raghu

As someone else pointed out, judging an ancient text by modern values will leave you unsatisfied with almost everything whose origins are pre-industrial. One can take issue with Bhagavad-gita on the same grounds - in the 9th chapter it lists women among the various "pApa-yonayH" and you may not like that. And study of shrutis were restricted to twice-born males - this is discrimination and modern people won't like that either. And so on and so forth. I don't recall what Manu says about ideal marriage age. In societies whose life expectancy was no more than 30-40 years, the idea of being married young is certainly out of the ordinary. I don't know why you consider forbidding widows to marry an "injustice." This custom is still followed in many orthodox families today, and the women of those communities will spit at the thought of remarriage, just as they would at the idea of divorce. As far as members of low castes "mixing" with the rest of society - I really am not sure what specifically you are referring to. My recollection was that Manu prescribed an attitude of respect by non-brahmanas towards brahamans. However, the same Manu also prescribes very strict discipline for brahmanas and condemns hypocritical and non-practicing brahmanas. So it's really not black and white, now is it? There should be an attitude of humility when questioning ancient cultures and their values. Post-modern culture is more socially dysfunctional by any objective measure. I fail to see what makes us enlightened enough to condemn strictures against widow remarriage, for example.

Arranged marriages are not unjust and immoral. Allowing your children to find their mates using their baser instincts is. Parents in Vedic society arrange the marriages of their children to secure lasting relationships that will further the religious culture of the family. It is called good parenting. Almost every culture has at one time or another had a standard of arranged marriages. It is not unique to Vedic culture.

Being formerly a Christian is not necessarily a disqualification from understanding Vaishnavism. Mixing Christian and/or other non-Vedic religions with Vaishnavism is. The latter is the consistent stance of honest and sensible Vaishnavas on this forum. The former is a strawman created by iskcon-christian syncretists to obfuscate the issue. As far as what is the scriptural basis for decreeing the mixing of religions, it is no different from the basis of Vaishnavas preaching heavily against mayavada and other religious misconceptions. Wrong information cannot lead to right knowledge. Period. One cannot claim "universality" or "transcendence" simply by taking an indiscriminate, politically-correct, all-accepting view of different and contradictory religions. Accepting one thing as correct logically means accepting that the contradictory view or views are incorrect. Accepting that apaurusheya-agamas passed down via guru-parampara is a valid means of acquiring right knowledge necessarily means rejecting as valid the revelations received by people who become prophets by popular vote. Accepting a religion that speaks of one's identity as a spiritual being means rejecting religions based on "chosen people" and other bodily concepts. Accepting as true a religion whose God-concept is compassionate and impartial means rejecting as true a religion based on a God-concept who plays racial favorites and sends plagues to punish the children of those who do not believe in him. And so on and so forth. These are all very simple and elementary points, but unfortunately the iskcon christian lobby can do nothing more than regurgitate the same pedestrian lines in response "the bible isn't the real christianity, we know the real christianity,we are cultivating devotion free of all mundane designations,you are a Hindu fanatic,God isn't limited to those who speak Sanskrit," etc. I have listed on this thread (posting #197 a little ways down) a few of the many egregious misconceptions that are held by iskconites due to their imbibing and mixing Christian ideas with Vaishnavism. As always, feel free to ignore these points and post more ad hominem attacks to skirt the issue.

For a person who eschews dry argument as being unfavorable to the development of devotional mood (a point which I agree with), you were easily provoked into responding to my glib remarks over 10 times on this thread, and that too with various accusations about my motivations, ad hominem attacks, and other very heated comments just to rationalize your desire to have the last word. All of this was of course to prove my point that discouraging non-devotional arguing was not your point - you just wanted to discourage argument about subjects with which you are uncomfortable (Vedas, Puranas, etc). Posting about Vedas and Puranas is the appropriate activity for a Vaishnava forum. Posting remarks whose sole purpose is to villify the other guy is not. But then, here I am apparently trying to have the last word. So, let that last word be a relevant, devotional one: anudvega-karaḿvākyaḿsatyaḿpriya-hitaḿcayat svādhyāyābhyasanaḿ caiva vāń-mayaḿtapaucyate "Austerity of speech consists in speaking words that are truthful, pleasing, beneficial, and not agitating to others, and also in regularly reciting Vedic literature." (gItA 17.15, iskcon translation) (By the way, this comment is equally directed to the veda-vAda-ratAH on this forum who use the Vedas as a pretext to assail each other with sharp words unbecoming of a Vaishnava. Shame on you fellows! You know who you are.)

You spoke of Krishna worship, which Vaishnava Vedanta schools also endorse. If you were referring to non-Vedantic Krishna worship, there is certainly nothing in your words to specifically point to that. You could have referred to non-Vedantic Hinduism in general, but you only referred to Krishna worship. Consider using more clarity in your words. Also, learning the proper use of capitalization would not hurt either. That quote again -

At the risk of, well, contradicting you, there are many more Vaishnava schools of Vedanta surviving today than there are non-Vaishnava schools. My observation, especially from forums such as these, is that the non-Vaishnava Hindu's (specifically the ones who post condescending rubbish like the above) concept of "higher philosophy" seems to involve proposing or acknowledging contradictory statements and just demanding that we accept that they are true. And if we disagree because they are illogical, then we are adherents to a simple man's philosophy. Consistency. Judicious use of logic to select the correct interpretation from a variety of potentially correct ones. Strength of evidence. Use of apaurusheya pramaanas. These are all features of a good religious philosophy. As far as the remainder of your claims, they are all bunk, lacking not only shastric support but even any hint of what exactly you claim to be valid evidence.

Yes, but the title of the journalist's article quoted earlier was "Cremations Harm India’s Environment" Hence the response.

Well, like you said, you are about as smart "as a sudra or woman"

The principles of Vaishnava monotheism are derived from the Vedas and Upanishads and confirmed by numerous smritis. The idea that Vaishnavism could be derived from religions like Judaism and Christianity can only be described as ludicrous when one examines the numerous differences between the former and the latter. Unfortunately, some people continue to propagate this theory just to get a rise out of the more hot-headed members of this forum.

The person who contributed this wonderful gem of wisdom: ... has now posted 19 times on this thread consisting of (at this time) 41 total messages. She now has authored over 46% of the postings on this thread. But, lest any of you offensive fellows get any ideas - she is NOT arguing about dry topics. On the contrary, her postings are full of the most nectarean words that have a direct bearing on your ability to relate to the Supreme God in a devotional mood. You will make much spiritual progress by reading and relishing her words.

So now you are arguing that your thread was not about arguing, when indeed you started the thread on the subject of arguing and argument. Can't you just take your own advice and give up all this dry argument? arguably yours, Raghu

I'm not sure if you should go to India. But I do think you ought to learn how to spell.

cbrahma you are still arguing. You told us that dry argument is bad, remember? Would it help if I called you a great fool and told you to concentrate instead on your devotional service?

So why do you keep arguing?

Excuse me oh amnesiac one, but it is you who keep bringing up Christianity and objections to it in order to evade the question about your double-standards. The question again, for the 3rd or 4th time, is why you object to people debating about Vedas and Puranas when you clearly have no objection (being an active participant in) arguments about Christianity. Since you will continue to evade the question, allow me to answer the question. You see, I have come to realize after observing little iskcon peons like you, Theist, Ghari, et. al. that a certain personality type seems to be quite attracted to iskcon missionary activity these days. The typical iskcon zealot, ever devoted to his new-found religion though utterly incapable of rationalizing it through traditional brahminical means, enjoys being a little guru unto himself. Not necessarily a traditional diksha-awarding guru mind you, but more like an on-again off-again self-appointed spiritual authority to whom others are obligated to offer respect and attention. The internet is the perfect forum for this wannabe guru personality type because he can do whatever materialistic activity he wants and then, when he is feeling religious, come to forums like this to "preach." Never mind that he may not be initiated, may not have even read Bhagavad-gita, may be a divorcee, and may be quite degraded in his habits. The internet allows him to be a guru of sorts. This iskcon devotee type enjoys the role of "guru" or "spiritual authority" and demands that those who listen to him be "submissive" (i.e. shut up and do as they are told). He does not enjoy questions or doubts which he cannot resolve, and so he is likely (as you have done) to use ad hominem attacks in order to shame his detractors into silence. In essence, within every iskcon devotee is a little bully just waiting to get out. This is why people like you object to discussions about Vedas and Puranas. It is because they are totally above your head and you consequently feel out of your element. You want an audience of people who cannot think for themselves instead of people who think deeply and ask pointed questions. You have no real objection to nit-picking analysis or dry argument because you are happy to do that when it involves something you do understand, like Bible or Jesus, etc. Your stated objection is just to get people to stop discussing things that you are uncomfortable hearing about, knowing nothing about them and thus not being the "always in control" iskcon spiritual authority your zeal requires you to be. This is why people like you, Theist, et. al. happily lob ad hominem attacks against anyone who disagrees, since you obviously cannot win people over by sensible arguments or evidence. This is why people like you, Theist, et. al. regard thinking and logic as dangerous things, to be avoided at all costs. Because when people learn to think for themselves, they question your preaching and thus by extension your self-appointed authority. A real Vaishnava would want to win his critics hearts and minds over rather than bullying them into submission with fatwas and ad hominem attacks, the latter being the characteristic modus operandi of your ilk on these forums. This is why it is good for critics to visit these forums and deflate your egos a bit, so that innocent seekers will not be taken in by your aggressive and unempathic "preaching."

The answers to both questions are quite simple. Given that it is your spiritual life on the line, you had better be the one to carefully examine the different points of view and decide which one seems most consistent and is a "best fit" for the evidence in shruti and smriti. This of course means you have to study the evidence too. Being a mute spectator and just passively accepting whatever you are told is a surefire way of getting mislead. What are you talking about? Krishna and Arjuna's conversation came to a very definite conclusion. Have you even read the Gita?

Christianity is not Vaishnavism and not Vedic as anyone with any functioning brain cells can tell you. One need not be brahmana to figure that one out. But that is all besides the point. The point is that you deride the idea of "dry" debates about Vaishnava-sastra when in fact you have no problem promoting dry debates about non-Vaishnava religions. I wonder why you keep evading this point when you were the one who brought it up. cbrahma preaching to us about "furious and offensive debates:" An example of cbrahma engaging in furious and offensive debate, thus contributing to the moderators closing the Lord Jesus Christ thread: Again, one is moved to wonder - why the double standard cbrahma? I suppose we will now hear some pseudo-logic to the effect that when someone speaks at cbrahma's level then it is ok, but when someone speaks above his/her head then it is "dry argument." <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

No, it has everything to do with you objecting to "argument" when people argue about things you don't understand, but at the same time you having no problem arguing when it is about rubbish like (insert name of favorite non-vedic religion here).

Dry brahminical study? Interesting. For centuries great Vaishnavas engaged in what you call "dry brahminical study" have been holding back the floodwaters of Advaita and other non-devotional philosophies from eclipsing and even wiping out all traces of Vaishnava culture. It is thanks in large part to them that we still have temples of Vishnu and Vaishnavas who propagate the culture of glorifying Him. Otherwise everything Vedic would be associated with mayavada. Personally, I relish hearing talks of Vedas that bring out the majesty and supremacy of Sri Hari. I am sorry that you people cannot appreciate them. And yet, you people go on and on arguing to prop up Christianity and other non-devotional "religions." So obviously it is not the concept of argument that you have a problem with. You will happily argue to support whatever bunk you do believe in, but condemn anyone who argues about a subject matter that you are too lazy to study and inform yourself about. When people argue about Vedas, then argument is bad. But when they argue about Bible, then that is different. Nice double standard, this. Or should I say, the iskcon standard?

If they were really interested in the environment they ought to target India's new "tradition" of having a gas guzzling, carbon-monoxide emitting, imported car in every household. The fact that one cannot get from point A to point B in a typical Indan city without having fossil fuel combustion products blown in one's face is ample illustration of which problem is more relevant to the common man.

For example, the Upanishad states (6.18) that this Deity is He from whom Brahma is created and instructed in the Vedas. Everyone knows that this is Vishnu. In the very first adhyaaya it begins with an invocation to Hari. I don't see why a text that purports to describe the supremacy of Shiva would do that. Well, I have already quoted other conclusive pieces of evidence like Rig Veda 1.22.20 which speaks of the paramam padam of Vishnu. This is a clear reference but for some reason it is not satisfactory to some. I don't get worked up over these things because my observation has been that such clear-cut evidence is often dismissed by academics and neo-vedantins while apparent references to Shiva's supremacy are invariably emphasized completely out of context. This discussion is a perfect example. Shiva's supremacy is alluded to in the Upanishads, and as proof, the Shvetashvatara is quoted (as if there are no other principal upanishads - it is *always* the shvetashvatara that gets quoted by the Shaivites). No, one should dismiss it if it cannot be reconciled with shruti. In every system of Vedanta with which I am familiar, the smritis are treated as a dependent authority. It is the shrutis whose authority is accepted by all. Which Vedanta school are you following that holds to a contrary view? As far as I am aware the authority of shruti is an axiom for all traditional Vedic schools. While I am sure they are well intentioned, the methodologies of "critical edition" editors cannot guarantee a pristine Mahabharata identical to that edition that was scribed by Ganesha. In some cases, they try to create an 'all-inclusive' edition which includes material from all recensions, even when it is unique to only one or two. That approach is obviously flawed. Then of course there is the exclusivist approach (which I believe BORI followed) in which only material common to the various recensions is included. This approach does not rule out that the interpolation (or even deletions) could have occurred prior to the division into so many different recensions. But all of this is neither here nor there. The bottom line is that only shruti is independently authoritative from a Vedanta standpoint. If the shrutis contradict themselves as you seem to implicitly claim, then there is no sense in trying to derive some grand unified understanding of all of them - after all, they are supposedly contradictory! One has to use the shruti to understand the shruti, just as one understands one chapter of a book from what has understood from previous chapters of the same book. Or, we can assume that each chapter of the book was written by a different author with a different agenda. In that case, what is the use of studying it? This is like saying that one can reconcile the bedha and so-called "abedha" references by accepting an abedha philosophy (i.e. Advaita). The problem with your theory is that many sources that claim the supremacy of one Deity explicitly indicate that the other is a lesser deity. Reconciling Vishnu smritis with Shaiva smritis by claiming the supremacy/identity of both actually reconciles neither. Among these, I mentioned Rig Veda 7.40.5 in which it is said that Rudra got his strength by propitiating Vishnu. Here is another clear reference in which both Rudra and Vishnu are named in the same mantra, not as equals but as worshipper and worshipped. Why must we ignore this reference? In Vedantic discourse, any smriti which contradicts shruti is rejected. It isn't a question of "confirm my own beliefs" but rather of giving preference to shruti. regards, Raghu

Rig Veda 7.40.5 states that Rudra gets his "rudratva" from worship of Vishnu. This is a mainstream shruti which places Shiva's status below that of Vishnu's, since parabrahman depends on nothing else. The Svetashvatara addresses Brahman by names classically associated with Shiva, but from context one can easily interpret those references as being Vishnu. Even the Vishnu Sahasranama includes some of these names. Many smritis (i.e. Shiva Purana, Linga Purana) may give unmistakeable preference for shiva, but even smritis cannot overrule the conclusions of shruti. Many smritis like Mahabharata have interpolations. There are some recensions that speak of Romans, etc. for example. Then again it is strange that on one hand Mahabharata is acceptable pramana for Shaivites but Bhagavad-gita which is part of Mahabharata for some reason is not. Shiva Purana is acceptable but Vishnu Purana is not. There must be some rationale for this arbitrary picking and choosing of pramanas.

No, iskcon and other gaudiya vaishnavas do not follow Sri Madhvacharya. They have their own Vedanta commentary and system of Vedanta and yes it endorses some ideas which will not be acceptable to Tattvavadis. No one comes to a particular school of Vedanta without holding that it is "ultimately right" and others "less correct" or "incorrect" in some way. Many gaudiyas I meet are convinced that bedha abehda philosophy of Caitanya is the purest form of Vedanta, but then I rarely meet gaudiyas who have studied other forms of Vedanta or even their own vedanta sutras. I agree with Kulapavana that it may be a matter of "taste" what one follows - at the risk of sounding elitist some jivas are destined to follow philosophies that are either incorrect or adulterated with incorrect ideas. Buddhism has the Lord's sanction but no Vedantist including mayavadis think highly of it. Advaita and other philosophies like sad-darshanas are eternal but this does not make them right. I could of course tell you what I think is correct, but I would rather you get there on your own, and later preferably with the help of a qualified guru. Read and ask pointed questions. Examine your doubts thoroughly. Don't accept a position due to peer pressure or because it comes with membership in a coveted social group.

DW and TB, The pleasure of reading a Vedantic debate is in watching two learned vidvans disagree with each other, exploring every possible nuance of interpretation, and still remain perfect gentlemen in the end. When you and Tackleberry use confrontational language from the very beginning, it is only fit that escalation and further confrontation follows. I do not find any pleasure in reading this exchange and I doubt that anyone else does either. Whether you like it or not, you will be seen as a representative of your sampradaya, just as Theist or ghari will be seen as representatives of gaudiya sampradaya. Do you and Tackleberry really want to do to your respective sampradayas what they are doing to gaudiya sampradaya due to their immaturity and foolishness? As you yourself have pointed out, we are all novices. With that understanding should come temperance. You are discussing very lofty subjects that have been debated in the past by individuals far more learned than either of you, yet you are both talking as if your respective understandings are obviously correct and any disagreement is purile. Who exactly do you think you are refuting? Do your really think that a Tattvavadi scholar will so casually accept defeat? Tackleberry, do you honestly think that a proper Sri Vaishnava pandit will so easily accept defeat? I am not advocating an "all paths are valid" idea. I am asking that you both show a little respect and recognize your own qualifications (or lack thereof) before you presume to cut someone else's philosophy down with sharp words. Real Vaishnava scholars have no need to resort to such language. As far as your other points on Vedanta (DW), I have no interest in discussing them with you. I obviously do not agree with you, but that is besides the point. The real point is that I do not agree with your methods, and I am certainly not going to enter into a discussion on Vedanta with someone who is so quick to take offense and to offend in return. Perhaps if these discussions were a bit less vitriolic I might be inspired to participate at some later time.

DW and Tackleberry, this discussion seems to have gotten rather hostile overnight for almost no good reason. You both need to put away the daggers. Both Sri Ramanuja and Sri Ananda Tirtha have long and venerable traditions and systems of interpretation behind them and referring to them as "absurd interpretations,text torturing," etc is really uncharitable. By all means disagree, but try to maintain some semblance of culture when you do so. You are both starting to sound like iskcon devotees. :-) And to DW, if I may interject a few basic points, at the risk of getting tied up in this "discussion" - 1) Sri Madhva's use of "non-standard" pramanas - you bring up a good point, but as you yourself have noted, this is hardly unique to Madhva, and it is certainly not the case that he uses them exclusively. One point to realize is that despite the polemical nature of his tradition, it has never been the case that any of his contemporaries have challenged the authority of those pramanas. We can infer from this that they were well known during his time. 2) There are no "abedha shrutis" as per Tattvavada siddhanta. What are called as "abedha shrutis" by Advaitins are interpreted by Tattvavadis as showing bedha only, for quite logical and consistent reasons. You may not agree with them, and that is your right. I don't think there is any question of Ramanuja and Madhva seeing eye to eye on most or even many points of interpretation. Criticizing one simply because he does not agree with the other seems rather foolish. Both approach the subject matter with different a priori assumptions. 3) There is no question of "text torturing" regarding "atat tvam asi/tat tvam asi." It is a simple matter of variant readings of the text arising from ambiguity due to sandhi rules. Both meanings are gramatically correct, but Sri Ananda Tirtha gives excellent rationale for his interpretation based on the context in which it is found. I am sorry that you cannot appreciate the beauty of his logic. I will one day like to read the Sri Vaishnava commentaries on this Upanishad to see where SV's are coming from in their interpretation. I don't expect that they will agree with Tattvavadis (or that I will agree with the SV interpretation) but that should not prevent me from appreciating their approach to the matter. 4) Regarding your views on "bhakti-yoga" and your exposure to Gaudiya Vaishnavism, sharanagati, etc. As per my (admittedly limited) understanding of Ramanuja's philosophy, "bhakti-yoga" for a Sri Vaishnava means something very different from what Gaudiyas refer to as "bhakti-yoga." What Gaudiyas refer to as "bhakti-yoga" sounds more akin to what SV's refer to as "sharanagati/prapatti" whereas what SV's refer to as bhakti-yoga is more akin to what Gaudiyas refer to as ashtanga-yoga. Or at least this is what SV friends have explained to me.