matarisvan Posted April 22, 2008 Report Share Posted April 22, 2008 In fact everything you have said about Shaivism can be said about Vaisnavism. and everything you said about vaishnavism can be said about shaivism. See the problem now? I on the other hand am following your analogy between Christianity and Shaivism to its logical conclusion which is that Christians worship Jesus, like Saivites worship Siva. That logically makes Jesus analogous to Siva and I'm ok with that, since Siva is a Vaisnava. wrong analogy. The comparsion between christianity with vaishnavism should be seen exactly the same as christianity and shaivism. If Jesus is seen as a worshipper of Vishnu then Jesus can be seen as the worshipper of shiva by the same logic. There is absolutely no difference there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matarisvan Posted April 22, 2008 Report Share Posted April 22, 2008 This was also Srila Prabhupada's conclusion as well. That is by gaining the mercy of the Vaisnava one is sure to receive more information on the nature of the Supreme Person, That is enough for Hare Krishnas. But as we are discussing the larger group of Vaishnavas and not just the Hare Krishna flavor popular among American Christians, the individual opinions of Prabhupada or Bhakti Vinoda Takur mean nothing when they deviate from accepted standards based on personal preferences..as in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrahma Posted April 22, 2008 Report Share Posted April 22, 2008 and everything you said about vaishnavism can be said about shaivism. See the problem now? wrong analogy. The comparsion between christianity with vaishnavism should be seen exactly the same as christianity and shaivism. If Jesus is seen as a worshipper of Vishnu then Jesus can be seen as the worshipper of shiva by the same logic. There is absolutely no difference there. No I am tracing the logic from the assumption that Christianity is Saivism. 'Siva is a worshipper of Visnu'. 'Saivites worship Siva' Similarly 'Jesus is a worshipper of Visnu' 'Christians worship Jesus' Though logically ,it could be made accross the board 'Visnu is a worshipper of Visnu' 'Vaisnavas worship Visnu' I'm not arguing from the characteristics of Vaisnavas to Christianity to prove anything, because Vaisnavism is not on the same level but it is the case that all the points that were made about Saivism, could also be made about Vaisnavism but not vice versa and that is because the relationship of Saivism to Vaisnavism is that of part to whole, or particular to universal. Vaisnavism it the ideal of all religion. That is, it is Religion Itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted April 22, 2008 Report Share Posted April 22, 2008 That is enough for Hare Krishnas. But as we are discussing the larger group of Vaishnavas and not just the Hare Krishna flavor popular among American Christians, the individual opinions of Prabhupada or Bhakti Vinoda Takur mean nothing when they deviate from accepted standards based on personal preferences..as in this case. They mean nothing to you but they mean a lot to others. Just as your opinion means nothing to me but may mean something to others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matarisvan Posted April 22, 2008 Report Share Posted April 22, 2008 No I am tracing the logic from the assumption that Christianity is Saivism. 'Siva is a worshipper of Visnu'. 'Saivites worship Siva' Wrong. Shaivism says Shiva is supreme and Vishnu worships Shiva. Vishnu worships Shiva. He is the best Shaiva Jesus worshipped Shiva. Jesus is a Shaiva. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matarisvan Posted April 22, 2008 Report Share Posted April 22, 2008 They mean nothing to you but they mean a lot to others. Just as your opinion means nothing to me but may mean something to others. The difference (if you can comprehend it which is doubtful) is we are supported by facts and real views while you have only opinions and sales pitch statements of Prabhupada to support your position. You have that and your christian background the total adding up to a big zero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrahma Posted April 22, 2008 Report Share Posted April 22, 2008 <?xml:namespace prefix = o /> Wrong. Shaivism says Shiva is supreme and Vishnu worships Shiva. Vishnu worships Shiva. He is the best Shaiva Jesus worshipped Shiva. Jesus is a Shaiva. I said that Saivites worship Siva and Siva worships Visnu. That is all that matters to the analogy. Jesus is not a Siva worshipper, since that would be a religous rite and Jesus was against such rites. That is a wholesale assumption, derived from no meaningful analogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matarisvan Posted April 22, 2008 Report Share Posted April 22, 2008 Jesus is not a Siva worshipper, since that would be a religous rite and Jesus was against such rites.That is a wholesale assumption, derived from no meaningful analogy. Then it follows jesus was not a Vishnu worshipper as that is a religious rite and Jesus was against such rites. That is a wholesale assumption, derived from no meaningful analogy. Conclusion? Jesus was not a Vaishnava by your logic. I am glad we got it all sorted out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrahma Posted April 22, 2008 Report Share Posted April 22, 2008 Then it follows jesus was not a Vishnu worshipper as that is a religious rite and Jesus was against such rites. That is a wholesale assumption, derived from no meaningful analogy. Conclusion? Jesus was not a Vaishnava by your logic. I am glad we got it all sorted out. Yes he was not a religious Visnu worshipper (ie in the temple) Did Siva engage is such rituals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tackleberry Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 As Jesus' existence hasn't been proven, the question as to whether he was Vaishnava doesn't arise. It's as foolish as discussing the favorite color of a barren woman's son! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrahma Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 As Jesus' existence hasn't been proven, the question as to whether he was Vaishnava doesn't arise. It's as foolish as discussing the favorite color of a barren woman's son! Not that old thing again:sleep: That topic has been rehashed, warmed over and ressurrected more times than it deserves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 Not that old thing again:sleep: That topic has been rehashed, warmed over and ressurrected more times than it deserves. I would say the same for your view on Hinduism and all related topics. It has been given way too much attention here than it deserves. But that is exactly what happens we have free time on our hands. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrahma Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 I would say the same for your view on Hinduism and all related topics. It has been given way too much attention here than it deserves. But that is exactly what happens we have free time on our hands. Cheers I don't think so. I haven't addressed Hinduism per se. Only the anti-Christian knee-jerk responses of certain Hindus. 'Related topics' is too sweeping and vague. The Jesus doesn't exist is pure controversy and is never convergent, just like 'did we fall from the spiritual world'. Until now, I have not yet read any thorough, valid debate on the subject of Vaisnavism and its relationship to sectarian practices. Just dismissive assumptions like the kind you just made about the existence of Jesus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tackleberry Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 Not that old thing again:sleep: That topic has been rehashed, warmed over and ressurrected more times than it deserves. That's because you and your friends never answered it. You guys have cleverly evaded the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrahma Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 That's because you and your friends never answered it. You guys have cleverly evaded the issue. Nonsense. I attacked the issue front and center and had to spend most of my time weeding out all the logical fallacies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tackleberry Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 Nonsense. I attacked the issue front and center and had to spend most of my time weeding out all the logical fallacies. Whatever you say! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrahma Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 Whatever you say! You don't have to take my word for it, anymore than I have to take your word that Jesus didn't exist. You can verify that for yourself. (If you are honest and capable:) ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadheRade1657 Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 As Jesus' existence hasn't been proven, the question as to whether he was Vaishnava doesn't arise. It's as foolish as discussing the favorite color of a barren woman's son! Krishna's existence hasn't been proven. Rama's existence hasn't been proven. Shiva's existence hasn't been proven. That there's even a Creator of our universe hasn't been proven! So, going by your argument, I guess we shouldn't talk about anything to do with the spiritual world or God, since none of it can be proven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tackleberry Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 Krishna's existence hasn't been proven. Rama's existence hasn't been proven. Shiva's existence hasn't been proven. That there's even a Creator of our universe hasn't been proven! So, going by your argument, I guess we shouldn't talk about anything to do with the spiritual world or God, since none of it can be proven. If you don't believe in Krishna, then don't call yourself Vaishnava. Simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadheRade1657 Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 If you don't believe in Krishna, then don't call yourself Vaishnava. Simple. I believe in Krishna. I also believe in Jesus. I don't see why I have to give up belief in one to believe in the other. They can both be proven to the same extent (which is slim-to-none). That's all I was saying. I don't claim Jesus to be a Vaishnava. I don't really care if he was or wasn't. I like his message. It's a good message. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncientMariner Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 I believe in Krishna. I also believe in Jesus. I don't see why I have to give up belief in one to believe in the other. They can both be proven to the same extent (which is slim-to-none). That's all I was saying.I don't claim Jesus to be a Vaishnava. I don't really care if he was or wasn't. I like his message. It's a good message. That's the way I feel about it. I just can't find anything wrong with the message of Jesus. Maybe he is a myth or something who knows for sure? but believing in him has made my life feel more meaningful so I don't see any harm in it unless you become a crazy sectarian fanatic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrahma Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 That's the way I feel about it. I just can't find anything wrong with the message of Jesus. Maybe he is a myth or something who knows for sure? but believing in him has made my life feel more meaningful so I don't see any harm in it unless you become a crazy sectarian fanatic. How can you prove anybody existed? There is more evidence that Jesus existed than he didn't. In fact at this point in history there is more evidence for Jesus's historical existence than Krsna's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncientMariner Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 How can you prove anybody existed? There is more evidence that Jesus existed than he didn't. In fact at this point in history there is more evidence for Jesus's historical existence than Krsna's. Personally I do believe he existed but I couldn't prove it especially to someone who really believes he didn't exist. No matter what you tell them they come up with something so it becomes kind of pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadheRade1657 Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 That's the way I feel about it. I just can't find anything wrong with the message of Jesus. Maybe he is a myth or something who knows for sure? but believing in him has made my life feel more meaningful so I don't see any harm in it unless you become a crazy sectarian fanatic. My thoughts exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tackleberry Posted April 24, 2008 Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 How can you prove anybody existed? There is more evidence that Jesus existed than he didn't. In fact at this point in history there is more evidence for Jesus's historical existence than Krsna's. Thank you for giving yourself away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.