upto Paramashiva.

In discussed matter the word "gunas" obviously referred to material qualities and not to their essential meaning. Otherwise in the essential sense all spiritual paths are connected with Sattva and Rajas, as Consciousness and Energy.

Ultimately we can see three gunas as representation of Trika, Sattva being Shiva, Rajas — Shakti and Tamas — Nara or Jivatman.

atanu
08 May 2006, 08:20 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga,

Sattva literally means "being" or "existance" (derivation from "sat"), rajas means "energy" and tamas — "darkness".


Namaskar Arjuna,

Param Brahman is termed as nirguna (whatever that may mean) in none other than Gita, whereas sattwa is a guna (among three: white, black, and red). The existence that is SAT is not sattwa and what is CID is not Cit. Sattwa and cit are in the domain of mind, though sattwa is truly the untainted primordial mind called aham.

I agrree with you (as per my learning) that Self is beyond sattwa, that is why it is said to be indescribable. Sat-Cid-Anand is one approximation using vac of that which is beyond vac .


Regards

Namah Shivayya

atanu
08 May 2006, 08:22 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga,

Sattva literally means "being" or "existance" (derivation from "sat"), rajas means "energy" and tamas — "darkness".


Namaskar Arjuna,

Param Brahman is termed as nirguna (whatever that may mean) in none other than Gita, whereas sattwa is a guna (among three: white, black, and red). The existence that is SAT is not same as sattwa and what is CID is not same as Cit. Sattwa and cit are in the domain of mind, though sattwa is truly the untainted primordial mind called aham.

I agree with you (as per my learning) that Self is beyond sattwa, that is why it is said to be indescribable. Sat-Cid-Anand is one approximation of that which is beyond vac .


Regards

Namah Shivayya