letters from Krish@... in gen and Isvaran in particul

[Guest guest]

The Svetasvatara Upanishad (pardon my spelling) has a verse which says

that "Only one who is fully surrendered to God fully understands the

meaning of the Vedas." We only need to compare our lives here to those of

any Acharya especially the 45 Azhaghia Singars and it is easy to come to a

conclusion as to who is surrendered. The assumptions made by Dileepan and

others who post articles quoting Acharyas is that the readers are aware

that Acharyas are realized souls and therefore do not make mistakes since

Bhagavan "preserves what they have and Carries what they lack". What they

say is no different from Sri Krishna talking to us. Opinions expressed on

this bulletin board that violate this basic assumption is about as

valuable to the serious seeker of God as that of a frog croaking to a

seeker of classical music.

 

Our Christian friend is not far from the truth when he talks about the

only God. The word Christ (as applied to God the father) comes from the

Greek word Christos which means God and which etymologically is the same

as the Sanskrit word Krishta which is another (though little used) name

for Krishna. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all abridged versions of

Vaishnavism. The only difference is that the majority of followers of

these faiths do not fully follow the 10 commandments which begins with

(thou shall not kill) and therefore commands people to be vegetarians.

The ten commandments are incidentally common to all 3 faiths. Sakhya

Vatsalya and Madhurya Rasas are not explained in any of these faiths.

[Guest guest]

I wish to comment on a few points made by Jay Bharadwaj:

 

Jay writes:

* The assumptions made by Dileepan and

* others who post articles quoting Acharyas is that the readers are aware

* that Acharyas are realized souls and therefore do not make mistakes since

* Bhagavan "preserves what they have and Carries what they lack". What they

* say is no different from Sri Krishna talking to us.

 

I do not think this is an assumption we can easily make. Due respect

must be given to Sri Azhagiya Singar and the Swami's predecessors,

since they are men of great learning, but why should we not question

them? Questioning is a vital part of religious inquiry. They are not

perfect beings simply because they are Saranagatas. Since we do not

believe in any concept of jIvanmukti, these swamis are humans and

susceptible to error just as much as we are.

 

There is a definite distinction between the words of Krishna and

the word of Sri Azhagiya Singar.

 

* Opinions expressed on

* this bulletin board that violate this basic assumption is about as

* valuable to the serious seeker of God as that of a frog croaking to a

* seeker of classical music.

 

Is this not a bit too harsh?

 

* The word Christ (as applied to God the father) comes from the

* Greek word Christos which means God and which etymologically is the same

* as the Sanskrit word Krishta which is another (though little used) name

* for Krishna.

 

"Krishna"/"Krishta" and "Christos" are in no way etymologically related, as

any linguist will tell you. First of all, Christos is *never* used

with respect to God the Father, because Christ specifically refers to

the Lord incarnate as the Son. Christ means Savior, since according

to Christianity, Jesus the Christ is the savior of humankind.

 

Christianity and Islam are *not* branches of Vaishnavism; they are

very different independent religions, though they are all inspired

by the same God. So is Saivism; it is just religion in a different

form.

 

Vaishnavites should have no quarrel with Saivas, Christians, or Muslims

on the basis of religious belief, since "sarvadeva-namaskaaram

keSavam pratigacchati".

 

Mani