Jesus and Krishna

[Dark Warrior]

 

You have a hellish mentality if you think the arca vigraha of the Supreme Lord in a representation of a a form from heaven, That means you are just another demi-god worshiper.

 

The verse you quoted also means no forms from under the sea or on the land plus those in heaven which the the early jews took to mean the stars.

 

It is an offense to consider the Lord's Name Form etc. to be a product of heaven land or sea.

 

Archa form is not just a representation. The archa form is verily an avatar of the Lord Himself. We are not able to see the Lord at Vaikuntha, and we weren't present during His avatars such as Rama and Krishna. We are unable to see the Lord indwelling within us. But the archa form is accessible to even chandalas.

 

In fact, Lord Ranganatha of Srirangam and Lord Venkateswara of Tirupati are held as self-manifested avatars of Vishnu.

 

 

The Vedas authorized meat eating in certain cases. In fact animal sacrfices become a pretext for eating meat.

Are you saying no GV ate meat? The ksatriyas did. In fact all the Western religions do. So they are incompatible or simply in tama guna?

 

The Vedic sanction of meat eating is allowed in previous Yugas.

 

However, the people of Kali Yuga lack the know-how to properly perform such a sacrifice.

 

 

Please I understand GV as well as you. Asking for guru, sastra and sadhu evidence of the incompatibility of Christianity is no reason for a Vaisnava to be offensive. In fact a Vaisnava is never supposed to be offensive, even for less legitimate reasons.

Finally you need to read my quote from Bhaktivinode Thakur on the subject-

he mentioned how he preferred Christianity. If it's so stupid and uneducated to think that Christianity is compatible with GV, why wouldn't he say so?

 

You are not even a Vaishnava in the first place. What you know about Gaudiya Vaishnavism, or even other traditions of Vaishnavism, can fit into the surface area of a pinhead.

 

Sri Bhaktivinode Thakura lived during a time when he was exposed to foriegn religions like Christianity. Therfore, he stressed on the harmony of various religions. But this only means that he considered Krishna to be the God of all people. It does not mean he considered Christianity to be compatible with Vaishnavism.

 

Again, answer this simple question - What makes Christianity compatible with Vaishnavism when even Shaivism, a personal religion, is not?

[Malati dasi]

Radhe Radhe

 

I will get back to this thread in due course. Haven't read the posts yet. I work full time and have many other responsibilities. Time unfortunately is of short supply to me. Have to cook dinner now and then finish my japa and my gayatri.

 

Thanks , Dark Warrior for your very intelligent comments. We need poeple like you.

 

Radhe Radhe

[cbrahma]

The meat-eating shiboleth (I am a vegetarain BTW) does not settle the matter

 

In the Govardhana story as described in the Harivamsa (authoritative scripture for Gaudiya Vaisnavas), Krishna eats buffalo meat with the cowherds. He also transforms himself into wolves, and eats gopis and their babies

Now especially in Kali Yuga, where all are sudra or lower, meat-eating is common, natural. That cannot in itself be a disqualification for practicing Yuga dharma.

 

 

You are not even a Vaishnava in the first place. What you know about Gaudiya Vaishnavism, or even other traditions of Vaishnavism, can fit into the surface area of a pinhead.

 

Your puffed up attitude over your professed jnana is phenomal and hardly Vaisnava, especially since Vaisnava isn't about extensive book knowledge. Apparently you don't know that.

Again, your attack is a spurious ad hominem (your one debating technique). I don't have to be a Vaisnava to know about Vaisnavism, anymore than you have to be a Christian to know about Christianity. I know enough to address the anti-Christian fallacies that you keep touting. Besides I have read many of Srila Prabhupada's books. What is your claim to such extensive knowledge when you obviously don't even have a grasp of the fundamentals?

 

 

Sri Bhaktivinode Thakura lived during a time when he was exposed to foriegn religions like Christianity. Therfore, he stressed on the harmony of various religions. But this only means that he considered Krishna to be the God of all people. It does not mean he considered Christianity to be compatible with Vaishnavism.

 

Wow what a non sequitur. He actually said he preferred Christianity and put baptism in the same category as wearing tilak. That can hardly mean that it is incompatible.

[Dark Warrior]

 

The meat-eating shiboleth (I am a vegetarain BTW) does not settle the matter

 

Moron, the fact is, you know nothing about Lord Krishna or Vaishnavism, and that quote proves it.

 

 

 

Your puffed up attitude over your professed jnana is phenomal and hardly Vaisnava, especially since Vaisnava isn't about extensive book knowledge. Apparently you don't know that.

 

Vaishnavism is 'Worship of Vishnu'. Either do that, or get out of here.

 

 

Again, your attack is a spurious ad hominem (your one debating technique). I don't have to be a Vaisnava to know about Vaisnavism, anymore than you have to be a Christian to know about Christianity. I know enough to address the anti-Christian fallacies that you keep touting. Besides I have read many of Srila Prabhupada's books. What is your claim to such extensive knowledge when you obviously don't even have a grasp of the fundamentals?

 

I have read most of the works of Sri Ramanujar, Sri Desikar, Sri Manavala Mamunigal and the Divya Prabandha. I have a deeper knowledge of the eternal truths revealed in the Smritis than you ever will know.

 

Simply reading Srila Prabhupada's commentaries on Gita and Bhagavatam does not make one an expert. Yes, these two books are sufficient for knowledge, but ONLY if the seeker has no bias.

 

Its a joke to say you know vaishnavism, when you haven't even read and appreciated the meanings of Sri Vishnu Sahasranamam. Do you even know how the supremacy of Vishnu is proven in the Vedas?

 

I am not anti-christian. If you only professed to be a Christian, there would be no argument. You have no call to link Christianity with Vaishnavism.

 

 

 

Wow what a non sequitur. He actually said he preferred Christianity and put baptism in the same category as wearing tilak. That can hardly mean that it is incompatible.

 

Moron, if baptism was the same category as wearing tilak, so would decorating oneself with the ash of Shiva be so. But it isn't. Therfore, Bhaktivinode Thakura was simply mistaken. I am not a Gaudiya Vaishnava and hence have no obligation to affirming the opinions of Sri Bhaktivinode Thakura or Srila Prabhupada. I strongly suspect that these two acharyas were simply compromising for the sake of their times.

 

Before the time of Bhaktivinode, no acharya has ever addressed Christainity. So I suggest you shut up and either follow one faith or the other, instead of getting stuck in between.

[cbrahma]

 

Moron, the fact is, you know nothing about Lord Krishna or Vaishnavism, and that quote proves it.

 

How do you leap to that moronic conclusion? You are making your conclusion your argument. Is that because you know nothing about logic, being Indian, or just that your culture has an unreasoning bias against Christianity?

 

 

 

Vaishnavism is 'Worship of Vishnu'. Either do that, or get out of here.

I know that definition. Nevertheless it didn't prevent Prabhupada and other acaryas from recognizing some Westerners as Vaisnava.

 

 

 

I have read most of the works of Sri Ramanujar, Sri Desikar, Sri Manavala Mamunigal and the Divya Prabandha. I have a deeper knowledge of the eternal truths revealed in the Smritis than you ever will know.

 

Simply reading Srila Prabhupada's commentaries on Gita and Bhagavatam does not make one an expert. Yes, these two books are sufficient for knowledge, but ONLY if the seeker has no bias.

 

Its a joke to say you know vaishnavism, when you haven't even read and appreciated the meanings of Sri Vishnu Sahasranamam. Do you even know how the supremacy of Vishnu is proven in the Vedas?

 

I am not anti-christian. If you only professed to be a Christian, there would be no argument. You have no call to link Christianity with Vaishnavism.

 

You don't know what I know and you don't know what I don't know. You speculate from phenomenal arrogance. I'm not claiming to be an 'expert' becausing being Vaisnava is not about book knowledge expertise as you would have us believe or ignorant candalas could not be GVs. I'm not claiming to be Vaisnava either. Of course you are not expert either since you don't understand the basics and have the audacity to correct Bhaktivinode Thakur. That would certainly make you a mudha.

Prabhupada has certainly explained the supremacy of Visnu and how it is proven. Why do I have to read the extensive texts on the matter?

In fact why is that a condition for Vaisnavism?

[Dark Warrior]

I will conclude by saying, it is a shame that mlecchas like cBrahma consider themselves as authorities on Vaishnavism, when they do not even appreciate what the tradition is about.

 

There are many nice christians, and there are many converts who have wholeheartedly become true Vaishnavas. But then again, there are nincompoops like cBrahma who read a couple of books by Srila Prabhupada and consider themselves as experts on Vaishnavism.

 

cBrahma, by his quote on Lord Krishna, has proven himself to be an ignorant mleccha of the highest order. Therfore, debating with him is useless.

 

I would like to ask cBrahma, exactly what does he know about Sri Hari to talk about vaishnavism in this way? Does he know the swamitvam, vatsalyam, sousheelyam and soulabhyam of the Lord?

 

Does cBrahma know the significance of Lord Rama's avatar in which He allowed everyone to do some sort of devotional service? Does he know the significance of Vibhishana's saranagati, or of Bharata's devotion?

 

Has cBrahma ever realised that the beauty and majesty of Lord Krishna can only be brought out by a tradition like Vaishnavism, which is timeless and eternal? How dare he even associate it with a 2000 year old mleccha faith like Christianity?

 

He has the nerve to question myself and others, who have been born and brought up in a Vaishnava household, about our knowledge, when he himself is a failed byproduct of ISKCON.

 

He also has the gall to question the logic of our scripture when we point out the failings in the bible. Without understanding the metaphysics of the Vedas, how can this fool even say that the Vedas are inconsistent with Science? It took our acharyas a long time to divine the truths of our scriptures. No two bit convert will ever be able to understand the Vedas.

 

Lastly, he still evades this question - WHY is Christianity compatible with Vaishnavism, when Shaivism is not? Just because a couple of mordern acharyas talked of the merits of Christianity, it does not make it so. For one thing, there is no sastric pramana. Secondly, no acharya before Sri Bhaktivinode has mentioned such a thing. Thirdly, Christianity does not even have a proper conception of God.

 

We cannot accept an acharya's opinion just because he is a devotee. I do not accept Achintya Bheda Abheda, yet I respect the Goswamis of Vrindavan for their bhakti. Just because we disagree with an opinion of an acharya does not mean we do not respect them for their bhakti.

 

Fact remains, before Sri Bhaktivinode Thakura, no acharya of even the Gaudiya Parampara has EVER linked Christianity with Vaishnavism.

 

I would like cBrahma to go to a Vaishnava website of any sampradaya and see if Christianity is mentioned there. No Vaishnava will accept Jesus, cBrahma or Christianity.

[cbrahma]

 

I will conclude by saying, it is a shame that mlecchas like cBrahma consider themselves as authorities on Vaishnavism, when they do not even appreciate what the tradition is about.

 

There are many nice christians, and there are many converts who have wholeheartedly become true Vaishnavas. But then again, there are nincompoops like cBrahma who read a couple of books by Srila Prabhupada and consider themselves as experts on Vaishnavism.

 

cBrahma, by his quote on Lord Krishna, has proven himself to be an ignorant mleccha of the highest order. Therfore, debating with him is useless.

 

I would like to ask cBrahma, exactly what does he know about Sri Hari to talk about vaishnavism in this way? Does he know the swamitvam, vatsalyam, sousheelyam and soulabhyam of the Lord?

 

Does cBrahma know the significance of Lord Rama's avatar in which He allowed everyone to do some sort of devotional service? Does he know the significance of Vibhishana's saranagati, or of Bharata's devotion?

 

Has cBrahma ever realised that the beauty and majesty of Lord Krishna can only be brought out by a tradition like Vaishnavism, which is timeless and eternal? How dare he even associate it with a 2000 year old mleccha faith like Christianity?

 

He has the nerve to question myself and others, who have been born and brought up in a Vaishnava household, about our knowledge, when he himself is a failed byproduct of ISKCON.

 

He also has the gall to question the logic of our scripture when we point out the failings in the bible. Without understanding the metaphysics of the Vedas, how can this fool even say that the Vedas are inconsistent with Science? It took our acharyas a long time to divine the truths of our scriptures. No two bit convert will ever be able to understand the Vedas.

 

Lastly, he still evades this question - WHY is Christianity compatible with Vaishnavism, when Shaivism is not? Just because a couple of mordern acharyas talked of the merits of Christianity, it does not make it so. For one thing, there is no sastric pramana. Secondly, no acharya before Sri Bhaktivinode has mentioned such a thing. Thirdly, Christianity does not even have a proper conception of God.

 

I would like cBrahma to go to a Vaishnava website of any sampradaya and see if Christianity is mentioned there. No Vaishnava will accept Jesus, cBrahma or Christianity.

I am not claiming expertise on the subject. One doesn't need expertise, just authoritative references.

You are not grasping the basics. You sound like a puffed up caste-conscious religionist self-styled brahmana - not a Vaisnava, or you would understand that claiming Christianity to be incompatible with Vaisnavism is like saying triangles are incompatible with geometry. You don't possess the conceptual basics even to argue like an intelligent gentleman. You resort to name-calling and non-sequiturs. You do not prove your expertise, only your false ego.

I'm glad you came to this site to illustrate how pseudo-Vaisnavas can discredit that wonderful transcendental and non-sectarian path that Lord Caitanya wanted to spread to every town and village regardless of their caste and creed.

I have quoted experts on the subject and you still, through your pseudo-brahminical egotism, claim they are stupid morons simply because you , the grand brahminical expert, disagree with them. I for one am not impressed.

[Dark Warrior]

 

I am not claiming expertise on the subject. One doesn't need expertise, just authoritative references.

You are not grasping the basics. You sound like a puffed up caste-conscious religionist self-styled brahmana - not a Vaisnava, or you would understand that claiming Christianity to be incompatible with Vaisnavism is like saying triangles are incompatible with geometry. You don't possess the conceptual basics even to argue like an intelligent gentleman. You resort to name-calling and non-sequiturs. You do not prove your expertise, only your false ego.

I'm glad you came to this site to illustrate how pseudo-Vaisnavas can discredit that wonderful transcendental and non-sectarian path that Lord Caitanya wanted to spread to every town and village regardless of their caste and creed.

I have quoted experts on the subject and you still, through your pseudo-brahminical egotism, claim they are stupid morons simply because you , the grand brahminical expert, disagree with them. I for one am not impressed.

 

Keep yammering away.

 

Until you learn to go to the temple of Lord Parthasarathy in Thiruvallikeni and appreciate Him from top to toe, admiring His beautiful large forehead, His cute nose, His wide-open eyes, and His glorious ornaments as I do daily, you have no argument.

[Tirisilex]

OMG.. Dark Warriors Ignorance is so appalling.

[Dark Warrior]

 

OMG.. Dark Warriors Ignorance is so appalling.

 

OMG, we have another expert here.

 

Let me remind cBrahma of this quote:

 

 

You sound like a puffed up caste-conscious religionist self-styled brahmana - not a Vaisnava, or you would understand that claiming Christianity to be incompatible with Vaisnavism is like saying triangles are incompatible with geometry. You don't possess the conceptual basics even to argue like an intelligent gentleman

 

Its funny that a complete ignoramus like cBrahma, who doesn't even know the basic meanings of a common hymn like the Purusha Suktam, can accuse me of not knowing the 'basics'. And its quite funny that a loser who hasn't even read the Ramayanam properly can accuse me of not knowing the sastras. Incompetent clown.

 

1) Tell me, when Sri Ramanujacharya, Sri Madhvacharya, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, etc. propagated Vaishnavism, did they ask their followers to include Christianity? No.

 

2) Do all orthodox Vaishnavas say that Christianity is compatible with Vaishnavism? No. Therfore, you fall in a minority.

 

3) Shaivism has been refuted thoroughly by Vaishnava acharyas. Why then, is Christianity compatible with Vaishnavism?

 

4) Bhaktivinode Thakura has also blasted Christianity elsewhere. Ever read that?

 

5) What makes you, a convert, attempt to argue with Vaishnavas who have been raised in an atmosphere of devotion and love for Vishnu?

 

6) Do Christians say that their religion is linked with ours? No. So, even the Christians will disagree with you.

 

7) You speak of me being ignorant of the sastras. I ask you again, do you know anything about the Lord? Are you aware of the significance of His names? Do you know the purpose of Trivikrama Avatar was to bless all Jivas with a touch of His Lotus Feet? Or how devotees performed service to Rama in different ways? Or how Lord Krishna emulated Hanuman's service in being a messenger for the Pandavas?

 

Not one iota of realisation, and these fools call themselves authorities on Vaishnavism. Look at what you posted about Lord Krishna. It gives me great disgust to even reproduce this:

 

 

In the Govardhana story as described in the Harivamsa (authoritative scripture for Gaudiya Vaisnavas), Krishna eats buffalo meat with the cowherds. He also transforms himself into wolves, and eats gopis and their babies

 

The fact that your endorse such misinformation shows exactly where you stand. And you, a blasphemous little wart, have the cheek to call me a Pseudo Vaishnava?

 

Gaudiya Vaishnavism is known for its single minded devotion to Lord Krishna. I am sure this isn't authenticated by any acharya from that parampara.

 

 

 

I'm glad you came to this site to illustrate how pseudo-Vaisnavas can discredit that wonderful transcendental and non-sectarian path that Lord Caitanya wanted to spread to every town and village regardless of their caste and creed.

 

Might I ask, what credentials do you possess to label me as a 'pseudovaishnava'? You are such a moron that you can't even accept the fact that NO orthodox Vaishnava endorses your ridiculous opinions. Your brand of Christian Vaishnavism is definitely Pseudo-. How dare you question my lineage?

 

Your retarded opinions only sprung up in the 20th century when many Christians converted to Vaishnavism. However, we orthodox Vaishnavas have been following our gurus for ages before morons like you attempted to ruin our culture.

 

First learn the meaning of 'sectarian'. Vaishnavas do not condemn everyone to hell, like Christianity. Sriman Narayana may give moksha to Christians as well. I already explained it in the other thread. So, shut it.

 

 

I have quoted experts on the subject and you still, through your pseudo-brahminical egotism, claim they are stupid morons simply because you , the grand brahminical expert, disagree with them. I for one am not impressed.

 

Moron, I have given sufficient evidence to prove my point. When morals, renunciation and devotion to God are present in other religions, then how is Christianity compatible with Vaishnavism?

 

Bhaktivinode Thakura never attempted to equate Christianity with Vaishnavism. Fact remains, He was a great Krishna bhakta and had no affliation with Christianity either. So, stop taking quotes out of context.

 

I am the only one who disagrees with him? Please tell me, do all Vaishnavas allow Christians to hang up a Cross in temples? Where in all of Vaishnavite literature is Christianity even mentioned?

 

Persistent idiots like cBrahma are seriously annoying.

[Amlesh]

Certainly the way you are all using Vaishnavism as the measurement stick is not the proper way. Vaishnavism is not used to compare but to find its degree of presence with other religions. The higher the degree is, the more the religion is close to krishna. When the time comes when you become one of the seer of God, at that time you'll not tag yourself with any religion.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Certainly the way you are all using Vaishnavism as the measurement stick is not the proper way. Vaishnavism is not used to compare but to find its degree of presence with other religions. The higher the degree is, the more the religion is close to krishna. When the time comes when you become one of the seer of God, at that time you'll not tag yourself with any religion.

 

I see. That's an admirable sentiment, but can you atleast explain why our acharyas were so quick to condemn Shaktism, Shaivism, Ganapatya and Kapalika faiths as unvedic and unlinked to Vaishnavism? After all, these faiths are also personal. But rather than appreciating the bhakti in those traditions, Vaishnavas condemned it as invalid paths.

 

When even Shiva and other devas should'nt be worshipped, then why should we even consider a faith like Christianity?

 

cBrahma quotes Sri Bhaktivinode Thakura out of context and calls it a proof. But first, let him understand the meaning of 'pramana'. It means, an authoritative reference from sastras. Unless there is a quote from scripture validating a theory, it cannot be accepted, even if its a personal opinion of our acharyas.

 

For example, Vaishnava acharyas did not defeat advaitins by simply saying, 'It is our personal opinion that advaita is wrong'. They had to prove it in sastra.

[cbrahma]

 

Keep yammering away.

 

Until you learn to go to the temple of Lord Parthasarathy in Thiruvallikeni and appreciate Him from top to toe, admiring His beautiful large forehead, His cute nose, His wide-open eyes, and His glorious ornaments as I do daily, you have no argument.

Compared to your pseudo-brahminical frothing it's hardly yammering. And you speak on the behalf of Krsna, as if you had exclusive access. Your arrogance is almost demonic.

[cbrahma]

 

Its funny that a complete ignoramus like cBrahma, who doesn't even know the basic meanings of a common hymn like the Purusha Suktam, can accuse me of not knowing the 'basics'. And its quite funny that a loser who hasn't even read the Ramayanam properly can accuse me of not knowing the sastras. Incompetent clown.

Your proclaimed book knowledge proves nothing. You still haven't provided a shred of prroof. Just your usual arrogant offensiveness.

 

1) Tell me, when Sri Ramanujacharya, Sri Madhvacharya, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, etc. propagated Vaishnavism, did they ask their followers to include Christianity? No.

They did not exclude Islam. Why would they exclude Christianity? Are you capable of that logical maneuver?

 

 

2) Do all orthodox Vaishnavas say that Christianity is compatible with Vaishnavism? No. Therfore, you fall in a minority.

 

Orthodox Vaishnavas like Bhaktivindoe Thakur and Prabhupada do not say it is incompatible. Yes.

 

 

3) Shaivism has been refuted thoroughly by Vaishnava acharyas. Why then, is Christianity compatible with Vaishnavism?

What does Shaivism have to do with it?

 

 

4) Bhaktivinode Thakura has also blasted Christianity elsewhere. Ever read that?

No. Have you?

 

5) What makes you, a convert, attempt to argue with Vaishnavas who have been raised in an atmosphere of devotion and love for Vishnu?

And you're an example? LOL.

 

 

6) Do Christians say that their religion is linked with ours? No. So, even the Christians will disagree with you.

The more enligthened Christians understand the universality of Christ's teachings.

 

 

7) You speak of me being ignorant of the sastras. I ask you again, do you know anything about the Lord? Are you aware of the significance of His names? Do you know the purpose of Trivikrama Avatar was to bless all Jivas with a touch of His Lotus Feet? Or how devotees performed service to Rama in different ways? Or how Lord Krishna emulated Hanuman's service in being a messenger for the Pandavas?

These schoolboy taunts ' of I know something you don't know- nani nani'

Are beside the point. You have some book knowledge and have missed the basic truth.

 

 

 

Gaudiya Vaishnavism is known for its single minded devotion to Lord Krishna. I am sure this isn't authenticated by any acharya from that parampara.

 

 

 

True. Not it's simple minded antagonism against another religion.

Ooh. All I have to do is question your sacred self-presumed status of Vaisnava and you go balistic. It's obvious what matters to you Distinction, honor, reputation. The designation rather than the reality. You have every right of course to flame everybody in sight, because after all you are a highly knowledgeable Vaisnava - huff huff.

It's really very amusing. You are truly the clown.

 

 

Might I ask, what credentials do you possess to label me as a 'pseudovaishnava'? You are such a moron that you can't even accept the fact that NO orthodox Vaishnava endorses your ridiculous opinions. Your brand of Christian Vaishnavism is definitely Pseudo-. How dare you question my lineage?

I don't need any more credentials than your own behaviour on this forum. You condemn yourself with every word you write.

 

 

First learn the meaning of 'sectarian'. Vaishnavas do not condemn everyone to hell, like Christianity. Sriman Narayana may give moksha to Christians as well. I already explained it in the other thread. So, shut it.

You compound your bookish pseudo-Vaisnavism with total misinformation of Christianity. I don't really care to enlighten you on the latter.

 

 

Moron, I have given sufficient evidence to prove my point. When morals, renunciation and devotion to God are present in other religions, then how is Christianity compatible with Vaishnavism?

All you've done is foam at the mouth with your brahminical claims, book-dropping and insults.

 

 

Bhaktivinode Thakura never attempted to equate Christianity with Vaishnavism. Fact remains, He was a great Krishna bhakta and had no affliation with Christianity either. So, stop taking quotes out of context.

 

He showed that Christianity was not incompatible with Vaisnavism.

 

 

 

I am the only one who disagrees with him? Please tell me, do all Vaishnavas allow Christians to hang up a Cross in temples? Where in all of Vaishnavite literature is Christianity even mentioned?

You don't get the simple fact, that temples are places of worship. They are religious in nature. They depend as Bhaktivinode said on 'external signs'. They are for the kanistha-adhikaris. The neophytes. Vaisnavism is not a specific religion. The outward forms may vary. You have not understood the acaryas.

 

 

Persistent idiots like cBrahma are seriously annoying.

I don't see you relenting in your culturally inspired bigotry.

[Tirisilex]

Dark Warrior: All I can say is that you should really meditate on 3 things..

 

Bhagavad-Gita 7:21 "I am in everyone's heart as the supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship the Demigods, I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to some particular deity."

 

Gods Universal Form..

 

And the Ominpresence of God.. That God emanates through everything..

 

The only way you can dispell your Ignorance is if you Meditate on these things with all your heart and your mind.

 

You say you Believe in the Gita.. Then start showing IT!

[theist]

 

Certainly the way you are all using Vaishnavism as the measurement stick is not the proper way. Vaishnavism is not used to compare but to find its degree of presence with other religions. The higher the degree is, the more the religion is close to krishna. When the time comes when you become one of the seer of God, at that time you'll not tag yourself with any religion.

Wonderfully said. The gita tells us there are four kinds of people who approach the Lord. Not one of us here on this forum approach the Lord without some ulterior motive even though several apparently think they do. They are really displaying their own incredibly puffed up egos.

 

By teaching to ask God for bread Jesus was telling them/us to be mindful that we are all directly dependent on the Supreme Lord for everything. When one advances from that position then he can be instructed to offer the bread to the Lord in practice. Then when his heart opens he will offer in love. Who here offers with love?

 

One glaring symptom of the psuedo-vaisnava or kanistha is that they cannot appreciate the presence of God beyond their own book or clique. Such self-righteousness really is a stain on someone calling themselves a Vaisnava.

 

"I am a real Vaisnava and you are not" Are these the type of words that one would expect coming from the lips of a real Vaisnava? I think not.

[cbrahma]

 

RADICAL KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS by His Divine Grace Sri Srimad Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami Maharaja Prabhupada

...The idea of an organized church, in an intelligible form, indeed marks the close of the living spiritual movement. The great ecclesiastical establishments are the dikes and the dams supposed to retain the current that cannot be held by any such contrivances. They, indeed, indicate a desire on the part of the masses to exploit a spiritual movement for their own purpose. They also unmistakably indicate the end of the absolute and unconventional guidance of the bona fide spiritual teacher. The people of this world understand preventative systems; they have no idea at all of the unprevented positive eternal life. Neither can there be any earthy contrivance for the permanent preservation of the life eternal on this mundane plane on the popular scale.

Those are, therefore, greatly mistaken who are disposed to look forward to the amelioration of the worldly state--in any worldly sense—due to the worldly success of any really spiritual movement. It is these worldly expectants who become the patrons of the mischievous race of the pseudo-teachers of religion, the Putanas, whose congenial function is to stifle the theistic disposition at the very moment of its suspected appearance. But the real</U> theistic disposition can never be stifled by the efforts of those Putanas. The Putanas have power only over the atheist. It is a thankless, but salutary, task which they perform for the benefit of their unwilling victims...

 

[raghu]

 

"I am a real Vaisnava and you are not" Are these the type of words that one would expect coming from the lips of a real Vaisnava? I think not.

 

How about from the pen of a real Vaishnava?

 

 

 

 

 

<CENTER>grhitaivisnudiksako visnu-pujaparo narah</CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER>vaisnavo 'bhihito 'bhijnairitaro 'smadavaisnavah </CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER>

"One who is initiated into the Vaishnava mantra and who is devoted to worshipping Lord Vishnu/Krishna is a Vaishnava. One who is devoid of these practices is not a Vaishnava." (quote from Hari-bhakti-vilas,11, quoted from Padma Purana)

[guliaditya]

Respected Cbrahma,

 

I fully accept with Dark Warrior.

I would request you to pls go thru the literature of Sri Sampradaya.It will clear all your doubts.

Secondly Christianity can't be equated with Vaishnavism.

I dont think Christians worship Shreeman Narayan, the supreme authority.This is the first requirement to become Vaishnava.

Even worshippers of Lord Shiva can't be categorised as vaishnava.

Hence I would request you not to indulge further in debate.With debate nothing can be achieved.Only thru Bhakti of Shreeman Narayan we can have peace of mind which is recommended by all the scriptures & acharyas.

 

This are my views. I am sorry if i have offended you.

 

Pranaam

[Amlesh]

 

How about from the pen of a real Vaishnava?

 

 

 

 

 

<center>grhitaivisnudiksako visnu-pujaparo narah</center><center></center><center>vaisnavo 'bhihito 'bhijnairitaro 'smadavaisnavah </center><center></center><center></center><center></center><center></center>

"One who is initiated into the Vaishnava mantra and who is devoted to worshipping Lord Vishnu/Krishna is a Vaishnava. One who is devoid of these practices is not a Vaishnava." (quote from Hari-bhakti-vilas,11, quoted from Padma Purana)

 

Whatever Theist said is True and it was confirmed by Krishna himself in the Bhagvad Gita. Very very rarely, after many many births one becomes My Devotee.

There is a large difference between an aspirant Vaishnava and a Vaishnava, i.e., trying to be perfect and being perfect and whatever that has come from the pen of the real Vaishnava confirms that also.

It is more like to be or not to be and that's why Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said, "a real devotee thinks that he does not possess a single drop of love for Krishna"

[Dark Warrior]

 

They did not exclude Islam. Why would they exclude Christianity? Are you capable of that logical maneuver?

 

Ever heard of the invasion of Srirangam, when 13000 Sri Vaishnavas were beheaded by the barbarian hordes of Malik Kafur?

 

Islam is not Vaishnavism, moron. Sri Madhvacharya did indeed talk to a muslim King about everyone being children of the same God. But that does not mean he validated Islam. Just like Vishnu alone grants the prayers of even Shaivites, he does so for Christians.

 

Pillai Lokacharya and Vedanta Desikar had to hide among dead bodies and rescue children from barbarians who wanted to convert Sri Vaishnavas by sword. Since they were unsuccessful, they simply killed all the people there.

 

You dare call Islam or Christianity Vaishnavism? Christianity has done damage in another way...missionaries like Max Muller gave out perverted meanings of sastras and deluded many hindus.

 

 

The more enligthened Christians understand the universality of Christ's teachings.

 

Let me see:

 

1) Love thy neighbour. Turn the other cheek.

 

Oh wait, Lord Buddha already said it 500 years before Jesus. Buddhists are not accepted as Vaishnavas, are they?

 

2) Do not kill, blah blah.

 

Again, Mahavira, the Jain teacher preceded Jesus on this one. Tell me, are Jains Vaishnavas?

 

3) Love God, worship him.

 

Shaivites score on this one. So, are Shaivites Vaishnavas? And please tell me, is there any proof to show that Jesus was talking about Vishnu and not Shiva.

 

Idiot. I see no connection.

 

cBrahma blindly quotes Bhaktivinode without understanding. Its true that every Jiva is innately a Vaishnava because Sriman Narayana is alone the Supreme Lord for all. But since they follow different faiths deluded by maya, these faiths cannot be Vaishnavism.

 

'The external symbols' that Bhaktivinode was talking about is this - Discard Christianity, Islam and all the inadequate external religions and follow your true identity - Vaishnavism.

 

As for Srila Prabhupada, he was simply calling Jesus an avatar for conversion purposes. logically, it is proven as follows:

 

Since Jesus as avatar isn't sastras, we have to say that either Prabhupada was mistaken, or he was just appeasing christians. Since Prabhupada is an acharya, we can assume the latter, because that wouldn't necessitate us to believe that he was wrong.

 

Keep ducking the issue cBrahma. Read guladitya's posts. Exactly WHAT MAKES CHRISTIANITY COMPATIBLE WITH VAISHNAVISM WHEN SHAIVISM ISN'T?

 

Pathetic display of ignorance by cBrahma. He says I am a 'caste conscious brahmin' without knowing that many Sri Vaishnava acharyas are not even Brahmins!! We worship anyone who is a devotee of Vishnu. No caste differences here.

 

And he says, my devotion is just bookish knowledge!! I see, so basically, Sri Ramayana and mahabharata are useless books. I wonder why our acharyas had to commentate on them then? Because according to cBrahma, one can understand Hari without the scripture.

 

This is partly true, but it is possible only for those who have a high level of jnana and capabilities of doing many upasanas. Since we lack that, we can only understand Him by referring to the works of our realised acharyas and rishis.

[guliaditya]

Respected Cbrahma,

 

As per Padma purana, any one who tries to equate Lord Brahma & Lord Shiva to Lord Narayana is an atheist.Lord Brahma & Lord Shiva are ansh of Lord Naryana. When they cant be equated how can we equate Lord Narayana to Jesus.Hence Christanity is not compatible with Vaishnavism & it will be offence if we try to equate it.

Hence there is no point to further continue this debate.

 

Pranaam

[Amlesh]

All that you've said is logical Dark Warrior. But ask yourself these questions:

1. Do you think that Vedanta Deshikar ever despised those Barbarians even though He had to hide among dead bodies...

2. Do you think Jesus Christ ever had any hatred for those who crucified Him?

3. Do you think M.K.Gandhi had any grudge against the British though they despised Him?

4. Do you think Madhavacharya felt annoyed when no one could understand His teachings?

 

Well, we don't need to climb on coconut tree to get the answer. I do understand your points, but Vaishnavism has more inner meanings that need to be discovered.

[bija]

Well, we don't need to climb on coconut tree to get the answer. amlesh

Coming from a land down-under I dont see coconut trees so much...thx for putting a smile on my dial amlesh:) Universal language!

[Amlesh]

 

Coming from a land down-under I dont see coconut trees so much...thx for putting a smile on my dial amlesh:) Universal language!

 

Sorry for the uncommon expression; my surroundings are just the opposite of yours; such trees are quite common:).