Trying to find my place within the Hindu religion

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

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 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. Otherwise, if you are asserting that this view applies to all of Sanatana Dharma, I ask that you please back up your claims with references from the scriptures. As to Krishna being the eighth incarnation of Vishnu, I do remember reading this in the scriptures and I believe it was in the Vishnu Purana.

Lord Siva is most compassionate, and is considered the topmost Vaisnava. Actually, He is Visnu transformed, just like milk is transformed into yogurt—“Dahi-Visnu.“

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.

Anyway, interesting discussion we have here. Haribol. ~BYS~

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

namaste Csmith,
If I were you, I would read the ISKCON stuff but then explore the hindu view points as well. Go to a library and pick up some books written by some indian authors. ISKCON view of 'all is krshna' is the same as the christian view of 'if you don't accpet jesus you are doomed' this is not the hindu view. If you are interested in hinduism look in the right places.

ISKCONites do not identify themselves as hindus (well some do when it is convienent for them)!

Agreed. I find many of the rituals such as the aartis, chanting, etc. useful and valuable. However, I believe some of the philosophy is more counter-productive than what it is aiming at producing. I don't believe one pursuing a spritual path needs to hear a constant sales pitch of "keep chanting...just focus on krishna...no alcohol, sex, gambling, etc." Reminds me of the Christian mantra of drugs and rock-and-roll music. Anyone pursuing a spiritual path obviously needs some kind of a positive foundation and a belief system about what is good and bad for you. However, nodoby needs a constant sales pitch of thou and thou shalt not. Likewise, I understand what their four regulative principles are and that the chanting and Krishna aartis are a big part of their belief system. Regardless, in my experiences this is pretty much all they ever discuss. After people have heard hundreds of lectures about the same thing, they pretty much get tired of it and look for something else. I would recommend that C.Smith "shop around" and try out many Hindu schools before just jumping into the first one (in this case ISKCON). ~BYS~

[Sudarshan]

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

The relitives and friends of a famous actor know who he is behind the costum--they know how others see him as well. They also appreciate him in his different roles, but have a particular preferance to see him in his more personal feature, as their friend, son, or lover. Can you be a friend, parent, or lover to Visnu? No. Visnu relationship is dasya-rasa only.

Others who are in awe and reverence see him according to their relationship, but its not the only relationship, and not the one that brings him the most pleasure and satisfaction.

It is a preference of rasa.

Is there any pramANA for the concept of rasa? Can you trace this to the canonical upanishads or Bhagavad Gita?

It is a thorough misunderstanding that Vishnu relationship is dasya rasa only. What is the proof for this? One can love Vishnu, one can treat him as friend etc. Infact, I treat Vishnu only as friend and not as master - are you suggesting that my friendship would be turned down unless it is towards Krishna?

Srivaishnavism says that the soul is of the nature of pure consciousness, and is omniscient like Bhagavan. It lacks nothing and can enjoy anything it wants. There are no limitations in mukti, which means it can enjoy any rasa. The seSha-seShi bhava is only to show that the soul dervies its power from God and it does not mean any master-slave relationship.

[Sudarshan]

Agreed. I find many of the rituals such as the aartis, chanting, etc. useful and valuable. However, I believe some of the philosophy is more counter-productive than what it is aiming at producing. I don't believe one pursuing a spritual path needs to hear a constant sales pitch of "keep chanting...just focus on krishna...no alcohol, sex, gambling, etc." Reminds me of the Christian mantra of drugs and rock-and-roll music. Anyone pursuing a spiritual path obviously needs some kind of a positive foundation and a belief system about what is good and bad for you. However, nodoby needs a constant sales pitch of thou and thou shalt not. Likewise, I understand what their four regulative principles are and that the chanting and Krishna aartis are a big part of their belief system. Regardless, in my experiences this is pretty much all they ever discuss. After people have heard hundreds of lectures about the same thing, they pretty much get tired of it and look for something else. I would recommend that C.Smith "shop around" and try out many Hindu schools before just jumping into the first one (in this case ISKCON). ~BYS~

My issues with ISKCON are purely with its somewhat unorthodox philosophical position. But it is a highly spiritual one as far as I can see, and its insistance on good morals and strict Vaishnava discipline is commendable. People will follow discipline only when they are repeatedly encouraged - "chant,focus on Krishna, no alcohol, sex, gamling" etc are all good ones isnt' it?

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

Anyway...God is not a Hindu, and neither are you.

It is odd that you say that when in a previous post, you mentioned that Shiva is a Vaishnava which is highly offensive to the over 100 million Shaivites in the world. Since Vaishnavism is a Hindu school, you are at least stating that Shiva, an avatar of God, is a Hindu yet now you say God is not a Hindu. I would try to keep some sort of consistency. Logic tells me that God or any form of God is not limited to the schools of mankind many of which are man-made to begin with.

Furthermore, the books that ISKCON devotees study, are written by an "Indian" author. He is my diksa guru for over 30 years. Where do you get your information?

You must be referring to Prabhupada. So you must have met him in his last years. That is interesting. That must have a profound impact on your life. It is certainly not every day that someone shows up from India on a ship with virtually no money and ends up creating thousands of temples and translating/writing hundreds of books.

As to Satay's remark, I believe he was referring to what it feels like when getting pitched by many ISKCONites about their beliefs but he can explain himself. It is my opinion also that often the way ISKCON preachers push "Krishna" it sounds very similar to the way Christian preachers push "Jesus."

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.

I hate to say it, but it sounded more like preaching than a discussion. ~BYS~

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

Bhava dasa, you keep repeating yourself without backing up anything you say with scriptures. Please understand that Hindus do not accept Krishna as higher than Vishnu. Prabhupada said that ISKCON is not a Hindu organization so you shouldn't be telling Hindus what to believe when you are believing in something that is not Hindu. ~BYS~

[c.smith]

Whoa - the heated debate around all of this doesn't answer my original queries. Should I start another thread or will someone step up to the plate and offer some insight? I value all opinion.

Regards,

Clay

[Singhi Kaya]

Whoa - the heated debate around all of this doesn't answer my original queries. Should I start another thread or will someone step up to the plate and offer some insight? I value all opinion.

Regards,

Clay

I think your question has been answered by some, but you have to search through the posts