raghu

Well, anything is possible. Perhaps my vision is deluded and there is something there that I am not seeing. What specifically do you see as the obviously Vaishnava influences on Jesus' teachings that distinguish them from Judaism? Note that I am not asking what distinguishes Christianity from Judaism, but rather what are the Vaishnava influences on Christianity?

Amazing the hostility that has emerged from what seems to be an otherwise straightforward and well-supported thesis. For all the evidence the GV Swami put forward to support his arguments, the angry rebuttals so far are limited to (1) a statement that the swami just proved himself to be foolish (no explanation why), (2) another statement that the real Jesus and his teachings is different from what we know to be Christianity (again no explanation or evidence supporting this), and (3) some thing to the effect that we should not nit-pick over what others "foolishly actually believe" followed by an article from an ex-convict that has nothing to do with the original posting. What is interesting from the articles by Swami Narasingha are the following indisputable points that he raises: 1 - there is no evidence in the scriptures (Vedas and supplementary sources) that Vishnu send His messengers to teach non-Vedic religions 2- there is no cross-cultural references to Jesus or prophets of semitic or arabic religions the Vedic canon 3 - many core ideas of Vedic world view which one would expect to be present in simplified versions of Vaishnava dharma taught elsewhere (such as karma, samsara, go-raksha, etc) are not present in other religions claimed by iskcon people to be valid. 4 - The idea that Christianity, Islam, and/or Judaism are valid paths taught by messengers of Sri Krishna is not feature of Gaudiya Vaishnavism as enunciated by the immediate successors of Sri Chaithanya 5 - For that matter, at least one Gaudiya Vaishnava acharya - Bhaktivinod Thakur, writes very critical comments about Christianity in his writings. Does this mean ISKCON people will say that their own acharya is a foolish person who is criticizing what other people "foolishly actually believe?"

Well, my friend's niece claims that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real, but her belief in this does not make it so. It's curious don't you think, that if he supposedly studied in India and was influenced in some way by Krishna, that no trace of this Vaishnava influence seems to have survived in his teachings?

My apologies. This is the message I got in e-mail, the previous one was the article which this is a response to - both can be found on their website. I apparently do not have sufficient permission to post the URL for that website, but I'm sure you can google it if you want.... More on Real Religion is Not Man Made by Swami B.G. Narasignha The following are some devotees' comments on Narasingha Maharaja's article "Real Religion is Not Man Made" followed by Maharaja's reply. Devotee: Very interesting article but it created some doubts in me. Does God not reveal his teachings in many places simultaneously? Narasingha Maharaja: There is no such statement in the revealed scriptures [sastras] that Visnu/Krsna [God] reveals His teachings in many places simultaneously. When it is mentioned that religion is taught according to time, place and circumstances then that is referring to bona fide teachers of eternal religion, like Sri Ramanujacarya and Sri Madhvacarya and not upstarts like Mohammed, Jesus or St. Paul. What is mentioned however is that in Kali-yuga many false doctrines and religions will sprout up all over the world. This pertains to false doctrines sprouting up in India such as Mayavada, Buddhism, Sahajiyaism, etc and in western countries this applies to paganism and the Abrahamic religions [Judaism, Islam and Christianity] that are considered the religions of the Mlecchas. Devotee: I mean, other religions may not have the pure essence of Vaisnava philosophy, but still they have some seed of real bhakti that can sprout and grow to some level. Narasingha Maharaja: If they don't have the "pure essence," then it is contradictory to say that they have "some seed of real bhakti." Pure essence and the seed of real bhakti are synonymous. The "seed of real bhakti" is the intrinsic knowledge of who God is and what our eternal relationship with Him is. The real seed of bhakti is not a hazy or unclear conception. Because Christianity and other Kali-yuga religions have no clear conception, they cannot develop in any useful manner. Nor does God appear or send his bona fide representative to teach a hazy conception, unless it is for the purpose of deluding the atheists such as in the case of Sankaracarya. Vaisnavas reject the teachings of Sankaracarya as irreligious even though Sankaracarya was Siva [a great devotee]. So even if we did accept Jesus as a representative of God, because the teachings of Christianity are vague and imperfect, we reject them as having no practical application. For example, in the past 2,000 years it has not been possible for Christians to understand who God is or even what the soul is or anything about reincarnation, etc. That means that even after practicing Christianity for a lifetime, a Christian still dies in ignorance and goes to `Hell' for his sins. The idea that Jesus died for one's sins and one is thus eligible to enter Heaven and live eternal life is a man-made idea, an idea created by Paul to get easy followers. Such an idea is not a reality. Devotee: The idea that all manifestations of religion other that pure bhakti are only creations of the mind seems too radical to me. Narasingha Maharaja: This may be a radical idea, but it is also a historical fact. Christianity developed from a Jewish heresy and was mostly fabricated by Paul. Judaism had received its scriptures and religion [monotheism] from the Persians [Zoroastrians] and Zoroaster had been rejected from Vedic civilization for concocting a heretical philosophy [this is mentioned in the Rg-Veda]. Starting with Zoroaster one mental concoction simply gave birth to another mental concoction and the end of such mental concoctions is nowhere in sight – especially as concerns Christianity. They go on concocting ideas such as salvation thru Jesus, purgatory, virgin births, Heaven, Jesus is God, inventing scripture, etc — none of which are anything less than a mental concoction. The history of Christianity reads something like this: Jesus was a Jew, Christians were Jewish heretics, after killing off all Gnostic Christians and other sects of Christianity, the Orthodox church reigned supreme, Roman Catholicism crushed the Orthodox Church and killed any remnants of ancient Christianity and persecuted the Jews, Protestant Churches were the bastards of Catholicism, the Mormons are a Christian cult among the Protestants and Jesus is coming soon! Devotee: I have translated one article by Bhaktivinoda Thakura who respects other signs of bhakti in other religions. According to the article of Bhakti Gaurava Narasingha Swami Maharaja, religions other than Vaisnavism cannot lead their adepts towards God. Until now I was thinking that although these religions cannot give one, for instance madhurya-rasa, still they allow one to make spiritual progress that ultimately will give that person the highest position. Narasingha Maharaja: No amount of progress in ignorance gives one the highest position, not even after a million births. Without a clear idea of who God is and how to serve Him, one remains lost in the fog of misconception and wanders in the material world forever. Devotee: Bhaktivinoda Thakura has written as follows: "Sectarianism is a natural byproduct of the Absolute Truth. When acaryas first ascertain and instruct the Truth, it is not polluted with sectarianism. But the rules and regulations received through disciplic succession regarding the goal and the method of achieving it are changed in due course of time according to the mentality and locale of the people. A rule that is followed by one society is not necessarily accepted in another society. That is why one community is different from another.
As a community gradually develops more respect for its own standards, it develops hatred towards other communities and considers their standards inferior. These sectarian symptoms are seen in all countries since time immemorial." Narasingha Maharaja: The 'sectarianism' that Bhaktivinoda is speaking about is Christianity and Islam. The Absolute Truth is Vaisnavism. Real Vaisnavism is the Truth taught by acaryas. Those ideas gradually become changed as in the case of Zoroaster and gradually become doctrines like Christianity that hate other communities. We do not hate Christians, we hate ignorance and to defeat ignorance we preach the Truth. Christianity, on the other hand, has a horribly blood-stained history of killing everything and anything that they do not understand. Christianity is therefore sectarian, whereas Vaisnavism or sanatana-dharma is the eternal function of the soul (jaiva-dharma). In the stage of being a kanistha-adhikari Vaisnava one cannot make proper distinctions between real religious principles and maya [illusion]. The fact is that many devotees of the Krishna consciousness movement these days have become stuck in the kanistha- adhikari stage and are not making proper advancement. However, when one becomes situated in the stage of madhyama-adhikari, by proper association and guidance, then one is able to discriminate between eternal religious principles and sectarianism such as Christianity. Devotee: Bhaktivinoda continues as follows; "The religious principles taught by Mohammed and Jesus Christ are similar to the religious principles taught by Vaisnava sects. Buddhism and Jainism are similar to Saiva-dharma. This is scientific consideration of truths regarding religious principles. Those who consider their own religious principles as real dharma and others religious principles as irreligion or sub-religion are unable to ascertain the truth due to being influenced by prejudice. Actually religious principles followed by people in general are different only due to the different qualifications of the practitioners, but the constitutional religious principles of all living entities are one." Narasingha Maharaja: Bhakivinoda is speaking in such a way as to encourage the followers of sectarian doctrines such as Christianity and Islam to give up their limited concepts and recognize real dharma [Vaisnavism]. Bhaktivinoda is not condemning the followers of Vaisnava dharma as sectarian for recognizing that Vaisnava dharma is the eternal function of the soul. Don't forget that Bhaktivinoda's opinion is [as stated in Tattva- viveka] that no intelligent person will accept the ideas of salvation thru the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus as Christianity suggests. Text and commentary from Tattva-viveka by Bhaktivinoda as follows: Text 1.25 adi-jivaparadhadvai sarvesam bandhanam dhruvam tathanya-jiva-bhutasya vibhor dandena niskrtih Some say that due to the sin committed by the first living entity, all other living entities are therefore trapped in the material world. Thus God accepts punishment in order to deliver the living entities. Commentary Contemplating the virtues and vices of this world, some moralistic monotheists came to the conclusion that this world is not a place of pure pleasure. In fact, the sufferings are more than the pleasures. They concluded that this world was a prison house meant to punish the jivas. If there is punishment, then there must also be a crime. If there is no crime, why would there be punishment? What crime did the jivas commit? Unable to properly answer this question, some men of small intelligence gave birth to a very wild idea. They said that God created the first jiva and had him stay in a pleasurable garden with his wife. He was forbidden to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Following the evil advice of an impious person, the first beings ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge, thus disobeying God's instructions. They then fell from that place into the world filled with misery. Due to their offense, all living entities are also offenders from the time of their birth. Not seeing any other way to eliminate this offense, God Himself took birth amongst human beings, accepted all the sins of those jivas who took shelter of Him, and then He died. Those that do not follow Him fall into hell eternally. Thus God punishes Himself in order to liberate the jivas. An intelligent person cannot make sense of any of this, ei matati sahaja-buddhite ayatva kora jay na. Text 1.26. janmato jiva-sambhavo maranante na janma vai yat-krtam samsrtau tena jivasya caramam phalam They claim that the jiva's life begins at birth and terminates at death. After death, he is not born again. Whatever activities that jiva has performed, he will attain the results at the end. Commentary To have faith in this mixed-up religion one must first believe these rather illogical ideas – the living entity's life begins at birth and ends at death. Before birth the jiva did not exist, and after death the jiva will no longer reside in the realm of material activities. Also only humans have consciousness and other creatures do not. Only those with minute intelligence can identify with this (ei visvasati nitanta sankirna prajnar paricaya). The jiva is not spiritual by nature. By His own will the Supreme Being created the jivas out of dull matter. Why do jivas appear in very unequal situations? These people cannot say. Why is one jiva born into a house filled with misery, another jiva born into a house full of happiness, another jiva is born in the house of a devotee and another living entity born into the house of a demoniac atheist? Why is one jiva born in a place where he is prone to perform good acts, and become pious? Why is another jiva born in a place where he is encouraged to perform sinful acts and becomes wicked? They cannot say. In this way it seems that God is irrational (isvarake avivecaka bolite hoy). Why do they consider that animals have no consciousness? Why do birds and beasts not have consciousness like humans? Why do the human only have one life, and due of their actions in that life must attain eternal heaven or eternal hell? One who believes in a compassionate God will find this system totally unacceptable (e visvas udoyamoya isvaranugata loker pakse nitasta agrahya). Devotee: I feel that religion has different levels and presenting everything only in black and white does not convince me. I hope that nobody will crucify me if I write that there were many really exalted and wise persons in other traditions, like St. Francis, Tolstoy and many others. Narasingha Maharaja: If you consider St. Francis or Tolstoy as "really exalted" then you must be prepared to recognize that India has millions of such exalted persons. In fact even the rickshaw drivers in Vrndavana, Mayapura and Jagannatha Puri are thousands of times more advanced than either St. Francis or Tolstoy. There are million and millions of people in India who know Krsna is God. They know about reincarnation, vegetarianism, karma and other Vedic knowledge. Holy places like Haridvara, Hrsikesa and Badarinatha have produced thousands of saintly personalities equal and greater than Jesus or John the Baptist, but the only difference is that their followers did not forsake them and crucify them. Even an average 'good Hindu' is hundreds of times greater than Jesus and what to speak of Vaisnavas like Vasudeva Datta, who are considered thousands of times greater and more magnanimous than Jesus. So why then are a small handful of persons from the western Mleccha civilizations, who have only meager knowledge of God and the purpose of life, being considered really exalted? The answer lies in that even after coming in contact with Vaisnavism, it is difficult for some devotees to give up their previous misconceptions and religious bias. Devotee: Of course, they were not on the level of Haridasa Thakura but there is such a thing as gradual progress and they were on high moral and ethical level and were thinking a lot about God, so maybe in future lives it will be more easy for them to get to this high level of bhakti. Narasingha Maharaja: Not only were they not on the level of Haridasa Thakura, they were not even on the level of the average Hindu housewife who is strictly vegetarian, who follows Ekadasi and who worships Bala-Krsna everyday. Among the Mlecchas, comparatively speaking, St. Francis and Tolstoy may have been above average but when compared to the standards of spirituality in India, they were far below average. When you stop to think about it, in the era of St. Francis and Tolstoy, even so-called educated people in Europe didn't know how to clean their backsides after passing stool or to take a daily bath. Devotee: Although Narasingha Maharaja`s article is interesting, my heart is much more moved by this dialog of a Christian with Sridhara Maharaja, `Beyond Christianity' from the book, `Sri Krishna, Reality the Beautiful.' In the following conversation, Srila Sridhara Maharaja compares theistic beliefs with some Christian students from America. Christian: Can you explain the Vaisnava viewpoint of Christianity? Srila Sridhara Maharaja: Christianity is incomplete Vaisnavism; not fullfledged, but the basis of devotional theism. We find the principle of "Die to live" there to a certain extent, at least physically. The Christians say that the ideal shown by Jesus is self- sacrifice. In our consideration, however, that is not fullfledged theism, but only the basis. It is an unclear, vague conception of Godhead: "We are for Him." But how much? And in what shape, in what attitude? All these things are unexplained and unclear in Christianity. Everything is hazy, as if seen from far off. It does not take any proper shape. The cover is not fully removed, allowing us to come face to face with the object of our service. The conception of service to God is there, and a strong impetus to attain that, so the foundation is good, but the structure over the foundation is unclear, vague, and imperfect." Narasingha Maharaja: Yes, Christianity is imperfect, vague and unclear as Sridhara Maharaja has mentioned. If you knew Sridhara Maharaja, then you also will know that when something is unclear, vague and imperfect that it cannot lead to perfection. Sridhar Maharaja was also fond of saying that, "No amount of ignorance can produce knowledge. No amount of darkness can produce light." Only pure bhakti can give pure bhakti, therefore one must give up all cheating man made religions as adharma or unfavorable for the cultivation of Krsna consciousness and take complete shelter of jaiva- dharma, the eternal religion.

An interesting message I got in an e-mail recently. Interesting because it is quite a different view from that which is often enunciated in iskcon circles.... Real Religion is not Man-made by Swami B.G. Narasingha During a recent visit to Europe I had some informal discussions about religious conceptions with other Gaudiya Vaisnavas and I was surprised to hear some devotees speak about such groups as the Sufis, Whirling Dervishes, Jews, Christians, Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Muslims as being deeply `surrendered' souls. Of course, generally speaking this may be true – but surrendered to what? I would like to point out in this article that sraddha [faith], saranagati [surrender] and seva [service] are spiritual substances and activities that are only transcendental when in direct connection to Krsna and that the popular religions of today's world are but the continuation of a Vedic heresy that began long, long ago in ancient times. The first point is that dharma [real religion] is given by God himself – dharman tu saksat bhagavat pranitam. Real religion is not man-made. Dharma is the knowledge and activities of the intrinsic relationship that exists between Krsna and all living entities eternally. This is sometimes called sanatana-dharma, eternal religious principles. In a word sanatana-dharma has been summed up as seva, or the living entities relationship of service to the Supreme Being. Therefore, so-called service to various deities or to icons that are conjured by man can never be considered seva in the true sense of the word. Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura once commented on the situation of spirituality in India that, "At present many false meanings have been imported into the word devotion. Regard for one's parents, loyalty to man, obedience to the teacher, etc, pass as bhakti." (Sarasvati Thakura, lecture, Vrndavana 1928) In a similar way one can say about western spirituality that all sorts of misconceptions and innovations have also been passed off as spiritual practices, devotion, service, love of God, etc, when in fact they are not. In Sanskrit the root word bhaj means to serve. Bhaktivinoda Thakura has pointed out by quoting the Garuda Purana in Bhakti-Tattva-Viveka, Ch.1 as follows: "The word bhakti is derived from the root verb form bhaj. It is said in the Garuda Purana (Purva-khanda 231.3) bhaj ityesa vai dhatuh sevayam parikirtitah tasmat seva budhaih prokta bhaktih sadhana-bhuyasi "The verbal root bhaj means to render service. Therefore, thoughtful sadhakas should engage in the service of Sri Krsna with great endeavor, for it is only by such service that bhakti is born." The basis of dharma is rooted in transcendental knowledge of the soul [atma], the Supersoul [Paramatma] and the Personality of Godhead [bhagavan]. In reality no such knowledge of the soul, the Supersoul or the Personality of Godhead exists in the world's popular mundane religions. Therefore, intelligent human beings do not accept the popular mundane religions as transcendental. Referring to the scriptures of the world's religions in the west, Sarasvati Thakura commented as follows: "Senselessly killing living beings simply for the purpose of pleasure is fundamental to all these religions. Unlike the transcendental words of the Vedas, none of these paths are eternal. Therefore, one who deliberates upon these scriptures will naturally develop doubt about them since they lack a solid foundation." (Sarasvati Thakura, purport, Cc. Adi 17.169) Additionally, sraddha and saranagati [faith and surrender] presuppose seva. First surrender, then serve: tad viddhi pranipatena pariprasnena sevaya. This surrender means far more than one's strict obedience to a master or teacher of a particular technique or thought. Surrender means, complete obedience to the will of Krsna and not to that of anything else. First surrender [pranipatena] then serving mood [sevaya] manifests. And to surrender one must have faith, sraddha. If one believes in a particular conception or philosophy that is not a bona-fide siddhanta, or an axiomatic truth regarding the Absolute Truth, then according to sastra [laws and by-laws of dharma] such so- called belief is only a temporary state of mind fabricated under the modes of material nature. Such a mental belief system is not to be confused with sraddha. Real sraddha is not a state of mind influenced by the modes of nature. Sraddha is an influence over the heart that confirms to the living entity the path of devotional service, krsna-bhakti. Bhaktivinoda Thakura has written the following in this regard in his Mahaprabhur Siksa, ch 10. The definition of sraddha is this: sraddhah sabde visvasa kahe sudrdha niscaya krsne bhakti kaile sarva karma krta haya "By performing transcendental loving service to Krsna, one automatically performs all secondary activities. This confident, firm faith, that is favorable to the execution of devotional service is known as sraddha." (Cc. Madhya 22.62) To have firm conviction that devotion to Krsna is the only means for the living entity, and that performance of karma and jnana devoid of bhakti are useless. Such a favorable inclination of the heart is called sraddha. Sraddha is a purely spiritual illumination that emanates from the internal energy of Godhead, the hladini-sakti, Sraddha-devi. This energy as it is, knows no Lord and master other than Krsna and therefore sraddha does not come to the living entities to reveal any lesser gods or masters. As Srila Sridhara Maharaja has said, "Sraddha is the halo of Srimati Radharani and saranagati is the halo of Krsna." Sraddha reveals Krsna [Visnu] and no other. However, if one finds oneself following or appreciating man-made religions, such as those of the Abrahamic tradition, then this is due to one's own misfortune and karma and not due to the guiding revelations of sraddha. In brief, sraddha has been described by some of Gaudiya Vaisnava's greatest acaryas as the halo of Srimati Radharani and the firm conviction that by serving Krsna all other purposes will be served. The numerous so-called religions of the world that exist outside the Vedic system are not transcendental because they have no real connection to the Absolute Truth. Over time the proponents of these major world religions have done much harm to the world and deceived a multitude of people by engaging them in impious activities and all in the name of `good faith.' If one deeply studies western theology and the history of religion one will discover that all contemporary religious thought has originated from the time of the Rg-Vedic civilization. These religious thoughts however did not come to the world as wholesome theology but rather as a Vedic heresy. The first heresy of this kind was Zoroastrianism that gained a following in the western frontiers of the Rg-Vedic civilization, namely in Iran, before the Rg-Veda was written. Zoroaster the founder of Zoroastrianism preached a doctrine of monotheism but he did not accept the monotheistic God [Visnu] of the Vedas. Zoroaster instead put forward the worship of the Asuras [demons] and proposed Ahura [Asura] Mazda as the Supreme Deity. Zoroaster also created other anti-Vedic conceptions to embellish his new religion and Bhaktivinoda Thakura explains them in Tattva-viveka: "Zarathustra [Zoroaster] is a very ancient philosopher. When his philosophy found no honor in India, Zarathustra preached in Iran. It was by the influence of Zarathustra's ideas that Satan, an equally powerful rival to God, made his imaginary appearance first in the religion of the Jews and then in the religion based on the Koran. Then, influenced by Zarathustra's idea of two Gods, the idea of three gods, or a `Trinity' made its appearance in the religion [Christianity] that had come from the Jewish religion. "At first, three separate gods were concocted in the philosophy of Trinity. Later, learned scholars were no longer satisfied with this, so they made a compromise stating that these three concocted gods were God, the Holy Ghost, and Christ." (Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Tattva- viveka 1/21) Several thousand years after Zoroaster, in approximately 500 BCE, the Persian Empire brought the Zoroastrian ideas of monotheism to Judea. In Judea the Jews abandoned their many pagan deities and adopted the idea of one God whom they called Yaweh, the tribal god of the Mountains or the god of Abraham. The idea that there is one Supreme God took hold in Judea but, as with the followers of Zoroastar, who the Supreme God was eluded them. Prior to that time all Mediterranean cultures of the ancient world had been pagan in their beliefs. From monotheism, first being introduced into Judaism by the Persians, later Christianity developed and then Islam developed along those lines. But in no case was the nature, characteristics and personality of Godhead clearly known. In some circles of western Vaisnavas, ideas abound about personalities such as Jesus Christ being an incarnation of Lord Brahma, Lord Balarama or even Srila Prabhupada being an incarnation of Jesus. These ideas have no sastric basis and devotees should be cautious about accepting ideas and conclusions that are contrary to the opinions of previous acaryas. Thus, all the so-called religions west of the Indus River can rightfully be called a heresy, of a heresy, of a heresy of the Vedic religion. This continuous unfolding of man, adding to and subtracting from real religion, is a process that continues to the present day in the name of the Protestant Church and New Age Religions. Unfortunately, none of these said heresies represent the Supreme Godhead, or do anything except deceive the living entities about the ultimate goal of life.

So Jesus is a form of the "supreme consciousness" and not to accept this is silly? Why would you expect to see tilak on Jesus? He is not a Vaishnava.

Is this not what some iskcon members would refer to as "menal speculation" or a "mental concoction?"

How will it be better? If there is one thing history teaches, it is that you can rally more people by telling them sweet lies than unvarnished truth. The Jesus myth will always be a part of iskcon canon, because it's a hook by which they attract Western people raised in Judeo-Christian civilization who would otherwise be uninterested in what appears to them to be nothing more than a foreign, hindu movement. I for one have always been amazed at how iskcon devotees can claim to know about the "real" Jesus and the "real" christianity, which modern Christians supposedly do not. Who here has the original teachings of the historic Jesus in their original Aramaic? The fact of the matter is that iskcon people imagine jesus according to their own tastes and preferences, with hardly any consistent, factual evidence to support their claims.

Krishna Consciousness is Consciousness of Krishna! I am ready to accept your initiation now.

Gaea, The threefold classification of puranas into sattvic, rajasic, and tamasic classes is not arbitrary, but something that is found *in* the puranas themselves, specifically in the Padma Purana and Matsya Purana. I can provide the exact quotes if you wish. I certainly hope I do not have to convince you why sattvic sources of information are more conducive to self-realization over rajasic or tamasic ones. If we cannot agree on that point, that I'm afraid there is very little possibility of rational dialog. In any case, Vedantins base their conclusions on what is in shruti, with Puranas used only as dependent authorities. I think someone provided the quote earlier from the Rig Veda about how Shiva derives his power from Vishnu. For an honest person, that should be sufficient to establish Vishnu's superior position. But your friend, in typical evasive style, simply blew it off and referred to some Shiva stotras in the smriti. As if this establishes anything. Yes, I noticed that too.

No he didn't read that, because it isn't there in the Gita. As far as the rest of your message is concerned, you might want to try something a bit more novel, like responding to specific evidence with specific evidence. So far, whenever specific evidence is brought forward that contradicts your position, you just wave it off and allude to something else that is different. It seems that the best you can do is assert that the scriptures are inconsistent. If they are inconsistent, I fail to see how that proves your position, and if your position is found on scriptural inconsistency, then any religious doctrine that is derived from them stands defeated, including yours.

How do you know that those quotes are inserted by "anti-advaithins?" Do you have proof? Or is your sole basis for asserting this the fact that they present a picture that is inconvenient to your worldview? This is a tired refrain amongst the Advaitins. They claim that theirs is the one true philosophy espoused in scripture, but whenever and wherever scripture disagrees with them, they just say it is interpolated.

I don't see how Nostradamus' writings are any more credible than the Bhagavata's. You might consider applying your criticism a little more evenly across the board.

Some of the advaitin arguments on this thread are blatantly hilarious. I especially liked the one that says, "Vaishnavas cannot defeat Advaita because Vaishnava believe the name, form, etc of Vishnu are real and eternal." Yes, and another way of saying that is "You cannot defeat me because you hold beliefs that oppose mine." Uh-huh.... After that, we have Advaitins daring Vaishnavas to say anything against Advaita, and the moment the Vaishnavas start quoting from shruti or smriti, then suddenly "no no no, you can debate with us but you can't quote scripture!" We have some real Voltaires in this group

Time is short, and your grasp on reality seems tenuous as demonstrated by your inability to correctly recall who started trouble here and who is saying what to whom. Once again I note that you continue to make embarassingly trite if not grossly inaccurate generalizations about other religions with little a care in the world for the actual facts about what they teach. Obviously, if your whole basis for recommending Advaita is your ability to knockdown strawmen, then you aren't going to convince anyone who is intelligent enough to look at the facts. To find out what Vaishnava Vedanta is, I have asked you to go and read the commentaries on Vedanta-sutras by Vaishnavas like Madhva, Ramanuja, et. al. Apparently, this was still not clear to you, so I will give the step-by-step process: 1) Go to your local library (the place where they keep the books). 2) Do a card-catalog search for "Vedanta-sutras" and "Madhva." Repeat for different commentators' names. 3) Take a note of the books' availability and location. 4) Go to the appropriate shelves and pick up the books. 5) Take the books to the checkout counter. 6) Check out the books. 7) Go home, read the books carefully, and be happy. 8) Come back here when you have more of an idea as to what you are talking about. While we are on the subject, you may want to do the same for the writings of Sri Sankaracharya, since it is rapidly becoming obvious that you have at best a fuzzy idea of what Advaita actually teaches. Advaita is only one Vedanta-school. We call it "Vedanta" only formally because they have their own commentaries on the Vedanta-sutra and presume to speak on what they think is the subject of Vedanta. But factually speaking, all other Vedanta schools disagree with the atheistic conclusions of Advaita, and most Vedanta schools are in fact theistic, Vaishnava, and bhakti-oriented, which is more in keeping with what is taught in the scriptures. It is a hard pill to swallow for the neo-advaitin cult gurus whose so-called "philosophy" has so caught hold of the collective Hindu imagination. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Advaita is not synonymous with Vedanta, and all other Vedanta schools are definitely united in their disagreement with Advaita. As to your other question, yes I have studied Sanskrit. While some sentences can be interpreted grammatically in more than one way due to different ways of parsing based on sandhi rules or different possibilities of agreement with the different cases, context is used to help narrow down the possibilities to the one, correct meaning. If scripture does not have a singular meaning, and its meaning is instead subjective based on the whims of an unqualified reader, then it would be all together useless to go to the scripture for guidance in the first place, since one might as well claim himself to be the authority. The saying, "One who is his own guru has a fool for a disciple" is relevant here. Another point that emerges is that if one does not know the language, there is no question of one claiming to "interpret" anything or defend any specific "interpretation." This is common sense.