PDA

View Full Version : Question for SriVaishnava



satay
22 January 2008, 08:56 AM
Namaskar sriVaishnava,

I thought to ask these questions, please ignore it if you don't want to answer.

I am a vaishnava myslef yet my understanding of mahadeva is quite different than what you are presenting here in this forum. anyway, my questions are as follows:

Why instead of trying to convince other hindus that the lord wears a chandan tilak only instead of bhasam, why not all vaishanva try to redirect their energies to convince those in the adharmic fold of this truth? Why not debate with your next door christian or mulla of this truth? Why fight among ourselves when bharat population is being attacked subtly sometimes and openly violently most of the time right under our noses by adharmic forces of conversion? Why accept jesus as the son of the lord and shun shiva as 'just another aspect'? Is this (accepting jesus as son) for propaganda only? Why not shun this propaganda, don't you think that would show more integrity? Where does it say in our sastra that jesus is the son of the Lord?

Please give some thought to these questions.

Thanks,

Sri Vaishnava
22 January 2008, 09:06 AM
Nice question.

1) I assure you, I have many shaivite friends. We do not fight all the time. my friends go to Kabaleeswarar temple, I go to Adi Kesava temple. That's all.

2) Christians and Muslims are bound by their Karma. Their religions are excluvist, ie, they do not accept that Shiva or Vishnu exist. It will take them many births to come to the realisation that Sanatana Dharma is the true religion. So, no use arguing, because Mohammed and Jesus were narrow-minded enough to ensure that. And I do not believe in any of that Jesus as son of god rubbish, that is one of ISKCON's ridiculous opinions.

3) Shaivites, Advaitins, etc. are at a more elevated stage and have an idea of the truth. Shaivites believe that both Shiva and Vishnu exist corporeally. Hence, it is necessary for them to understand that a true shaivite is one who worships Shiva as the body of Lord Sankarshana, an avatar of Vishnu residing in Shiva. Otherwise, the mordern shaivite is restricted to anya devata worship, which is discouraged by Sri Krishna.

Shaivites and Advaitins are part of Sanatana Dharma and capable of intelligent debate, unlike Muslims or Christians who go rabid over 'Allah' or 'Jesus' (leave that headache to ISKCON). Therfore, I am hoping there is someone liberal enough to understand that I am not a fanatic or a fundamental, but only want to establish the fact that Lord Vishnu, who is so great, is also very modest, and hides his true divinity by quoting many demi-gods in the Vedas. His Characteristics are infinitely more powerful and enjoyable than Mahadeva (and I respect Mahadeva as someone greater than us, so don't worry.).

Advaita can lead to moksha only if you follow Adi Sankara's preaching, 'Worship Govinda as the Impersonal Brahman'. Although Krishna is personal, he has stated that Impersonalism is a path. But by claiming Mahadeva is the supreme impersonal form, they are deluding themselves.

There, I explained that to the best of my ability.

satay
22 January 2008, 02:07 PM
Namaskar sri vaishnava,

Thank you for the post.


Therfore, I am hoping there is someone liberal enough to understand that I am not a fanatic or a fundamental, but only want to establish the fact that Lord Vishnu, who is so great, is also very modest, and hides his true divinity by quoting many demi-gods in the Vedas.

This 'vaishnava' section of HDF is the right place to discuss leela of Thakur. You may start by posting some nice stuff about the Lord.

I also encourage to you read and consider this sticky by a senior member of HDF. http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2550

A milder tone in your posts will get your posts more eyes and ears.

Thanks,

TatTvamAsi
22 January 2008, 02:42 PM
Nice question.

1) I assure you, I have many shaivite friends. We do not fight all the time. my friends go to Kabaleeswarar temple, I go to Adi Kesava temple. That's all.

2) Christians and Muslims are bound by their Karma. Their religions are excluvist, ie, they do not accept that Shiva or Vishnu exist. It will take them many births to come to the realisation that Sanatana Dharma is the true religion. So, no use arguing, because Mohammed and Jesus were narrow-minded enough to ensure that. And I do not believe in any of that Jesus as son of god rubbish, that is one of ISKCON's ridiculous opinions.

3) Shaivites, Advaitins, etc. are at a more elevated stage and have an idea of the truth. Shaivites believe that both Shiva and Vishnu exist corporeally. Hence, it is necessary for them to understand that a true shaivite is one who worships Shiva as the body of Lord Sankarshana, an avatar of Vishnu residing in Shiva. Otherwise, the mordern shaivite is restricted to anya devata worship, which is discouraged by Sri Krishna.

Shaivites and Advaitins are part of Sanatana Dharma and capable of intelligent debate, unlike Muslims or Christians who go rabid over 'Allah' or 'Jesus' (leave that headache to ISKCON). Therfore, I am hoping there is someone liberal enough to understand that I am not a fanatic or a fundamental, but only want to establish the fact that Lord Vishnu, who is so great, is also very modest, and hides his true divinity by quoting many demi-gods in the Vedas. His Characteristics are infinitely more powerful and enjoyable than Mahadeva (and I respect Mahadeva as someone greater than us, so don't worry.).

Advaita can lead to moksha only if you follow Adi Sankara's preaching, 'Worship Govinda as the Impersonal Brahman'. Although Krishna is personal, he has stated that Impersonalism is a path. But by claiming Mahadeva is the supreme impersonal form, they are deluding themselves.

There, I explained that to the best of my ability.

In your description above, as many Vaishnavites would also believe, you say that Vishnu is 'Supreme' and other deities are not. How is this any different than the rabid Christians & Muslims claiming that 'their' god/deity is superior to others and others' are wrong?

I don't want to start an argument here, but according to what the seers in the days of yore have stated in the Upanishads, Brahman, IS! There is no other; meaning that Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma and so on are mere manifestations of that Supreme. This dichotomy of the Advaitin and Dvaitin philosophy is recipe for perennial disagreement and sometimes even arguments. Therefore, without any inferred disrespect to Advaitins, how would you describe your interpretations of the Upanishads in regards to Brahman?

It is also interesting to note that Advaitins never claim that Shiva is superior or anything else is 'superior' to others, only Vaishnavites seem to have this tendency to incessantly reiterate that their deity, Vishnu, is supreme.

Subham.

Agnideva
22 January 2008, 06:22 PM
Namaste SriVaishnava,

I have a similar suggestion/request for you as Satay. I think you are a knowledgeable person on Vaishnava theology/philosophy. Instead of posting messages on why Shiva is not supreme and Vishnu is, or why Advaita is flawed and VA is not, I think your time will be better spent posting some key Pancharatra Agama teachings on the Vaishnava forum. For example, you have equated in at least two places Shiva (or more properly, Rudra) with Sankarshana, without proper introduction to the Vyuha theory of Vaishnava Agamas. Perhaps you can elaborate more on Pancharatra theology - the Vyuha theory, of the five forms of Vasudeva, the three Shaktis, the six Adhvans, etc. I think if you will find this sort of post better received. There is not much discussion of Vaishnava theology on this forum, and it will definitely help those who are interested in learning more about Vaishnavism.

Aum.

satay
22 January 2008, 06:28 PM
I and other members would like to see this vaishnava forum filled with some nice vaishnava theology.

Sri vaishnava, are you up for the challenge to make the vaishnava section a valuable resource for those interested in vaishnava theology?

bhargavsai
22 January 2008, 08:31 PM
The Power of Vivekananda and Ramakrishna has driven and is driving the world towards Hinduism, and at that junction there is a fanatical organization which can never accept nor tolerate but it bluntly dictates and divides the Millions of Hindus all over the world and that Organization is ISKCON.

We all know the stature of Sri Ramakrishna, even a Vaishnava Brahmin women has declared that He is a great Avatar, Sri Ramakrishna is undoubtedly the greatest modern force, where as Vivekananda is his mighty warrior, Advaitha a great Vedic Weapon.

But this ISKCON is just a Fanatical organization, with full of Doctrines and Dogmas.

Sri Vaishnava your claiming that Ramakrishna is wrong itself shows that your Philosophy(not Vaishnava Philosophy) as per ISKCON is utterly wrong and Disgusting.

You are one of the Few people who follows diversity even in Sanatana Dharma, I have seen very very few people who follow so much division in worshiping Siva and Vishnu...

Sri Vaishnava
23 January 2008, 04:27 AM
I and other members would like to see this vaishnava forum filled with some nice vaishnava theology.

Sri vaishnava, are you up for the challenge to make the vaishnava section a valuable resource for those interested in vaishnava theology?

If I have the time, certainly.

To the person who said Vaishnavas are fanatical, no, we are not. Shiva is a great Mahadeva and we give him the fullest respect. But when other people claim to follow the Vedas and misinterpret it, then it gets sticky.


meaning that Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma and so on are mere manifestations of that Supreme. This dichotomy of the Advaitin and Dvaitin philosophy is recipe for perennial disagreement and sometimes even arguments. Therefore, without any inferred disrespect to Advaitins, how would you describe your interpretations of the Upanishads in regards to Brahman?

In my thread, 'Identity of Narayana', I established why Vishnu is supreme and not Shiva. True Advaita also puts Vishnu as Saguna Brahman. There is no dichotomy in that.

Vishnu did not 'emanate' from Narayana. It is not mentioned in the Vedas. In fact, Shiva is mentioned as created, but Vishnu is Narayana Himself. When it says, 'Rudra emanated from Narayana', it means 'Rudra emanated from Vishnu'. Even Sanskrit grammar agrees to that.

Advaita, dvaita and Vishishtadvaita do not disagree on whether Vishnu is Brahman. It is not Vishnu vs. Shiva. The true battle between Advaita and Dvaita is whether Vishnu is personal or impersonal and whether atman=Brahman or Atman < Brahman, that's all.

Ramanujacharya, Adi Sankaracharya, Madhvacharya - all three established supremacy of Vishnu only (yes, Sankaracharya as well). Ishta Devta and the Ramakrishna mission are all latter concoctions.

And one more thing, I am not part of ISKCON. Sri Vaishnavism is the first and the oldest form of Vaishnavism, which follows the Guru Parampara originating from Sri Devi. It has nothing to do with ISKCON's Chaitanya Sampradaya. I belong to the Thenkalai sect of Sri Vaishnavism.

Arjun The Vaishnava
01 November 2010, 02:32 PM
But this ISKCON is just a Fanatical organization, with full of Doctrines and Dogmas.

Sri Vaishnava your claiming that Ramakrishna is wrong itself shows that your Philosophy(not Vaishnava Philosophy) as per ISKCON is utterly wrong and Disgusting.

You are one of the Few people who follows diversity even in Sanatana Dharma, I have seen very very few people who follow so much division in worshiping Siva and Vishnu...

Why are you accusing him of being ISKCON? ISKCON is a modern interpretation and adjustment of Caitanya's Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Sri Vaishnavism is completely different and is the oldest Vedantic form of Vaishnavism, please do not get the two confused.

Sudarshan
13 November 2010, 02:05 AM
An exclusive approach to God can end up in fanaticism. Yet the opposite extreme, to just lump everything together into one insipid mess is not wise either because the veda does not seem to agree. Each diety is identified and glorified in its own context often at the expense of others.

Though one must ultimately transcend exclusivity, it is childish to insist that every one must follow the same religeous principles. The so called inclusivist must include exclusivism too else he just becomes a hypocrite. I tolerate only those who tolerate me. What is so great about that? I tolerate even those who are intolerant - that where the greatness of inclusivism lies.

Monotheism is a step below Henotheism but it is still a very legitimate belief and suitable for many.

jasdir
13 November 2010, 02:54 AM
Namaskar sriVaishnava,

I thought to ask these questions, please ignore it if you don't want to answer.

I am a vaishnava myslef yet my understanding of mahadeva is quite different than what you are presenting here in this forum. anyway, my questions are as follows:

Why instead of trying to convince other hindus that the lord wears a chandan tilak only instead of bhasam, why not all vaishanva try to redirect their energies to convince those in the adharmic fold of this truth? Why not debate with your next door christian or mulla of this truth? Why fight among ourselves when bharat population is being attacked subtly sometimes and openly violently most of the time right under our noses by adharmic forces of conversion? Why accept jesus as the son of the lord and shun shiva as 'just another aspect'? Is this (accepting jesus as son) for propaganda only? Why not shun this propaganda, don't you think that would show more integrity? Where does it say in our sastra that jesus is the son of the Lord?

Please give some thought to these questions.

Thanks,

95&#37; of the total wars which have been fought on the earth till now, Are foughted on the name of religions & faiths.

There is also one more intresting point, That the begainers of any religions or faiths never foughted any war.


Namaste by jasdir.

Sahasranama
13 November 2010, 05:20 AM
This has nothing to do with the question of this topic. It's a really beautiful story about Ramanujacharya. Once Ramanuja went to the great acharya Thirukkoti Numbi to ask for the secret vaishnava mantra. The acharya told him, "you are not ready yet, go away and come back later." Ramanuja was very upset about this. He went back and was told again that he was not ready. He went there seventeen times and was told to go away. The eighteenth time he went to the acharya, he was initiated in the secred mantra. The acharya told him, do not share this secret knowledge with anyone, otherwise it will have bad effects.

After that Ramanuja announced that he was going to tell the secret mantra to everyone. Ramanuja stood on top of the platform and spoke to all the people who had gathered around. "The term I does not refer to this body, the life principle, caitanya, in us is not ours, it's the lord's. Namah, means not mine, narah is the jiva, naaraah is the community of all lives, the universe, the term ayana means the underlying cause of all the universes, thus narayana refers to the ultimate lord or brahman. The final term Aayah stresses the omnipotence of the lord over all universes. I went to Thirukotti Numbi eighteen times to learn this meaning, now after having understood this mantra, repeat three times: Aum namo Narayanaya, Aum namo Narayanaya."

Everyone repeated:

ॐ नमो नारायणाय
ॐ नमो नारायणाय
ॐ नमो नारायणाय

After Ramanujacharya met the Thirukotti Numbi, the acharya was very angry: "How dare you show your face to me, do you know what you have done, do you know what the consequences are?" Ramanuja said "Hell, I will go to hell! Hell is a small price to pay for me if all these people can benefit from this great mantra." The acharya embraced Ramanuja and praised him for his great devotion.