Dark Warrior

No, actually, tamasic and rajasic puranas contain sattvik sections. The Purana as a whole is not an authority, but those sections that agree with what the Vedas say is accepted. For instance, Brahma Vaivarta Purana contains some sections praising Lord Venkatakrishna of Thiruvallikeni, I believe, which is very important for Sri Vaishnavas. A feature of these rajasic and tamasic Puranas is that they are highly inconsistent as far as their content is concerned. The explanation is simply that, Brahma's storytelling may contain inaccuracies (manifested as rajasic and tamasic puranas) but even within the inaccuracies, truth exists. In his sattvik periods, Brahma's storytelling is 100% accurate, and that manifests as the sattvik Puranas. Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva too, I believe, quote liberally from Skanda Purana and Linga Purana in their bhashyas. Because portions of these Puranas agree with Shruti. Both of them have mentioned the sloka classifying the Puranas. Sri Sankara, however, has stuck to Vishnu and Padma Puranas. As far as the Bhagavatam is concerned, the theory is that Sri Ramanuja, and for that matter, Sri Sankara as well, did not quote from it because Vishnu Purana focuses more on philosophical details. Bhagavatam presumes that its readers have already accepted some form of philosophy before reading it. Doesn't imply it was non-existent during their times. Purana is not an independent authority, but it is certainly a supplement to the Vedas. The arguments of indologists about recent authorship of Puranas is refuted by the fact that some vedic hymns (like the Rig Veda saying that all devas and worlds aggregated in the navel of the unborn) are not understandable without puranic reference (only after reading the Puranas you can understand that the hymn refers to Vishnu). Its pretty strange that some hymns from an 'older' text like the Veda can be understood only by referring to a 'newer' text like the Purana. Granted, many Puranas are interpolated, but the two primary sattvik Puranas, Vishnu and Bhagavata, have been commentated upon by reliable scholars, and hence, can be accepted as authentic. However, no mention of Puranas should be made until you prove your point with Shruti first.

I spent my teenage life in Dubai. Many times, I was beaten up by gangs of muslims for not being a muslim. UAE is the most liberal state in the middle east. But even there, you could be inviting lots of trouble from Pakistanis and muslim Somalians if you go about wearing a tilak or so. I learned how to duck, dive, dodge and hide, though. The arabs are very peaceful people. Its the muslims from other countries who are seriously out of order.

Why do I get the feeling that this thread is directed towards me, primarily? For the record, I have never posted derogatory comments in a thread that is purely dedicated to Gaudiya Vaishnavism. If a thread is started by someone glorifying Bhaktivinoda Thakura or Sri Chaitanya, or is started to discuss the philosophy of Achintya Bheda Abheda, I have never needlessly posted in it. For that matter, I respect Sri Chaitanya and Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I simply want to know if what Theist propagates is Gaudiya Vaishnavism or not. However, Theist's threads have been to solely propagate Christianity as something that is linked to Vaishnavism. Hence, I post in there to correct this view. In reply, Theist or cBrahma post some quote by Bhaktivinoda Thakura in support of their views. I respond by saying Bhaktivinoda Thakura's views are not strictly in line with traditional Vaishnavism. Then, Theist responds by saying, it is 'aparadha'. Notice, I have never attacked someone like Bhaktivinoda Thakura. I was merely stating that his views are radically different from what Vedantins perceive to be Vaishnavism. Furthermore, I did not start the criticism of Sri Thakura, but was rather responding to quotes posted by Theist and cBrahma from Thakura's works. For instance, recently someone started a thread glorifying Thakura's works. I never posted there because I respect their faith. However, when Thakura's works become relevant to someone's debate, one needs to assess it. It should be noted that the persons who claim that I am abusing the likes of Thakura are the same ones who have started threads inquiring as to whether, 'the holy name is contaminated in the lips of mayavadis', although they relate an unvedic religion like Christianity to Vedanta. Although I neither support nor endorse Advaita philosophy, Vaishnavas have always recognised Sri Sankara's line as Vedantic and worthy of debate.

I appreciate your pity.

This thread up again? Seriously, give it up dudes. I have no intention to argue any more. For the last time, Hari Sarvottama is enshrined in Vedas. Shiva, Kali, Durga, Skanda, Agni, Vayu, Indra, etc. are simply Jivatmas. Out of these, Shiva is the most powerful of them all. Every Deva, including Vishnu, is called Agni, because they all accept prayer by Sacrifice. Since Sacrifice, ie, Fire is an important medium, each Deva is called Agni. Satapatha Brahmana says Skanda is the son of the Kumara who was born, and this Kumara is hailed as Rudra, Mahadeva, pasupati, Isana, etc. This Kumara is called as sinful, which makes it clear that Rudra is a Jivatma. Absolutely true. In a hymn addressing Vishnu, Rig Veda says, '"Anganyanya devata:...", meaning, 'All these Devas are your Limbs'. This is pure Vishishtadvaita, and explains Hari Sarvottama admirably. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad confirms that Prakrti and Jivas are the body of Brahman, as well. It means, every Deva, including Rudra, is part of the body of Vishnu. Just like Nails are part of the Body, but the body can survive without the Nails. However, the Nails cannot survive without the Body and is completely dependent on the Body. So, when the Vedas say, 'Mahadeva is Supreme', here is an analogy. I praise someone by saying, 'You have beautiful nails'. Now here, the nails are being praised as 'beautiful'. But in reality, the praise goes to the person and not just to the nails alone. Similarly, 'Rudra is Supreme', 'Agni is Supreme', etc. means that while the deity is being praised for its prowess, the actual receipient of the praise is Hari, whose body is constituted by these Devas. So, the Sri Rudram first addresses the deity Rudra, as Supreme, who is part of the body of Vishnu (going by the Rig Vedic hymn). That is why Shipivista, ie, Vishnu is addressed here, as the antaryami of Rudra. It does not mean Vishnu is an aspect of Rudra. True. However, Vedas provide ample proof. 1) The Rig Veda which says all Devas are limbs of Vishnu. 2) Satapatha Brahmana, revealing that Rudra is the son of Brahma and a Jivatma. He is called Agni because he was obtained through Tapas (remember, all Devas are Agni because of Sacrifice). 3) Eko Narayana asit, na Brahma na Isana, conveys that neither Brahma nor Isa (Shiva) were present during pralaya. Since there are 11 Rudras, the Vedas clarify by calling our Shiva as 'Isana', because that is his name. He obtained the name Shiva only later on. However, Mahanarayana Upanishad clears all doubts. It says that Isana, who has 3 eyes and a trident, was born from Vishnu. 4) Purusha Suktam says that the Purusha is the consort of Lakshmi. 5) Narayana Suktam clarifies that Narayana is Brahman. He is Brahma, Siva, Indra. However, this isn't absolute identity, but simply, the sarira-sariri/attribute concept again. Brahma, Siva and Indra are the body of Brahman, hence Brahman possesses their attributes. Brahman is Vishnu. 6) Sri Madhva gives more proof, with the Ambhrani Sukta and other such things. 7) Rig Veda says people do penance to attain position of Maruts, etc. that showing Devas are simply posts. And praise Vishnu as 'He who is not known by even Devas'. 8) Rig Veda also says, that Rudra gets his 'Rudratva' power by meditating on Vishnu. 9) Yajur Veda calls Rudra as 'Akrura', ie, cruel. Brahman is not cruel. He has no bad qualities. Rig Veda (I believe) also mentions that Rudra worships a deity in the cave of his heart, implying that Rudra has an antaryamin. 10) Chandogya Upanishad calls Brahman as 'Pundarikaksha', ie, Lotus Eyed. This is a reference to Vishnu. 11) Mahanarayana Upanishad says that the Being on the Ocean is Supreme, and that there is no-one above Him. Guess who? Vishnu, of course. Narayana is a proper noun in Veda. Cannot be applied to any deva. All names should apply to Narayana. Is this supposed to be a pramana? 'Kings named Narayana worship Shiva'. Terrific usage, bro. Let me clarify - when you are quoting some vedic verses establishing the supremacy of a deity, you cannot simply pick a few hymns that praise Rudra and claim that Rudra is supreme. For every hymn that praises Rudra, there are thousands that praise Agni, Chandra, Vayu, etc. in the same way. So, one can ask on what basis you select Rudra out of a zillion deities. Hence, the methodology is as follows: - You must never refer to Vedas without understanding the philosophy of the Upanishads. Firstly, the Sarira/Sariri model, ie, devas are body of Brahman, explains how all Devas are praised as limbs of Brahman. Hence, you first need to formulate some philosophy. - Next, you must establish that your deity is different and superior to all other deities. A hymn that compares this deity with the rest is needed. For Vaishnavas, that hymn is 'Of all devas, Agni is lowest and Vishnu is highest' and 'Rudra gets his Rudratva from Vishnu'. - Since even this hymn is explainable in a metaphysical way, one needs further proof. You need to look for some verse describing Brahman and attributing Brahman with some unique mark that establishes your deity as Brahman. Purusha Suktam that says Brahman is consort of Lakshmi, or Mahanarayana Upanishad that says Brahman lies on the ocean, etc. satisfy this condition for Hari Sarvottama. -Then, you need to prove that your deity is extolled in a way that is incomparable with other devas. Although the Rig Veda praises Rudra, Agni, etc. Vishnu is specially mentioned to have no equal, that all devas are His limbs, etc. which establish His supremacy. - You also need to prove that your deity is flawless, and that othe deities have faults. Agni, Vayu, Indra, etc. are described to have ahankara. Rudra has a birth, and is mentioned to be absent during pralaya, etc. (I have described it already). Vishnu has no faults. He is hailed as unborn in the Veda, and as Yagneswara in Satapatha Brahmana. - Lastly, you need to prove that your deity is identical to Narayana, who is the Brahman of the Vedas. By etymological considerations, the name Narayana can only apply to Vishnu. Proof please? Shaivites make some ridiculous allegations. Purusha Suktam is accepted by all Vedantins to be in pristine form. As mentioned before, there isn't any Vedantin who HAS NOT quoted Purusha Suktam. And all of them mention that Purusha is Lakshmi pathi. Shaivism was never considered Vedic, even during the time of Adi Sankara. Mordern Shaivite Scholars are actually criticising Shaivites for taking interest in Vedas!! First of all, there were many acharyas before Sri Ramanuja. Sri Vaishnavism traces itself to the azhwars. Sri Ramanuja himself names many ancient scholars who followed this system. Secondly, Sri Adi Sankara, who came before Sri Ramanuja, himself was a Vaishnavite. Nowhere has he equated Vishnu to Rudra, as mordern Shaivites claim. In fact, he has even clearly said that Maheshwara is a name of Vishnu in one of his Upanishad bhashyas!! Vaishnavism is Vedanta. Shaivism is against Vedanta. Only two shaivites have ever attempted bhashyas on Vedic texts. These two are Srikantha and Appaya Dikshitar. These two have also been refuted by Vaishnavas. Rest all Vedantins were all Vaishnavas. If you take a count of how many people follow Islam, and how many follow Hinduism, the truth will become apparent that Islam has a greater following. Does it make it authentic? Argue with sense. Krishna is Lord of Devas. He is an avatar of Vishnu. Padma Purana says Shiva chanted 'Achyuta Ananta Govinda' while drinking the poison. The Devas, despite being Jivatmas, are given many powers. If Shiva is so powerful, it is only because he performed a Yagha to elevate himself to this position. Just because some does miracles, or resurrects, or drinks poison, he doesn't become Supreme. The Rig Veda, I believe, mentions that men can become devas by bathing in Ganga, or something to that effect. Anyone of us can become Rudra or Brahma in another Yuga if we do some penance now. It only represents the desire of Vishnu, Brahman, to share His powers with us. He is after all, compassionate and lovable. Your father or mother is respectable, but you don't call them paramatma. They are jivatmas only. Similarly, respect Rudra and Brahma, as exalted jivas. On this note, I leave.

Actually, I heard this in a discourse, so I am not really sure where I can find the passage. As far as the Mahabharata is concerned, I have never bothered to read any translations, because it is a highly interpolated text, and merely stick to discourses and bhashyas of my acharyas. Only Ramayana is available in a pristine form nowadays. According to Vishishtadvaita/Sri Vaishnavism, the Lord is simply neutral. Since karma is anAdi, He doesn't interfere and give moksha to everyone. At the same time, He endeavours to make the jiva realise Him. Surrendering to the Lord gives Him 'legal' power (for want of a better word) to extinguish the Jiva's Karmas. Suffering is also anAdi, since the jivas have been under the influence of bad Karma eternally. Krishna did not start this, so He does not interfere with it unduly. Sort of like a biased teacher. Someone who grades exam papers neutrally, but at the same time does all he can to help the students pass. Gita says atman is not the doer. Some Upanishadic statements convey that Jiva has some power of action, ie, to decide. To integrate them, it is believed that the Lord, residing as the antaryami in the Jiva, provides the power to the Jiva once the latter decides on a course of action. This doesn't compromise the Lord's omnipotence, nor does it make the Jiva as the 'doer', since the Lord provides the power to execute the action. Of course, some people argue that the power to decide on the part of the Jiva is itself an action. I believe Sri Vedanta Desikar has written an entire grantha on this subject.

And what about the Sri Chaitanya Upanishad, which is a forgery? And the Navadvipa Dhama mahatmya, where apparently every Vaishnava acharya cries when he sees Sri Chaitanya. If you look at the Shiva is a demigod thread, someone has posted that Thakura mentioned worship of other devas is not wrong and every Vaishnava must do it. Basically against Vaishnavism. Sri Chaitanya is a parama-bhagavata, or a 'pure devotee'. Debate is not about him, because I know his bhakti was great. Debate is whether Thakura was a Vaishnava, or simply someone who worshipped Sri Chaitanya blindly. Since this is a forum dominated by disciples of Bhaktivinoda, I shall say no more about him. I, of course, respect your opinions. I am merely going by the tried and tested method of judgement based on tradition. It isn't aparadha to question the opinions of gurus. The main reason why many people find this offensive is because of the christian conditioning that everything has to be accepted by faith, or by the 'personal experience' of the person. Vedanta is often hailed to be a freedom allowing tradition...and the extent of this freedom stretches to inquiry of even a guru's status. The topic of this thread was to discuss if Jesus has any relevance to Vaishnavism. Saying that Sri Thakura or Srila Prabhupada called him an avatar is not sufficient. Jesus was not a Vaishnava, and no sincere Vaishnava ever worships him or respects him as a devotee of Vishnu.

And one more thing - Nama sankirtan is also part of Vivekananda's philosophy. If you had a knowledge of Advaita or Neovedanta, you would know that Saguna Brahman worship needs bhakti.

Nama of Vishnu alone is useful. That is because the Vedas have clearly explained the significance behind names like Narayana, Vasudeva, Vishnu, Krishna, etc. Ever read Vishnu Sahasranama? Names like Christ and Allah have no spiritual effect. There are many details explaining the meaning of the word 'Narayana' itself. The Vedas are apaurusheya and hence, the Narayana nama is also apaurusheya. It indicates the rupa, svarupa and gunas of the Lord in one go. That is Christian thinking. Someone says he had a personal experience, so whatever he says is true. Sorry, Vedanta relies on Veda. Sri Ramanuja himself asks people to read the Vedas rather than following his bhashyas blindly.

Thakura's bhakti to Sri Chaitanya, and even his bhakti to Krishna does not make him Vaishnava. For that matter, a person may worship Krishna as supreme, along with Shiva, but he doesn't become a Vaishnava. Vaishnavas never acknowledge that tilakas are sectarian or external symbols, nor do they say one must worship devas (Thakura wasn't against deva worship).

I have read enough to know exactly what he followed. Anyone who says that temple worship and tilakas are 'external symbols' is violating the most basic tenets of Vedanta and Vaishnavism. In any case, rather than read some guru's opinions, I find it more productive to actually read what Vedas say. Keep rambling on. I want to know exactly what Jesus has to do with all the nonsense you have posted. If you think one should worship Jesus because we should see Krishna everywhere, I have explained that.

And your point of quoting this? I have explained it. There you go. By your own guru's words. Considering Shiva, Jesus, Allah as 'Ishta Deva' is not Vaishnavism. That is what I am saying. So, exactly what are you getting at?

Your ignorance is once again revealed. You think challenging a guru's teachings is 'aparadha'? There are very fundamental differences between any 2 Vaishnava schools. While both schools will maintain respect for each other because they are both Vaishnavas, argument is encouraged. Now, don't think I am arguing against Gaudiya Vaishnavism here. The point is, even Gaudiyas do not think the way you and Amlesh do. Raghu is a Gaudiya Vaishnava and he started this thread. However, I find, in Thakura's case, he has deviated from Vaishnavism altogether. his works do not contain an ounce of Vaishnavite philosophy. It is simply his own ideas. I do think Srila Prabhupada was a Vaishnava acharya because he had more bhakti and less speculation, unlike Thakura. Bija, this isn't Gaudiya vs. Sri Vaishnavism. This is Vaishnavism vs. Neovedanta. You are by nature, a Neovedantin. Go to a Vivekananda site and see how his views resonate with yours. The only difference is that you do not accept advaita.

Read my earlier post. I explained what it means. You are a neovedantin, not a Vaishnava, if you think this means anyone can worship any form. The Upanishads contain many injunctions such as 'Worship Brahman within the Sun', 'Worship Brahman as the indweller of Indra', 'Worship Brahman as the ground of all being'. This simply means, one should go beyond the external distinctions and see Hari anywhere. So, simply put, the body of Jesus, Shiva, Myself, yours, ants, frogs, etc. are temporary and immaterial. One should understand that every atman has an equal chance of spiritual progress and that Vishnu is the indweller of all. What does equal chance mean? It means, every atman has the right to recognise that they are all equal in status and have equal chance to worship Vishnu. It does not mean, 'respect Jesus because he is a servant by his innate nature'. For that matter, an ant and an asura are also servants of vishnu by their innate nature. Respect should only be given when the jiva recognises that Vishnu is the ultimate principle behind all.

Bija's attempt to explain away the Vedic injunctions of abandoning other faiths is this - Just because a person should see Krishna everywhere, he should see Krishna in Jesus, hence, he should respect Jesus. For a person who claims to have so many personal experiences, Bija fails miserably in understanding what this means. The verses quoted simply mean, one should never think that the distinctions of the body are permanent. One should be equal minded and see Vishnu/Krishna as the indweller of all living entities like Ants, Frogs, animals and Jesus. This way, one is assured of the fact that every living entity deserves respect and one shouldn't be considered superior to another. Hence, all those verses simply say, recognise that all beings are essentially atman in their fundamental nature, devoted to Vishnu. Hence, worship Vishnu alone. Kapish? A kindergarten would understand it.

Yeah, everyone understands that even a blade of grass does not function without Krishna. Thus, one ceases to contemplate on the grass, and focuses on Krishna. One understands that spurious faiths also, are a product of Krishna's maya, and hence, abandons them in favor of Krishna. Bija, will you ever get out of Srila Prabhupada's and Thakura's translations? Quoting Gaudiya literature is not equivalent to quoting Vedas. In any case, keep revealing your ignorance.

I only said Bharatavarsha is moksha bhumi. Doesn't mean there are no devotees in America. Even an american devotee is a 'pure devotee' only if he believes in Lord Krishna, and not Jesus, Shiva, Allah, etc.

Secondly, for the last time, stop quoting Gaudiya Specific literature. A true devotee sees Krishna everywhere. In ants, spiders, cockroaches, Jesus, Mohammed, Atheists, etc. But that doesn't mean we respect all ants, spiders, cockroaches, atheists, Jesus and Mohammed as 'pure devotees'. A pure devotee is one who worships Hari alone. Next time, try quoting something from 4 Vedas, Ithihasas, Puranas, etc. A wealth of literature is available, other than Thakura's works.

I knew you would be back. No substance, yet a lot of arguments. Narasimha is Vishnu. Worship of any avatar of Vishnu is Vaishnavism. I hope you have enough knowledge to realise that Narasimha is Krishna? 'Ista Deva' is a concept introduced by Neovedantins, that one can gain equal spiritual experience by adopting worship of either Vishnu, Shiva, Allah, Jesus, Jehovah, Flying Spaghetti Monster and yet get moksha. In short, all paths are valid. According to Neovedantins, Vedas are not as important as spiritual experience. A Vaishnava' worship is restricted to avatars of Vishnu and to Vishnu's bhagavatas. There is no proof that Jesus was a bhagavata, and if he had regarded any other deva or deity as supreme, that makes him a nastika. If you think a person gains spiritual merit by worshipping Jesus or even respecting him as a 'servant of Vishnu', that falls into the neovedantic category and is not Vaishnavism.

Idiot, that was not composed. The Veda is 'apaurusheya' and hence, that mantra is unauthored. Don't even know that simple fact? I am amazed that you are actually able to quote something that isn't ripped off from Bhaktivinoda Thakura's works. And that mantra is present to remind people that Tamas is simply anything that isn't worship/knowledge of brahman, ie, Vishnu. Like Christianity. Jyotir (Light) is worship of Hari, without meandering to other paths. EDIT: Bija's post, that one can 'realise' one's 'ishta deva' is very significant, because the whole concept of 'ishta deva' is not even accepted by Vaishnavism. So, while the likes of Bija and Amlesh can follow their own paths/faiths/hallucinations, they cannot call it Vaishnavism, because it is against the most basic rules of Vaishnavism. The very word signifies eka bhakti to Hari.

My dear ignoramus, Vaishnavism doesn't mean worship of a random god gives moksha. If so, one would consider Shaivism as universal bhakti as well. Vaishnavism has clearly described what its tenets are: 1) Vishnu is Brahman. Not Shiva, Agni, Indra, etc. 2) Wise people avoid deva worship (and nastikas like Christians/Muslims) and worship Hari alone. 3) True spirituality is in realising that only worship of Hari should be done, and no other path is recommended by the Lord. Amlesh, first of all, understand the basic tenets of Vaishnavism. Mahavira the Jain is more 'moral' than Jesus or even Vaishnavas. Doesn't mean Jainism someday leads to Vaishnavism. The devotion of Christians, even if done unselfishly, will only lead to a cleansing of karmas. It will not evoke the love of the Lord. A better birth only will result. Yes, they will become Vaishnavas someday, but that will only be due to their conduct, and not due to their religion. A Buddhist or a Jain who remains a moral person, will also have an equal chance of a Vaishnava birth. Vishnu, being impartial, fulfills the wishes of even Shaivas. But since Shaivas do not acknowledge Him, He also does not share a close relationship with them. Of Course, a Shaivite or Christian may claim to have had some experience of 'love' or some 'white light', etc. Like Bija's hallucinations. But the strength of Vedanta is this - that it has left nothing unexplained. Thomas Aquinas was wondering as to whether it is appropriate to inquire about knowledge beyond the Bible, whether it was allowed by God. That is because semitic religions are man made and not eternal. But the Veda has all the answers. Scripture acknowledges that experiences may occur even without jnana. And clarifies that these experiences are either maya, or just given by the Lord to keep the jiva's faith steady. It has already been explained that even if a faith is tamasic, the Lord keeps the jiva's faith in that tamasic religion steady. Vedanta clarifies that true, genuine experience, can be verified only when an individual follows the laws laid down by Sri Hari. Hallucinations do not count here. In fact, a person who says he had an experience of Krishna may also have only seen maya, and nothing more, if he hadn't adhered to Vaishnavism!! So, shut up about all paths being authentic. Religions arise due to the rajasic or tamasic modes of the Jivas. His faith, therefore, is only instrumental in washing away the rajas or tamas. Such types of bhakti, therefore, even if done in spirit of surrender, is not proper or acceptable as it is not done with jnana. Dude, forget ISKCON, you don't even have an association with Vaishnavism. No knowledge of what Vaishnavism is, and all you can prattle about is how the Vedas are 'bookish knowledge' to be ignored. Terrific, just ignore the very foundation of Vaishnavism tha gives credibility to our faith.

I think the basic question plaguing these pseudo devotees is, if a person is a servant of 'god', then why is he not worthy of respect? This is due to ignorance of the most fundamental tenet of Vaishnavism - Ie, surrender to the wrong concept of God is a dosha, and is against the wishes of Krishna. Hence, just because a Shaiva surrenders to Shiva, or a Christian surrenders to the 'Father', it doesn't mean they are spiritual, or that they are exalted. Secondly, these pseudo Vaishnavas ask another question, 'Everyone is a servant of Vishnu, then why demean some?' For that matter, even a microbe, or an asura like Ravana is a servant of Vishnu. Doesn't mean we go giving respects to insects or asuras. Thirdly, 'bookish knowledge' nonsense. This stems from their lack of knowledge of Vedanta. The Vedas are not 'books'. They are the eternal laws, not even authored by Vishnu. The Puranas and Ithihasas clearly mention the pastimes of the Lord as the only way to understanding Brahman. Without Vishnu Sahasranama or Ramayana, little progress can be made in spiritual life. Bija and Amlesh are living examples of people who have no idea what the heck is Vaishnavism, and simply formulate their own opinions, labelling it as 'Vaishnavism'.

Again, clam up. This is nonsense. Did I deny that Christians MAY get moksha? One of the fundamental principles of Vaishnavism is the causeless mercy of the Lord. According to this doctrine, the Lord, sometimes MAY, out of His mercy, give a Jiva moksha even when the Jiva does not deserve it. According to sastra, worshipping Hari alone is the position of a jiva. Any jiva who has veered from this position, is not worthy of notice or respect by other Vaishnavas (you simply respect him as another human being/jivatma, that's all). However, the Lord sometimes does give Moksha to undeserving people who haven't worshipped Him. Meaning, He may give moksha to a rebellious atheist, to a cat, an insect, a dog, a microbe or a Christian or a Shaiva or a Muslim quite randomly. But that does NOT make the birth of a dog or a cat or an insect, or the belief of a Christian or Atheist valid. Its simply grace. Just because a cat gets moksha doesn't mean the birth of a cat guarantees moksha for everyone. Similarly, christianity doesn't become valid because a few christians get moksha. However, Vaishnavas believe that Vaishnavism is the only path that is certain to obtain the Lord's grace. Thanks to people like Bija and Amlesh, 'Vaishnavism' nowadays is a term used fo everything it doesn't stand for. Vaishnavism is the one minded worship of Vishnu. Nothing more, nothing less. A Christian becomes eligible for the Lord's grace only if he rejects Jesus and worships Vishnu. Accept this, you are a Vaishnava. Reject this, you are not a Vaishnava.

No Vaishnava accepts the 'ishta-deva' concept. That is neovedanta or mordern advaita. The only deity we worship is Vishnu. Worship of other deities is fruitless, according to Vaishnavas. Bija, you are entitled to your opinions. However, do not call this as 'Vaishnavism'. It definitely isn't. Amlesh, bija, etc. have no arguments other than babbling on about 'personal realisation'. And of course, since a study of Vedanta is beyond their mental capacity, they simply dismiss it as 'intellectual speculation'. One can wonder as to what exactly they are trying to achieve here.

Shut up. Yes. Krishna can give moksha to even Chistians. However, that doesn't make their path right or their practice 'spiritual'. It is because He has grace. Just because a jiva gets moksha doesn't mean he did everything right. Vaishnavism is the path to follow, and that is the duty of Jivas. Sometimes, out of love, Bhagavan may give moksha to people who even disobey Him. Doesn't mean the path is valid.