Recent admin activity

[Bhava dasa]

One of the things that turns me off with ISKConites is that I can close my eyes and hear what they are saying and then plug 'christ' and 'jesus'…. According to Vedic tradition, even if your enemy comes to your door, you should treat him very nicely. Otherwise it is a great curse to you.

So far, I have been treated very rudely here, although I didn't deserve it. I came here in a friendly mood, but saw so much blasphemy towards my Gurudevas mission and his followers. I have tried to present another side to the statements which were being made so there would be a balanced view.

I have been associated with Hinduism now for over 30 years, and have traveled all over India, but I have never experienced this.

You know nothing about me, yet you judge me, and treat me this way...

I won't remain here any longer,

[satay]

I won't remain here any longer,

There is no need for this. I have already banned your id.
Thanks for visiting. Enjoy your preaching elsewhere.

[satay]

Admin Note:
Once again I request all members to read the site rules. Preaching is not allowed on this site no matter how passionate you are about your sect.

We are trying to have this place 4 intellectual discussions and not 4 heated debates on whose dad can beat up whom.

Hare Krishna!

[c.smith]

Wow, I certainly didn't mean to set off a heated discussion.

I have truly learned that ISKCON is not of the Hindu faith. This was initially hard to believe because I was naive and believed most everything I was told. When I first initiated contact with the local Hindu society, I was told to go the Krishna Temple and that I would find help there. Yes, I seem to have found help - some of it was valueable but as you can see from my posts that some was not helpful in any way. Chalk it up to experience.

One last uncertainty that I could use some clairty on - or perhaps just confirmation of what I'm discovering. The Bhagavad Gita - it was written to share the wisdom of Krishna (sorry if that isn't quite what I need to convey). Krishna however is not all that there is, the original "everything". So where does it find it's place? This is where I'm not 100% certain. Is it simply a book written by an Avatar of Vishnu to guide us in Kali Yuga?

Thank-you all for your guidance. I am truly finding my way and the path seems to be taking me to Shiva. By his mercy I will continue along the path that is most relevant for me.

[satay]

The Hindu Trimurti is Brhama, Vishnu and Mahesh (shiva). To me hindu trimurti conveys that these three are the god heads but at the same time one.

I like swami prabhupada's writings a lot but hinduism is more than iskcon's version.

Others can correct me...

[sarabhanga]

Who you pray to is a personal choice of yours. Nobody should judge you based on who is your primary deity of worship. Any Hindu who gives you a hard time because you pray to a different god is bogus.

The recently arrived (and now banned) Bhava Dasa made a few posts that merely asked questions of C.Smith, and then suggested the opinion of his Guru that:

Krsna is the original Person from whom He expands Himself as Visnu. When He enters the material atmosphere to engage in His pastimes, He does so through Visnu; therefore it appears that He is an incarnation of Visnu, but actually is not.
This perspective can be justified, and it would be interesting to hear such an explanation from a learned member of ISKCON.


ISKCONites do not identify themselves as Hindus.
If this is so, perhaps this “Hindu Dharma” forum should not have the sub-topic “ISKCON” displayed under “God in Hindu Dharma”. Innocent devotees will only be tricked into thinking that this forum has at least some sympathy for their particular brand of “Sanatana Dharma”.


One of the things that turns me off with ISKConites is that I can close my eyes and hear what they are saying and then plug 'Christ' and 'Jesus' to everywhere they are saying Krishna and there doesn’t seem to be any difference remaining. The preaching is exactly like a Christian missionary does his preaching and selling of Krishna is done in the same fashion as Christian god is sold.
How is this at all relevant to the single substantive post made by Bhava Dasa?


What is your definition of "Hindu"? Did I offend you in some way? I was simply having a nice discussion with Csmith. I apologize if my words so deeply offended you. Hare Krsna.

Most of us see no differences whatsoever between Krishna and Vishnu. Avatar of God is non different in any way from God.
And then, Bhavadasa supplied a hint toward the explanation of his earlier comment:

Very true. Most don't see the difference. However, those who understand Visnu-tattva more completely, do. Visnu is Krsna "working".

This is strictly an ISKCON view and may also be shared a small number of other Vaishnava schools but this is certainly not mainstream Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma. I assume you are talking about ISKCON in this context as it seemed as if C.Smith was mentioning something about some of the things he learned from ISKCON temples. It is good to make clear which school you are coming from.
If Bhavadasa’s views are not “mainstream Hindu”, so what? C.Smith and Bhavadasa were both talking about ISKCON, and Bhavadasa has already declared a 30+ year relationship with ISKCON.


I hate to say it, but it sounded more like preaching than a discussion.
Can the moderators please explain what is meant by “preaching”, and how Bhavadasa can reasonably be accused of “preaching” here?


Bhava dasa, you keep repeating yourself without backing up anything you say with scriptures.
I am unable to understand this claim of “repetition”, and Bhavadasa has had little chance to respond with any “scriptural back-up” before being shouted down and banned from the forum!


According to Vedic tradition, even if your enemy comes to your door, you should treat him very nicely. Otherwise it is a great curse to you.

I have tried to present another side to the statements which were being made so there would be a balanced view. I have been associated with Hinduism now for over 30 years, and have traveled all over India, but I have never experienced this. You know nothing about me, yet you judge me, and treat me this way...
I agree, and I have also never encountered a group of “Hindus” who were so quick to pass judgment on others! :(


Enjoy your preaching elsewhere.

Preaching is not allowed on this site.
And I repeat: Before I am banned again, can the moderators please explain what is meant by “preaching”?


We are trying to have this place 4 intellectual discussions and not 4 heated debates on whose dad can beat up whom.
Based on recent actions by the HDF moderators, I find this difficult to believe!

[Sudarshan]

There is no need for this. I have already banned your id.
Thanks for visiting. Enjoy your preaching elsewhere.

Namaste Satay - I find this banning unwarranted. He has not even been given a chance to defend himself, and from what I know he has not misrepresented anything about ISKCON - he is just airing his view, which I was questioning just to know more about how he defends his views. How is that preaching? If this is considered preaching what else is allowed on this forum and what constitutes a discussion? How do I write anything here on my beleifs without the risk of it being considered as preaching?

I hope no regular members are banned on this forum without several warnings. And for new comers, please dont do that unless he is a clear troll.

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

but saw so much blasphemy towards my Gurudevas mission

Just a note: Criticizing or disagreeing with a person's religious views is not "blasphemy" unless of course you are a member of a cult. I don't appreciate such propaganda on here and perhaps it has already been taken care of by Satay. The fact is that c.smith asked a few questions some of which were ISKCON-related but nobody asked for constant preaching and propaganda where it didn't belong. Enough said. ~BYS~

[Sudarshan]

This is an ISKCON view and not a mainstream Hindu view. No offense, but it is my opinion that this view on Shiva is bogus and downright disrespectful and even offensive to Lord Shiva. Vaishnavism is merely one of many schools of Sanatana Dharma. No where have I ever seen anyone (even from ISKCON) state that Shiva is of a certain school. I did not know that God or avatars were restricted to certain sects. I am not even going to ask for a scriptural citation because I already know that nowhere in the scriptures does it say this. I am not even aware of the term "Vaishnava" used in any scriptures. I am also highly skeptical of any shruti or smriti claiming that Shiva is "Vishnu transformed." At least not in the meaning that ISKCON gives it. This also doesn't seem to answer c.smith's question.


What is the mainstream Hindu view? Do you know even what Adi Shankara's view on this matter was, and have you read even a word from his texts? I can easily prove that for Sri Shankara. Vishnu alone was the supreme Saguna Brahman, and Shiva is just a manifestation of Vishnu, if you need proof. You have your own ideas built from some amateurish books. Have you read Shankara's commentary on Gita? Take a look at 7.17 where he even goes to the extent to saying that Krishna alone is Ekabhakti and is the only God worthy of worship.(nobody else) If a Vaishnava said this, he would be immediately condmened as a bigot. In his Vishnu Sahasranama commentary, Sri Shankara says that Kesava means the originator of both Shiva and Brahma.

Shiva as a Vaishnava is a concept common to all Vaishnava Puranas and is well accepted. If a few Shaivas cant accept it, it does not matter. Even Adi Shankara has given much more priority to Vaishnava Puranas and has quoted only from them. If you read his Brahmasutra Bhasya, you can find as many as 200+ quotes from Vaishnava Puranas and virtually none from Shaiva Puranas. Regarding Gita Bhasya, I dont think I have to say anything - it speaks for itself.

Shiva is "Vishnu Transformed" even according to Adi Shankara, because Vishnu is the Saguna Brahman, the cause of all causes. Please read his commentaries and dont learn Hinduism from some comic books.

[satay]

This perspective can be justified, and it would be interesting to hear such an explanation from a learned member of ISKCON.

namaste,

Bhava dasa came across as just another iskconite trying to shove krishna down other people's throats.

He had already been warned. I reviewed his posts collectively they were breaking the following rules:
1. Flaming
2. No Promotion of Other Religions
3. No Self Promotion




If this is so, perhaps this “Hindu Dharma” forum should not have the sub-topic “ISKCON” displayed under “God in Hindu Dharma”. Innocent devotees will only be tricked into thinking that this forum has at least some sympathy for their particular brand of “Sanatana Dharma”.

perhaps you are right but not all iskonites think that they are not hindus and the subform is for those devotees.



Can the moderators please explain what is meant by “preaching”, and how Bhavadasa can reasonably be accused of “preaching” here?

preaching - excessively trying to prove that your sect is the correct one and that the person being preached to should join your sect.



Based on recent actions by the HDF moderators, I find this difficult to believe!
I find it difficult to believe that you think that we have not heard enough from ISKCONITes and all that we can!

Bhava dasa does manage his forum called Bhakti disscussion forums (if I am not wrong) and more of their views can be read at that site.

As you know there are no other moderators on this site right now except me. I feel that if we have a need to hear ISKCON repetitions then we should visit their forums.

[satay]

Namaste Satay - I find this banning unwarranted. He has not even been given a chance to defend himself, and from what I know he has not misrepresented anything about ISKCON - he is just airing his view, which I was questioning just to know more about how he defends his views. How is that preaching? If this is considered preaching what else is allowed on this forum and what constitutes a discussion? How do I write anything here on my beleifs without the risk of it being considered as preaching?

I hope no regular members are banned on this forum without several warnings. And for new comers, please dont do that unless he is a clear troll.

namaste!
Thank you for your note. I happen to disagree with you. I had given a warning to Bhava dasa before.

If you feel that you have to learn more of ISCKON's view bhava dasa's forums can be visited at Bhakti discussions.com ( I think, google it please) that way you can have more detailed discussions with other devotees as well and not just bhava dasa.

Just a recommendation.


Thanks,

[satay]

Admin Note:

This thread has been trolled enough already by getting skewed to one sect some members of which don't even consider themselves hindus.

Please if you have suggestions to make on moderation etc. open another thread under feedback.

I am not going to keep repeating myself when dealing with the same types of problems if members of certain sects keep appearing and keep doing the same things over and over on the forum.

Anyway, Bhava dasa in one of his posts to me had said that he would not stay here longer and I just made it easier for him and fulfilled his wish.

Hari Bol!

thanks.

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

Sarabhanga, I refuse to have a discussion with you when you keep chopping up random quotes of mine along with others that are taken completely out of context or not read critically to begin with. My discussions with C.Smith and Bhava Dasa are quite simple to understand and actually are quite non-judgmental. However, in order to actually understand simple thoughts you have to read my posts in their entirety rather than just chopping them up. The way in which you have quoted me indicates that you have not read clearly what I have said and it is now you who are taking this thread off-topic and repeating what was already discussed.

Sudarshan, I don't know the details as to why Bhava dasa was banned other than Satay's explanation on the board. I would encourage you to review the thread from the beginning and see how this has gone off-topic. C.Smith asked a number of questions about Hinduism as well as with ISKCON. I am already aware that Bhava dasa was from ISKCON and actually I was quite non-judgmental and in fact gave Bhava dasa a number of positive remarks as well as negative remarks about ISKCON that were in context. I believe that at least my responses were kept to the point and balanced as I gave credit where I thought it was due and took away credit where I thought it should not be given. The problem occurred when C.Smith asked honest questions about ISKCON and its relation to Hinduism in general and Bhava dasa continued to respond by equating all of Hinduism with ISKCON. A few of us mentioned that ISKCON is not the end all of Hinduism and that it is only one of many schools. Even after these explanations, Bhava dasa ignored many of C.Smith's questions and continued posting replies implying that the only Hinduism one needs to focus on is the one presented by ISKCON.

I don't have a problem with a discussion of ISKCON and I find a number of respectful things in it which I have commented on. The problem I have is when someone asks a question about comparing and contrasting things between ISKCON and standard Hinduism and an ISKCONite continues to push only the ISKCON views instead of actually answering the questions. This is when it became preaching. Bhava dasa kept on stating the ISKCON views as if the entire Sanatana Dharma is owned and patented and controlled by ISKCON. Please re-read the thread and see how it turned into this. A couple of times I mentioned scriptural citations and gave Bhava dasa the option of simply stating that this is just an ISKCON view and not something shared by all Hindus. However, Bhava dasa kept presenting the views again as if those views that were strictly ISKCON applied to all of us which was basically repetition without answering anything.

Last but not least, when a few of us made some critical remarks about ISKCON and the fact that it sounded like preaching because this user kept on asserting that ISKCON views should be shared by all Hindus or that ISKCON views are the "only" Sanatana Dharma, Bhava dasa responded saying we were posting "blasphemy" against Prabhupada and making ridiculous accusations about us that we are being judgmental, rude, etc. when all that was done was simple disagreement and questioning of Bhava dasa's views. Not only did Bhava dasa dodge a large number of C.Smith's questions, but this user kept pushing ISKCON over and over even when the topic for the most part was Hinduism and then starts accusing us trying to make us feel bad that we dared to disagree. Examples again are the whole "blasphemy" nonsense as well as the "I'm going to leave the board."

I hate to say it but I don't want such propaganda here either. It ruins a discussion every time. If they cannot just answer the questions without constantly trying to push their school and then whine and complain that people dare to disagree, then they should either find another board to do this on or perhaps learn some basic social skills as well as net etiquette. ~BYS~

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

Anyway, I hope the thread can now get back on topic because it isn't fair to the people that were involved originally with a normal and healthy discussion. I hope that Satay doesn't close the thread but at least that it can get back on track. ~BYS~

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

Sudarshan, I asked for one of the following: A) that if the ISKCON views presented are claimed to be genunine Sanatana Dharma applied to all Hindus then scriptures are quoted. B) that if these are strictly ISKCON views then the person should make that clear.

Your response did neither and is sounding like repetition just like before by others in this thread. Scriptures mean at least smritis or srutis. Your response basically mentioned what Adi Shankaracharya thought about Krishna and you mentioned what Vaishnava Puranas in general said. I don't care what Adi Shankara thought about Krishna at least not in the context of this thread. I asked for scriptures, not what some guru here or there believed about what the scriptures meant.

I am not understanding why it is so difficult to answer a question. I asked to quote scriptures not what gurus here and there thought the scriptures meant. This is the same case with Bhava dasa's response. Instead of responding with scriptures, the response was that the beliefs came from the hundreds of ISKCON books written by Prabhupada, which again are NOT scriptures. ~BYS~

[satay]

Please note that showing disrespect to any hindu guru is against the rules of this site this includes adiShankara and Swami Prabupada!

adishankara was not just 'some' guru! but anyway, I don't want to get into a discussion on that.

Guru is an important part of the hindu/vedic dharma...we should not speak in terms of 'some' guru said this or that...and insult them in such a way.

[sarabhanga]

I refuse to have a discussion with you
No problem, I don't require any further comment from you on this matter.

[sarabhanga]

If preaching is “excessively trying to prove that your sect is the correct one and that the person being preached to should join your sect”, then in the 14 posts made by Bhavadasa on this forum I am unable to find any evidence of such behaviour. Although, I had no idea of any previous issues you might have had with this poster.


I find it difficult to believe that you think that we have not heard enough from ISKCONITes


Krsna is the original Person from whom He expands Himself as Visnu. When He enters the material atmosphere to engage in His pastimes, He does so through Visnu; therefore it appears that He is an incarnation of Visnu, but actually is not.
This perspective can be justified, and it would be interesting to hear such an explanation from a learned member of ISKCON.
If we have learned enough from previous ISKCON members, then perhaps someone else can provide the appropriate explanation. :rolleyes:

And there are plenty of other web-sites offering the views of Shaivism and Vedanta, so perhaps the majority of my posts are only needless repetition designed to convince others that the views of my own Gurus are superior to the views of others. :headscratch:

[satay]

If we have learned enough from previous ISKCON members, then perhaps someone else can provide the appropriate explanation. :rolleyes:


Some of it is explained here at this site that I visit very often. http://india.krishna.org/Articles/2000/09/00136.html


"As for your specific question in regard to Krishna and Visnu. Visnu is an incarnation of Krishna, Krishna is the original Supreme Personality of Godhead, syam bhagavan. It is true that all the Visnu-tattva incarnations including Maha-Visnu are non-different from Krishna, but still Krishna is the origin of them all. This point is confirmed in so many places in the Bhagavad-gita and in so many other Vedic texts also..."

and here
http://science.krishna.org/sudarsana/archive/msg00161.html

[satay]

And there are plenty of other web-sites offering the views of Shaivism and Vedanta, so perhaps the majority of my posts are only needless repetition designed to convince others that the views of my own Gurus are superior to the views of others. :headscratch:

I don't follow what you are saying...are you saying that your guru's mandate is to convince others or the members of this forum that yours or his is the only valid view and that all sanantanis have to follow it or else...? Somehow I doubt that that is what your view lis et alone the view of your guru!

Most advaita gurus follow the common sense rule of : "Ignore the ignorants!" and have no interest in proving or convincing others as they understand it is due to the other person's karma that he is not able to grasp the idea. But they have faith that eventually everyone will dis-cover the truth on their own accord and when the karmic forces are in balance. Am I wrong in observing this of advaitins in general?

[sarabhanga]

कर्मण्यकर्म यः पश्येदकर्मणि च कर्म यः ।
स बुद्धिमान्मनुष्येषु स युक्तः कृत्स्नकर्मकृत् ॥

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

Please note that showing disrespect to any hindu guru is against the rules of this site this includes adiShankara and Swami Prabupada!

adishankara was not just 'some' guru! but anyway, I don't want to get into a discussion on that.

Guru is an important part of the hindu/vedic dharma...we should not speak in terms of 'some' guru said this or that...and insult them in such a way.

Namaste. I should have worded my phrase differently to avoid any misunderstandings. I have not disrespected Prabhupada or Adi Sankara in my posts. I am quite aware of who both of these acharyas are and what their role has been in Hinduism and what role they both still play. The reason I used the term "some guru" is because the question I had asked was for someone to back up their claims with scriptures meaning srutis or smritis--not commentaries. No doubt about it that guru is a big role in Hinduism. I am not denying that. Obviously, Prabhupada or Sankara are not just "some" gurus in that sense as they are both extremely well-known, famous, and widely respected. The use of the word "some" meant that I wasn't asking for quotes from ANY guru regardless of who it is. I wanted scripture and not commentary on scripture. So whether someone quoted John Doe or the most famous guru in the world, it was still out of context and I treated it that way. Sorry if I offended anyone. I hope my intent was now made more clear. ~BYS~

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

No problem, I don't require any further comment from you on this matter.

Well you are going to get another comment because your post is abusive. I have already asked you to stop taking my quotes out of context. I am reporting this to the moderator. ~BYS~

[Sudarshan]

Sudarshan, I asked for one of the following: A) that if the ISKCON views presented are claimed to be genunine Sanatana Dharma applied to all Hindus then scriptures are quoted. B) that if these are strictly ISKCON views then the person should make that clear.


What is your definition for general applicability to Sanatana Dharma? What exactly is Sanatana Dharma according to you? Your objection was that his view of Shiva being "transofrmation of Vishnu" is objectionable to you and insults Lord Shiva. So what kind of proof are you expecting to agree? I would have quoted from any Vaishnava Acharya which you would not hesitate to rub off as sectarian. So I quoted from Sri Shankara whose views could be taken to be more liberal and have more general acceptance. Shruti references should not be tough - read Bhagavad Gita with a fresh mind and you can know.

BY the way, I would like to see more openness from everybody here, and not just oppose Vaishnavas just because you do not agree with them. According to me, the Shankara as evidenced from his main works has all hallmarks of a Vaishnavite, though his views are more absolutist. I know some advaitins think that Vishnu was taken by Shankara to be a priority because they think Shiva is NB who cannot be worshipped or described and hence he gave more importance to Vishnu. However this argument is not convincing because

1. NB has no name or form, and is beyond speech and mind, so Shiva is not a suitable name.
2. Sri Shankara himself has never stated anywhere that Nirguna Brahman is Shiva.



Your response did neither and is sounding like repetition just like before by others in this thread. Scriptures mean at least smritis or srutis. Your response basically mentioned what Adi Shankaracharya thought about Krishna and you mentioned what Vaishnava Puranas in general said. I don't care what Adi Shankara thought about Krishna at least not in the context of this thread. I asked for scriptures, not what some guru here or there believed about what the scriptures meant.


I thought Adi Shankara's view would carry more credit for you than say Prabhupada or Ramanuja. If his views are not sufficient, then nobody can convince you. I have no intentions to continue more with this topic - I was just answering to your harsh answer directed at Bhava Dasa just because he opined that Shiva is a form of Vishnu, which is completely unwarranted. If you dont agree with others, just move on. No need to use emotional sentiments like Shiva was insulted etc. No God is ever insulted by human actions.

[Sudarshan]

namaste!
Thank you for your note. I happen to disagree with you. I had given a warning to Bhava dasa before.

If you feel that you have to learn more of ISCKON's view bhava dasa's forums can be visited at Bhakti discussions.com ( I think, google it please) that way you can have more detailed discussions with other devotees as well and not just bhava dasa.

Just a recommendation.


Thanks,

Thanks Satay, but I still think he was treated harshly by too many people here, and no chance was given to him to justify his position. I think I had a share in it and I apologize if he ever read this thread again. It always pains to see anyone leaving forums on a disappointed note.(like driven away)

[Sudarshan]

Most advaita gurus follow the common sense rule of : "Ignore the ignorants!" and have no interest in proving or convincing others as they understand it is due to the other person's karma that he is not able to grasp the idea. But they have faith that eventually everyone will dis-cover the truth on their own accord and when the karmic forces are in balance. Am I wrong in observing this of advaitins in general?

Namaste Satay, I would say this is a misunderstanding of Hinduism, atleast of vedanta.

Advaita has never thought of "Ignoring the ignorants", and if you read the works of Shankara, you will find that he dismisses the doctrines of several dozens of Hindu and non Hindus schools as faulty and incapable of granting salvation. He then goes on an all India tour, and challenges every opponent in his times, and converts him to his fold. This includes most people of Shankya Philosophy, Yoga, Nyaya, Viahseshika, Purva Mimamsa and several schools of non vedic origin. This is the result we do not see any people belonging to these schools today. Shall we say that Shankara was highly sectarian and did not tolerate anybody? If any Yogis or Shankyans remained to tell the tale, they will tell you that Shnakara destroyed their school and will paint a villain picture about him. The only school that Shankara had been lenient on was the Panchartara school that was later popularized by Ramanuja.

If adviata felt that every other school was false on logical and spiritual grounds, isnt' it logical to assume that others can find advaita as false too - infact every school that came after adviata objected to some fundmental premises of advaita. Vedantins never beleived in ignoring the ignorants, but rather teaching them the truth in the vedas. Thus any Acharya in the past had to be well equipped with a lot of knowledge and unlike most swamijis of modern days who dont know the fundamentals, Acharyas of the past could not afford to be ignorant of the scripture and yet be heads of institutions. Vedas have multiple interpretations and the whole issue is about who is right.

Dvaita is very certain that unless you worship God in the correct way( their way), you are bound for ultimate hell. Vishsitadvaita would have a somewhat better opinion but willl still hold that unless you are a Vaishnava you cant get mukti. Adviata thinks that Jnana or Self knowledge alone can grant mukti and hence considers both Dvaita and Vishsitadvaita to be only stepping stones and not directly capable to being useful for liberation. How do you know that you are in the right? If we have so many pages of scriptures, isnt' it obvious that vedas want to tell us someting important and nothing is taken for granted? One must learn the scripture very well and must come to his own conclusions regarding the true purport. Preaching becomes important to certain schools because they interpret that without proper knowlege you are in for something disastrous. ISKCON and Dvaita belong to that category, and actually they are not intoerant towards others, but they think they are "saving" others. In Advaita and VA, the concept of eternal damnation does not arise, so preaching has a somewhat secondary importance and it is assumed that if you dont get it right you will in a later birth. But this is not accepted by all schools, and hence all the confusion. Srivaishnavs believe that even atheists will someday become devouts by the grace of Vishnu, so brainwashing them is not so particular for us.

Unless you have a personal revelaion from God, or you beleive your Guru is a God realized soul without doubt, you cannot follow any religion blindly and must make the most effort to know the scripture properly and understand its true purpose. If Dvaita is right by any chance, it demands very immediate attention on your part. Should you not first verify their claims by studying the scripture?

Thus, preaching, learning and discussions are very important for vedantins. It must possiblky be done with fairness and with context and proof. If you ask my personal opinion, no forum, no booksih knowledge, no guru is needed for anybody - just dedicate yourself and your life for God realization and dont bother to even read a lot. Just keep your mind focussed on God and keep chanting his names whenever you have time and spend some time in meditation everyday. But this is not accepted by many schools and hence we will never be resolved of conflicts within our religion.

[satay]

Namaste Satay, I would say this is a misunderstanding of Hinduism, atleast of vedanta.

Advaita has never thought of "Ignoring the ignorants", and if you read the works of Shankara, you will find that he dismisses the doctrines of several dozens of Hindu and non Hindus schools as faulty and incapable of granting salvation. He then goes on an all India tour, and challenges every opponent in his times, and converts him to his fold.


namaste!
we are way off topic here but I would just like to say that we are not all Shankara! Shankara had a task to accomplish when people of india had stooped the vedic culture to a low point and buddhist missionaries were taking over.



Vedantins never beleived in ignoring the ignorants, but rather teaching them the truth in the vedas.

fair enough...so back to the point...where does it say in the vedas that vishnu is the incarnation of krishna of gokul? I am just curious.



ISKCON and Dvaita belong to that category, and actually they are not intoerant towards others, but they think they are "saving" others.

I see...seems that you have changed your opinion on this since our discussions with another devottee on yahoo group eh? :naughty:



Thus, preaching, learning and discussions are very important for vedantins.


So if that is so then we must also accept the christian missionary that comes to save your soul and shouldn't get all bent out of shape when he walks away (driven away) saying in frustration "I will pray for you" ...

Why do you oppose the christian missionary then? What's the difference between a christian missionary and a iskcon missionary?

[Singhi Kaya]

The recently arrived (and now banned) Bhava Dasa made a few posts that merely asked questions of C.Smith, and then suggested the opinion of his Guru that:

This perspective can be justified, and it would be interesting to hear such an explanation from a learned member of ISKCON.


If this is so, perhaps this “Hindu Dharma” forum should not have the sub-topic “ISKCON” displayed under “God in Hindu Dharma”. Innocent devotees will only be tricked into thinking that this forum has at least some sympathy for their particular brand of “Sanatana Dharma”.


How is this at all relevant to the single substantive post made by Bhava Dasa?



And then, Bhavadasa supplied a hint toward the explanation of his earlier comment:


If Bhavadasa’s views are not “mainstream Hindu”, so what? C.Smith and Bhavadasa were both talking about ISKCON, and Bhavadasa has already declared a 30+ year relationship with ISKCON.


Can the moderators please explain what is meant by “preaching”, and how Bhavadasa can reasonably be accused of “preaching” here?


I am unable to understand this claim of “repetition”, and Bhavadasa has had little chance to respond with any “scriptural back-up” before being shouted down and banned from the forum!



I agree, and I have also never encountered a group of “Hindus” who were so quick to pass judgment on others! :(



And I repeat: Before I am banned again, can the moderators please explain what is meant by “preaching”?


Based on recent actions by the HDF moderators, I find this difficult to believe!

I agree with you whole heartedly on this one sarabhange ji.

As I have said many times before that mods here have a pre-set idea on hinduism and they are not only qucik to pass judgement on others but also quick to use their postion on this site.

Maybe ISKCON is like chiristianity. But who the hell are you guys to take judgement on that and decide that it is wrong???

I think fascism is infinitely worse than preaching and I see shades of fascism here in this forum now and then. This is shameful that this new site with so less members is already a boiling melting pot. There have been great informative posting by certain posters like Sarabhanga, Arjuna, Truthseeker, Atanu Banerjee, Ramkish, Ram etc - and then there have been quite a few serious feuds one even involving the most neutral personality in the site as well.

Defn of preaching: Any philosophy which contradicts the mods idea of hinduism. The person in question is just explaining his pont of view of God like all of us, but since it doesn't fit with mod idea of hinduism it becomes preaching. The persons gets banned or insulted.

I have a better word for it - FASCISM

[Sudarshan]

we are way off topic here but I would just like to say that we are not all Shankara! Shankara had a task to accomplish when people of india had stooped the vedic culture to a low point and buddhist missionaries were taking over.


But this is exactly the charge on Shankara by others - Vaishnavite charge on Shankara is that he just reestablished Buddhism in his personal way and imposed it on vedanta. So unless you know a lot how will you verify this? If the Vaishnavas are correct, dont they have the "right" to establish the correct vedic religion instead of just another version of Buddhsim? How does one judge this? The accusation is that the Mayavada doctrine of Shankara is a pure copy from Buddhism, and advaita's model of three tier reality is not based on vedanta but on Buddhist idea of three tiers of reality. If Mayavada is not vedanta, then it means Absolutism is false, and the message of vedas is Theism or the concept of a personal God. If this is indeed the case, shouldn't we reestablish the Thesitic vedanta? Atleast those who thought so opposed advaita for preaching Mayavada, which is based on Buddhism.

Not only Vaishnavas, but even other advaitins like Vishnuswami, Vijnanabikshu and Vallabha have accused Shankara of being a Buddhist in disguise. Whether his Mayavada was just for absorbing Buddhism or whether it was his actual doctrine is another topic of discussion.




fair enough...so back to the point...where does it say in the vedas that vishnu is the incarnation of krishna of gokul? I am just curious.


Vedas do not say that, if it did, such a view would have been accepted long before ISKCON. ISKCON is tracing its beleifs to some verses in BG and Bhagavatam.

Take, for example:

I am the source of everything. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotion and worship Me with all their hearts. (10.8)

How do you want to interpret these words of Krishna - the "I" and "everything"? ISKCON says that I is Krishna and all includes Vishnu and others. Vaishnavas say that I is Vishnu( as Krishna) and everything includes other Gods like Shiva and the world. Advaitins say that "I" means just God (not Krishna in specific) and everything means the world.

So the right interpretations assume how the Gita as a whole is interpreted and how such a position is supported by other portions on the scripture. ISKCON's position may not passeth as there is no proof of Krishna outside the Gita. So it depends on how they can prove it _ I am not sure how they do it, but they have a very huge document that attempts that known as krishnasandharbha.




I see...seems that you have changed your opinion on this since our discussions with another devottee on yahoo group eh? :naughty:


Hehe, yeah, learn to be forgiving to all - why should we hate ISKCON and its followers just because they believe differently?





So if that is so then we must also accept the christian missionary that comes to save your soul and shouldn't get all bent out of shape when he walks away (driven away) saying in frustration "I will pray for you" ...


Ask him to convinve you that his reliigon is better than yours. Mere reading of the bible proves that it is just a myth and has nothing to offer for the followers of the vedas.



Why do you oppose the christian missionary then? What's the difference between a christian missionary and a iskcon missionary?

ISKCON is far superior as far as a Hindu is concerned because it is based on vedas, atleast that is what they claim. They are only preaching the religion of Krishna and as Hindus we must support them, and at the same time we must not let them attack other Hindus. In former days, establishing and preaching was purely linked to the abilities of the acharya and his skills in winning arguments. ISKCON had no chance at all to prevail in medieval India because it was not based on standard commentaries. Today it is a diff world and all you need is money power and brainwashing power.

[satay]

Hehe, yeah, learn to be forgiving to all - why should we hate ISKCON and its followers just because they believe differently?


just so that it is clear to all readers of the forum...I have never hated ISKCON and even christianity! I am not against these organizations!! I am simply voicing my opinion on the 'missionary nonsense'...world doesn't need more shove it down your throat nonsense no matter what they are selling a tyrant god or bhagwan!
Bhagwan can do his selling for himself. I refuse to do it for him...if this means he will throw me in hell that's his business and he has to live it that decision.



ISKCON is far superior as far as a Hindu is concerned because it is based on vedas, atleast that is what they claim. They are only preaching the religion of Krishna and as Hindus we must support them, and at the same time we must not let them attack other Hindus.

I appreciate praphupada's teachings and his business like attitude to get things done... I just don't support some devottees' attitude that go around 'saving souls'.

Shri prabupada warned against imitation! and yet all I see with the devotees is imitation of him.

Also I guess ISKCON is 'far superior' since it calls krishna the father of 'jesus' and implies that other hindu trinity god (shiva) is a devotee asking for mukti and I have also heard a lecture in hindi that implies that shiva is a nakur of vishnu among other gods like indra etc.! Amazing!!

Yeah...as a hindu I should support such nonsense what else is new? We have been doing it for centuries and so we should continue the tradition of accepting all nonsense eh?
:rolleyes:

[Sudarshan]

Also I guess ISKCON is 'far superior' since it calls krishna the father of 'jesus' and implies that other hindu trinity god (shiva) is a devotee asking for mukti and I have also heard a lecture in hindi that implies that shiva is a nakur of vishnu among other gods like indra etc.! Amazing!!

Yeah...as a hindu I should support such nonsense what else is new? We have been doing it for centuries and so we should continue the tradition of accepting all nonsense eh?
:rolleyes:

:D


No, Iskcon's Shiva is not a soul in bondage. Infact, Iskcon's view on Shiva is much better than other Vaishnavas. This "dahi Vishnu" is not clearly accepted by other Vaishnava traditions.

In Dvaita, Shiva is ranked 5th in the order of hierarchy of Gods. And they think that by praying to Shiva, they get more Bhakti towards Vishnu, and hence they dont belittle Shiva, though it may appeas so for others. You have to view a religion from its scope, not from your scope.

In Srivaishnavism, Shiva has absolutely no place in worship, and is to be totally ignored and all Gods other than Vishnu are to complelely ignored. Nothing in it states that these Gods must be ridiculed. If people do it, they are sinning. Shiva is part and parcel of Narayana, and cannot be insulted by any Srivaishnava.

Satay, no Vaishnava tradition treats Shiva as naukar or anything like that - that is a political game played by people who want to brainwash people. The problem is those who want to preach have to find a need to do so - they simply start claiming that you are headed for hell without heeding their advice. Sounds familiar?

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

Sudarshan, your comments are actually becoming extremely annoying to me. I have asked you about three or four times to back up your claims with SCRIPTURES. Yet you keep repeating yourself over and over saying that I am not accepting what you say, blah, blah, blah. For once please get it through your head, I AM NOT ASKING FOR QUOTES FROM GURUS OR ACHARYAS. What part of this DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? I rejected your quotes/references from various gurus/acharyas NOT because I disagreed with such gurus/acharyas, but because I ASKED YOU FOR SCRIPTURES NOT GURU QUOTES. Please learn how to read, thanks. ~BYS~

P.S. Please stop putting words in my mouth. If you cannot answer my questions at least stop repeating yourself with irrelevant banter.

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

Sudarshan, you continue to dodge the points I make and continue to take this thread off-topic. Please stop. I reviewed some of your recent responses to my posts and most of them had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. It appears you are trolling and if you cannot at least keep your replies consistent with what I am asking or saying and at least answer the questions on topic without irrelevant banter and accusations, please quit posting in this thread. ~BYS~

Anyone else here can clearly see what I asked and what I said and that your responses were just trying to change the subject.

[satay]

Defn of preaching: Any philosophy which contradicts the mods idea of hinduism. The person in question is just explaining his pont of view of God like all of us, but since it doesn't fit with mod idea of hinduism it becomes preaching. The persons gets banned or insulted.

I have a better word for it - FASCISM

namaste
Thanks for the new definition. First, I wanted to make clear that there are no "mods" here there is only 'admin' here that is me.

I banned bhava and though I don't need to give anyone any explanation because I respect all the members here I have given already explanations of why he was banned. If you do not agree with me please continue in feedback forum. As far as that specific case, I am not going to keep repeating myself.

Now to your defn. it doesn't make sense to me. If I follow your defn. then everyone should be banned on this forum since no "one" person on this forum has the same personal philosophy on hinduism as mine. Heck, you can't sit there and claim to know what my personal philosophy on hinduism is since I have never talked about it in detail!

And why does everyone keep getting bent out of shape when mods or admin takes action? Aren't the site rules clear enough or should I get them translated in sanskrit?:Cool:

Finally, the forum is a free internet resource to you guys but I am paying for it from my pocket. I ask for nothing in return, heck I even don't allow ads on this forum to keep it a nice clean place to visit...is it so much to ask of the members to just follow 6 simple rules that are common sense to begin with?

Why does everyone end up saying..."I am leaving the forum or if you don't do this and that I will leave the forum" With all due respect to all members...the door is wide open! If someone wants to leave because they don't like the rules or don't agree with my goal to keep the forum clean of nonsense or for whatever other reason...with all due respect please leave and I will not ask you to stay. It's all out of my control anyway...

thanks!

[satay]

कर्मण्यकर्म यः पश्येदकर्मणि च कर्म यः ।
स बुद्धिमान्मनुष्येषु स युक्तः कृत्स्नकर्मकृत् ॥

namste,

Here is swami prabupada's purport and translation.
"
TRANSLATION

One who sees inaction in action, and action in inaction, is intelligent among men, and he is in the transcendental position, although engaged in all sorts of activities.
PURPORT

A person acting in Krsna consciousness is naturally free from the bonds of karma. His activities are all performed for Krsna; therefore he does not enjoy or suffer any of the effects of work. Consequently he is intelligent in human society, even though he is engaged in all sorts of activities for Krsna. Akarma means without reaction to work. The impersonalist ceases fruitive activities out of fear, so that the resultant action may not be a stumbling block on the path of self-realization, but the personalist knows rightly his position as the eternal servitor of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore he engages himself in the activities of Krsna consciousness. Because everything is done for Krsna, he enjoys only transcendental happiness in the discharge of this service. Those who are engaged in this process are known to be without desire for personal sense gratification. The sense of eternal servitorship to Krsna makes one immune to all sorts of reactionary elements of work.
"
Could you please explain what your purpose was of quoting this shloka? I completely missed your point and I do not claim to be 'intelligent' among men.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Satay,

The words came to mind automatically and I posted them in an equally spontaneous manner. I was, however, responding mainly to your comment about Advaitins and “action” vs. “inaction”.

Most advaita gurus follow the common sense rule of : "Ignore the ignorants!" and have no interest in proving or convincing others as they understand it is due to the other person's karma that he is not able to grasp the idea.
“He who sees inaction in action, and action in inaction, is wise among men; he is a Yogin, who has performed all actions.”

[Sudarshan]

Sudarshan, you continue to dodge the points I make and continue to take this thread off-topic. Please stop. I reviewed some of your recent responses to my posts and most of them had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. It appears you are trolling and if you cannot at least keep your replies consistent with what I am asking or saying and at least answer the questions on topic without irrelevant banter and accusations, please quit posting in this thread. ~BYS~

Anyone else here can clearly see what I asked and what I said and that your responses were just trying to change the subject.

Which points do you want a scriptural reference for?

Krishna is the source for Vishnu:

"I am the source of everything. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotion and worship Me with all their hearts." ( BG 10.8)

If you take "I" to be Krishna instead of Vishnu, then this could be interpreted to say that Vishnu is an incarnation of Krishna. Due to the lack of such evidence outside the Gita, it is not generally accepted by others.

"Whoever knows Me as the supreme being, without doubting, is the
knower of everything. He therefore engages himself in complete devotion to Me, O son
of Bharata." ( 15.18)

This is the most confidential part of the Vedic scriptures, O sinless one, and it is disclosed
now by Me. Whoever understands this will become wise, and his endeavors will know
perfection.. (15.19)

If you interpret these the ISKCON way, then the sole objective of the vedas is to know Krishna, who is the cause of all causes.

O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread. (7.7)

These are a few quotes for you to show that Krishna is indeed the highest and the most exalted of all. Whether you want to treat these passages as relating to Krishna in specific or it relates to Vishnu is entirely upto you.

You have follow the view of one Acharya in order to understand scripture. Please tell me which Acharya you follow and I will get you his own reconciliation of the scripture. If you have no one, then you should write your own commentaries and satisfy yourself that your own views are correct. If you are an advaitin, you have to be a follower of Shankara in which case Krishna should be read as Vishnu. If you are a follower of other advaitins like Vallabha, then these passages refer diretcly to Krishna and not Vishnu. If your guru is some modern swami who does not follow a tradition, I am afraid I cannot give you any convincing evidence for obvious reasons.

What else is that for which you need a scriptural evidence?

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

Defn of preaching: Any philosophy which contradicts the mods idea of hinduism. The person in question is just explaining his pont of view of God like all of us, but since it doesn't fit with mod idea of hinduism it becomes preaching. The persons gets banned or insulted.

I have a better word for it - FASCISM

You have had quite a history on this board of misbehavior noticed by me as well as several other people. Therefore, your credibility is very low when you make statements such as this. ~BYS~

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

Which points do you want a scriptural reference for?

Again, another example of the inability to have any sort of reading comprehension.



Krishna is the source for Vishnu:

"I am the source of everything. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotion and worship Me with all their hearts." ( BG 10.8)

If you take "I" to be Krishna instead of Vishnu, then this could be interpreted to say that Vishnu is an incarnation of Krishna. Due to the lack of such evidence outside the Gita, it is not generally accepted by others.

"Whoever knows Me as the supreme being, without doubting, is the
knower of everything. He therefore engages himself in complete devotion to Me, O son
of Bharata." ( 15.18)

This is the most confidential part of the Vedic scriptures, O sinless one, and it is disclosed
now by Me. Whoever understands this will become wise, and his endeavors will know
perfection.. (15.19)

If you interpret these the ISKCON way, then the sole objective of the vedas is to know Krishna, who is the cause of all causes.

O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread. (7.7)

These are a few quotes for you to show that Krishna is indeed the highest and the most exalted of all. Whether you want to treat these passages as relating to Krishna in specific or it relates to Vishnu is entirely upto you.


None of these quotes prove your point. Each shloka keeps using the term "me" but none of them define who the "me" is. Could be Krishna in his form of Krishna. Could be Vishnu in the incarnation of Krishna. Could be infinite Brahman in the form of Krishna. Thanks.



You have follow the view of one Acharya in order to understand scripture.


No, I don't. Don't tell me what I need to follow or what I am or am not capable of understanding.



Please tell me which Acharya you follow and I will get you his own reconciliation of the scripture. If you have no one, then you should write your own commentaries and satisfy yourself that your own views are correct.


It is not your business who I follow or if I follow anyone especially with such judgmental attitudes.



If you are an advaitin, you have to be a follower of Shankara in which case Krishna should be read as Vishnu.


Again, DO NOT tell me who I must follow or what I must believe. Understand?



If you are a follower of other advaitins like Vallabha, then these passages refer diretcly to Krishna and not Vishnu.


You just contradicted yourself. I'm not sure why you are so interested in wasting time discussing topics with me that I am no longer interested in discussing. Everything you have said is off-topic. The original point made was that Bhava dasa should either state clearly that his views are from ISKCON or at least back up his claims with scripture. I never even asked for the scriptures. I simply made the point that Bhava dasa should do one or the other for clarity and to avoid flames. I am not sure where and how and why you got involved. No where was the purpose of my comments about proving or disproving anything with scriptures. The whole argument was that Bhava dasa should either make it clear that his views (which I disagree with) are simply ISKCON views (which would require no further discussion) or that his views were indeed applied to all and thus should back them up with proper references (which would bring about a discussion). Apparently you cannot read, have no comprehension skills, and are unable to figure out when enough is enough.



If your guru is some modern swami who does not follow a tradition, I am afraid I cannot give you any convincing evidence for obvious reasons.

What else is that for which you need a scriptural evidence?

I never asked you to convince me of anything. Again, you don't know how to follow a basic conversation. Please take a hint that you are not discussing anything on topic and are continuing to become annoying with irrelevant and argumentive banter that I never had any interest in reading in the first place. The topic had to do with Bhava dasa making his viewpoints clear. Nothing you have said in any of your posts has anything to do with what I or Bhava dasa were discussing. Please STOP trolling. ~BYS~

[Sudarshan]

None of these quotes prove your point. Each shloka keeps using the term "me" but none of them define who the "me" is. Could be Krishna in his form of Krishna. Could be Vishnu in the incarnation of Krishna. Could be infinite Brahman in the form of Krishna. Thanks.


The "me" is Krishna only, which is Vishnu. You are free to prove otherwise. Even according to Adi Shankara it is nothing else. If you think it is Shiva or something else, well, it has rejected even by Shankara( note his commentary on 6.47 and 7.17 which rules out such possibilities), so all you have is some personal opinion to bank upon.(due to "blind faith"). If you dont accept the views of any traditional Acharya, on what grounds did you oppose Bhava Dasa? Answer: Because his views were against your own personal views born of blind faith NOTHING ELSE.

[Singhi Kaya]

You have had quite a history on this board of misbehavior noticed by me as well as several other people. Therefore, your credibility is very low when you make statements such as this. ~BYS~

Thanks for reminding me and other's of my credibilty.

But I try not to play this line.

[Singhi Kaya]

namaste
Thanks for the new definition.
welcome


First, I wanted to make clear that there are no "mods" here there is only 'admin' here that is me.
OK


I banned bhava and though I don't need to give anyone any explanation because I respect all the members here I have given already explanations of why he was banned. If you do not agree with me please continue in feedback forum. As far as that specific case, I am not going to keep repeating myself.
I was not demanding an explanation (which you had already provided, I agree), merely observing a point. This has already been moved to feedback.


Now to your defn. it doesn't make sense to me. If I follow your defn. then everyone should be banned on this forum since no "one" person on this forum has the same personal philosophy on hinduism as mine. Heck, you can't sit there and claim to know what my personal philosophy on hinduism is since I have never talked about it in detail!
I don't know your personal philosophy, but I have seen your opposition to ISKCON "preaching" which is surely a part of your ideology. And IMHO is this "preaching" is a part of ISKCON philosophy and lingua-franca. So I don't find it logical to ban people because of voicing their philosophy in appropriate section. By your philosophy I oviosly meant this "anti-preaching" stance nothing more. No need to eterpolate beyond that and get exited.


And why does everyone keep getting bent out of shape when mods or admin takes action? Aren't the site rules clear enough or should I get them translated in sanskrit?:Cool:
I think people are just finding some actions too harsh and not very logical. I hope you give due consideration to their concern ~ but what action to take is oviously in your hands.


Finally, the forum is a free internet resource to you guys but I am paying for it from my pocket. I ask for nothing in return, heck I even don't allow ads on this forum to keep it a nice clean place to visit...is it so much to ask of the members to just follow 6 simple rules that are common sense to begin with?
Please don't get emotional here. I think I personally have thanked you more than once for the work you have been doing. If it cheers you up I can do it again, but I think you don't require cheering from a few unknown hindu to continue your work. This surely is a karma yoga for you, there is no need to consider other's openion more than looking at it logically.

On cost, I have seen buddhist forums where donations are allowed. I think in future you can make option for voluntary donations. I think it is a nice way to share the burden and I expect many people here would be passionate to continue this site working at the best shape.


Why does everyone end up saying..."I am leaving the forum or if you don't do this and that I will leave the forum" With all due respect to all members...the door is wide open! If someone wants to leave because they don't like the rules or don't agree with my goal to keep the forum clean of nonsense or for whatever other reason...with all due respect please leave and I will not ask you to stay. It's all out of my control anyway...

thanks!

I agree on this one. This is mere show of threat doesn't mean much. I was agitated once early on Islam issue and did a similar show-off which was not good on my part. But I also made a formal request to remove my ID before shwing off in public. If someone want's to leave pls do so without making a big deal out of it.


Thanks again for your work...but I stand back on my comment that this banning stuff and preaching principle is way to harsh and illogical.

Regards--
S

[Sudarshan]

No, I don't. Don't tell me what I need to follow or what I am or am not capable of understanding.

It is not your business who I follow or if I follow anyone especially with such judgmental attitudes.

Again, DO NOT tell me who I must follow or what I must believe. Understand?



I respect your freewill. You are free to follow whatever your blind faith allows you to.

But dont enter into a discussion with others without clarifying your own beleif system, nor do you have any rights to question others when your own beleifs are hanging in the air without any basis.

I will never have any debates with people who dont identify themselves to be from some tradition and guru or have an unconventional beleif- like BYS, TruthSeeker, Arjuna etc. There is no common grounds for discussion with these guys. If you are an advaitin then you must follow Shankara, else how do I know what to answer you? If you beleifs keep jumping every moment then there is absolutely no room for discussion.

If you beleive in "everything" then you have no reasons to complain against anybody else like you do here. If you do haave some fixed and solid beleifs, and then we can examine how rational you are.;)

[satay]

I don't know your personal philosophy, but I have seen your opposition to ISKCON "preaching" which is surely a part of your ideology. And IMHO is this "preaching" is a part of ISKCON philosophy and lingua-franca. So I don't find it logical to ban people because of voicing their philosophy in appropriate section. By your philosophy I oviosly meant this "anti-preaching" stance nothing more. No need to eterpolate beyond that and get exited.


I think there is a misunderstanding here. I am against the "preaching" aspect of "any" religion including hinduism. I think this has to be clear because I have mentioned it a several times already. The other part specific to "ISKCON" preaching is where the misunderstanding is...I had reqested Bhava Dasa to put like a disclaimer or something like that when he made statemens like Krishna of gita is higher than vishnu and not an incarnation (as he himself explains in gita!) that is not the traditional hindu view. All I wanted him to do was to say, "this is the view of my guru or this is the view of ISKCON." C.Smith is looking for information on Hinduism and I think it would have been an honest thing for bhava dasa to do to say that his views are 'iskcon' views and not traditional hindu views (right or wrong that was irrelvant at that point). That's all I was asking! Plus his posts were breaking other rules and I had already sent him a note about that to which he replied agitated and annoyed and told me that he will leave. So I just made it easier for him not to come back and get distracted...I did him a favour as he needs to focus more on krsna conciousness and there are plenty of places where preaching 'is' allowed.




I think people are just finding some actions too harsh and not very logical. I hope you give due consideration to their concern ~ but what action to take is oviously in your hands.

okay. I am cool with that.



Please don't get emotional here.

First of all, I was not 'getting' anything let alone emotional! Secondly, what's wrong with getting emotional? Is there something wrong?



I think I personally have thanked you more than once for the work you have been doing. If it cheers you up I can do it again, but I think you don't require cheering from a few unknown hindu to continue your work. This surely is a karma yoga for you, there is no need to consider other's openion more than looking at it logically.

I am not doing this for vanity and I think that is already clear, if it wasn't it should be clear now.

I am just trying to have a place for hindus where we can discuss stuff about our own religions because we keep getting hit on the friggin' head with bible and koran all the time and we sit there without knowing what the heck our own religion is about! Then on top of that even two hindus can not seem to agree on the basic points anywhere! How do we plan to fight the aggression when we can't even get together on the basic principles of our own religion and worse yet don't even know what they are! I have seen this type of thing and people all over the net...one hindu says something in response to a chrisitan attack and another one comes along and contradicts the first hindu then they keep fighting between each other and what their guru and sampardaya or org teaches and the missionary sits there and laughs. Or worse yet, what about people like C.smith...where is he supposed to get his information??



On cost, I have seen buddhist forums where donations are allowed. I think in future you can make option for voluntary donations. I think it is a nice way to share the burden and I expect many people here would be passionate to continue this site working at the best shape.

Sorry, I am not sure why I mentioned the cost ( I must have got emotional!!)...bhagwan has started this and he will continue it through me if there is a need...cost is not an issue...



Thanks again for your work...but I stand back on my comment that this banning stuff and preaching principle is way to harsh and illogical.

As explained earlier, I simply wanted bhava to say that his comments are ISKCON view and that's it. I know c.smith knew that but I just wanted bhava to say it that way if another reader reads the forum they won't be confused about it...our religion is already too complex...do we need to make it more complex for the vistors? (it's a rehotrical question)

[satay]

I respect your freewill. You are free to follow whatever your blind faith allows you to.

But dont enter into a discussion with others without clarifying your own beleif system, nor do you have any rights to question others when your own beleifs are hanging in the air without any basis.

I will never have any debates with people who dont identify themselves to be from some tradition and guru or have an unconventional beleif- like BYS, TruthSeeker, Arjuna etc. There is no common grounds for discussion with these guys. If you are an advaitin then you must follow Shankara, else how do I know what to answer you? If you beleifs keep jumping every moment then there is absolutely no room for discussion.

If you beleive in "everything" then you have no reasons to complain against anybody else like you do here. If you do haave some fixed and solid beleifs, and then we can examine how rational you are.;)

Your post reminds me of Selwyn at CF because he won't have a conversation with Paul G. because Paul refused to define his views.

All this "must" follow "must" do "have to do" kind of nonsense belongs in adharmic religions don't you think?

[Sudarshan]

Your post reminds me of Selwyn at CF because he won't have a conversation with Paul G. because Paul refused to define his views.

All this "must" follow "must" do "have to do" kind of nonsense belongs in adharmic religions don't you think?

Do you understand why an opponent in a debate has to declare his position? Because you cannot fight in the open ground with an enemy hiding somehere in the trees and shooting at you. Unknown or undeclared position of the rival means only he will be shooting you down and you have nothing of his weakness to fight with. In classical debates, if you deviate from your Acharya in essentials you are considered unfit for a discussion. And people who declare no Acharya are simply thrown out unless he has written commentaries on the shruti.

If I am arguing with an advaitin, and I quote Shankara the opponent indeed has to oblige. If he argues against it he is considered lost - it means shooting oneself down.:rolleyes:

I remember Paul G and Selwyn. That clever Paul, he was as shrewed as the "Paul" of chritianity and rained arrows on Selwyn while himself hiding in the trees.:D

[Sudarshan]

I am just trying to have a place for hindus where we can discuss stuff about our own religions because we keep getting hit on the friggin' head with bible and koran all the time and we sit there without knowing what the heck our own religion is about! Then on top of that even two hindus can not seem to agree on the basic points anywhere! How do we plan to fight the aggression when we can't even get together on the basic principles of our own religion and worse yet don't even know what they are! I have seen this type of thing and people all over the net...one hindu says something in response to a chrisitan attack and another one comes along and contradicts the first hindu then they keep fighting between each other and what their guru and sampardaya or org teaches and the missionary sits there and laughs. Or worse yet, what about people like C.smith...where is he supposed to get his information??


Find the common link between all Hindus ( in the midst of all fighting). I beleive Christians have such a link in Jesus Christ. The aggression can be fought collectively with this common link.

And, the infighting in Hinduism is not such a big deal. Haven't we see Christians calling each other a kaffiir and making a laughing stock of themselves? Have you forgotten icxn, arunma, karma2grace( some of these are famous, err infamous at Hindunet!) etc and all these ppl fighting each other?

[Singhi Kaya]

Find the common link between all Hindus ( in the midst of all fighting). I beleive Christians have such a link in Jesus Christ. The aggression can be fought collectively with this common link.

And, the infighting in Hinduism is not such a big deal. Haven't we see Christians calling each other a kaffiir and making a laughing stock of themselves? Have you forgotten icxn, arunma, karma2grace( some of these are famous, err infamous at Hindunet!) etc and all these ppl fighting each other?

Infighting is not a big deal as long we are united against the common enemies ~ historically we haven't done that.

Common link for hinduism?? It is that hinduism has tought not to tolerate demons and their ideologies. Be it Vishnu thorugh his avatars or Devi through her many forms ~ they always slay demons.

[ramkish42]

All this "must" follow "must" do "have to do" kind of nonsense belongs in adharmic religions don't you think?

Sorry at first replying to a message not intended for me.

However, I would like to point out one thing

As your intention goes, you would like to chart out basic principles - fundamental principles underlying Hinduism

If everyone decides not to follow, must not do, no reason indicates that I have to do etc, then practically it goes into infinite regression, probably I might have 5 theories to explain what is god right under the umbrella of Hinduism, how do we account and come to conclusion what is general hinduism - (probably based on my logical sense of presenting setting aside what is truth)

In India, we do get a chat eating material called "Mixture", it is nothing but mixture of many materials. In what proportion I mix and what I mix is left to the person who mixes it. IF one chooses not to make Sev etc, then he will be making one stuff for himself, god only knows what it could be, when such ideas percolates down the generations, what we will be having is mixture of everything at everywhere.

Apt example is Varna - We had recognised only 4+1 varna, but today only in Tamilnadu we have precisely 499 non Forward Caste listings available in state list - Every one preferred to be separate, down the line generations mixed, few retained their individuality, as a result, what we have 499 non FCs.

What I suggest, let us reduce this down to minimum - say max of 10 philosophies - for this we need to follow, must do and must have to do what exists or we should be someone great like Adisankaracharya and Shrimad Ramanuja (and other similar gurus - in short 5 great perceptors) to form a new sect

Look at what we have now

Vaishnavism has 5 sects
Advaita forms a separate category
Kashmiri Shaivism as per Arjuna's statement has 4 sects
When other Shaivism taken into account - I am not sure what to put
Other religions like Shakta - with division like Vamachara and Dakshinachara, Kaumara
Independant religions like Bhaskara

All together we get near about a quarter century counts of philosophy - few points accepted many points negated

If one does not ascribe to a particular philosophy, how do we take "General Hindu View" forward without knowing what to arrive at. I hope you know Ad Nuemerum is fallacy. We cannot decide a fact based on how many people follow it.

Request you to consider this also