कर्मण्यकर्म यः पश्येदकर्मणि च कर्म यः ।
स बुद्धिमान्मनुष्येषु स युक्तः कृत्स्नकर्मकृत् ॥
Avadhuta
कर्मण्यकर्म यः पश्येदकर्मणि च कर्म यः ।
स बुद्धिमान्मनुष्येषु स युक्तः कृत्स्नकर्मकृत् ॥
New Member
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~Originally Posted by satay
New Member
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~
Dharma Guardian
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.
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.
Guard your Dharma, Burn the Myth, Promote the Truth, Crush the superstition.
Dharma Guardian
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)
Guard your Dharma, Burn the Myth, Promote the Truth, Crush the superstition.
Dharma Guardian
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.
Guard your Dharma, Burn the Myth, Promote the Truth, Crush the superstition.
In your seva...
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.
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.Vedantins never beleived in ignoring the ignorants, but rather teaching them the truth in the vedas.
I see...seems that you have changed your opinion on this since our discussions with another devottee on yahoo group eh?ISKCON and Dvaita belong to that category, and actually they are not intoerant towards others, but they think they are "saving" others.
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" ...Thus, preaching, learning and discussions are very important for vedantins.
Why do you oppose the christian missionary then? What's the difference between a christian missionary and a iskcon missionary?
satay
Banned
I agree with you whole heartedly on this one sarabhange ji.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!
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
Dharma Guardian
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.
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.
Hehe, yeah, learn to be forgiving to all - why should we hate ISKCON and its followers just because they believe differently?I see...seems that you have changed your opinion on this since our discussions with another devottee on yahoo group eh?
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.
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.
Guard your Dharma, Burn the Myth, Promote the Truth, Crush the superstition.
In your seva...
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.
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'.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.
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?
satay
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks