How is Vaishnavism not sectarianism?

[Avinash]

I have read lots of posts in this site claiming that Vaishnavism is not sectarianism, true Vaishavas are never sectarian etc.?

Please explain to me why Vaishnavism is not sectarianism when other religious schools are.

[Dark Warrior]

Because other religions like Christianity, 1) Do not accept that any faiths other than their own can have mystics, or divine experiences, 2) Condemn unbelievers to hell.

 

Vaishnavism asserts that, 1) Lord Narayana can give moksha to even a Christian or a Muslim if He wishes. This doesn't mean that Christianity or Islam is valid, but rather, the Lord simply chooses to grace a Jiva by His independence, 2) We do not deny the experiences of other faiths. Possibly, what they presume to be Jesus's or Mohammed's blessings is in reality Narayana only.

 

Vaishnavism does not restrict the Lord by saying that He will give moksha only to Vaishnavas. He is completely independent and isn't bound by such restrictions. However, the path to really know who He is cannot be anything other than Vaishnavism.

 

If this is sectarian, so be it.

[Amlesh]

Very intelligent question.

 

But before that, if you'll start going deep through the different threads in this Forum, you might start getting wrong impression about vaishnavism.

 

As far as my knowledge allows me speak, I'll try my best to help you in this issue.

 

If i may use the mathematical jargons to clarify my points, I may say that Vaishnavism is the Universal Set and all the Religions and Doctrines are just elements of that Supreme set.

 

Everything is derived from it. It is the only philosophy that never says no to any other philosophies, everything according to Gita has its proper place and it shows how every religion is a step towards the Infinite.

 

In short, it is the mediator of all religions and schools of thoughts.

 

A proper Vaishnav is never keen to get defensive about his philosophy because he knows that how these different Philosophies is part of his Philosophy.

 

Gita teaches us to undertand the deep rooted riches of spirit and at the same time never neglecting material duties and also not to be tagged by any label concerning Religion, Culture, Ritual, Sampradaya etc, the only attachment Gita recommends is attachment to Brahman, our dear Lord.

[gHari]

Vaishnavism is an extremely powerful religious school that takes one beyond the words and idioms of the books. That is true religion.

 

From that platform of reality one can see the truth in all religions, that each path is Krsna's path, that each path is necessary to attract and allow various levels of attachment and misconception to evolve and progress toward real love of God.

[Kulapavana]

 

I have read lots of posts in this site claiming that Vaishnavism is not sectarianism, true Vaishavas are never sectarian etc.?

Please explain to me why Vaishnavism is not sectarianism when other religious schools are.

 

Perhaps the first thing to do would be defining the term "Vaishnavism". Some devotees preach that Christianity is actually Vaishnavism, but somehow that Shivaism is demigod worship. Such talk is very confusing because the standards and definitions are fluid and not properly explained.

[Avinash]

 

Perhaps the first thing to do would be defining the term "Vaishnavism". [\quote]

As the name suggests, the definition must treat the worship of Lord Vishnu as an essential part of Vaishnavism.

[Kulapavana]

 

 

In other words one must accept the shastric and standard definition of Vaishnavism, as implied in this quote for example:

 

<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)

 

Thus the notion that Christianity or other monotheistis religions are Vaishnavism is rejected for the purpose of this discussion. Agreed?

[Avinash]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<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.

 

The verse posted by you does not refer to Krishna. It refers only to Vishnu. It can be argued that Vishnu and Krishna are same - so it does not matter. But, in that case, we should say Vishnu/Krishna/Rama or any form of Vishnu. That will be more accurate.

[Kulapavana]

 

The verse posted by you does not refer to Krishna. It refers only to Vishnu. It can be argued that Vishnu and Krishna are same - so it does not matter. But, in that case, we should say Vishnu/Krishna/Rama or any form of Vishnu. That will be more accurate.

 

Yes, that is correct. Most Vaishnavas would agree with that definition.

[Amlesh]

Long and winding Road....

[cbrahma]

If Vaisnavism is a sect then the Gaudiya Vaisnava acaryas have been misleading everybody. Krsna tells us in the Gita to abandon all varieties of religion (dharmas) and surrender to Him. If Vaisnavism is surrender to Krsna then how does that command make sense?

[Avinash]

cbrahma,

Do you want to say that surrender to Krishna is not Vaishnavism? I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you at present. I just want to know what exactly your position is. Agreement and disagreement will come later.

[Kulapavana]

now we need to define "sectarianism"

[cbrahma]

 

cbrahma,

Do you want to say that surrender to Krishna is not Vaishnavism? I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you at present. I just want to know what exactly your position is. Agreement and disagreement will come later.

It's called 'reductio ad absurdum' or indirect proof.

This is the pattern.

 

A Vaisnavism is a 'variety of religon' (sect) - premise is true?

B Vaisnavism is surrender to Krsna - premise is true - (Gita)

C Krsna tell us to abandon A, ( A = B).

Therefore there is a religious sect whose god tells them to abandon religious sects. Invalid - a contradiction.

 

Since the conclusion is invalid, one of the premises, either A or B must be false.

We know B is not false because of the Gita.

Therefore A must be false.

[matarisvan]

 

It's called 'reductio ad absurdum' or indirect proof.

This is the pattern.

 

A Vaisnavism is a 'variety of religon' (sect) - premise is true?

B Vaisnavism is surrender to Krsna - premise is true - (Gita)

C Krsna tell us to abandon A, ( A = B).

Therefore there is a religious sect whose god tells them to abandon religious sects. Invalid - a contradiction.

 

Since the conclusion is invalid, one of the premises, either A or B must be false.

We know B is not false because of the Gita.

Therefore A must be false.

 

A1: Krishna tells Arjuna to give up Dharma and surrender to him

A2: CBrahma believes Dharma means religion/sect in A1. Therefore Cbrahma believes Krishna told Arjuna to give up Hinduism/Vaishnavism

A3: But everyone knows Krishna is part and parcel of Hinduism. Giving up Hinduism/Vaishnavism means giving up Krishna which is paradoxical with A1 as you cannot give up Hinduism/Vaishnavism/Krishna and surrender to Krishna at the same time.

 

Therefore one of A1 and A2 is incorrect. A1 is a Gita statement and should be accepted as correct. A2 is a CBrahma interpretation and is incorrect to maintain consistency.

 

Applying this conclusion to CBrahma's argument,his similar statement C is incorrect. Therefore the argument breaks and A continues to be true.

[raghu]

 

now we need to define "sectarianism"

 

<CITE minmax_bound="true">Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)</CITE> - Cite This Source - <CITE minmax_bound="true">Share This</CITE> <!-- google_ad_section_start(name=def) -->

sec·tar·i·an·ism –noun <TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">sectarian spirit or tendencies; excessive devotion to a particular sect, esp. in religion. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

<HR class=ety minmax_bound="true">[Origin: 1810–20; sectarian + -ism]

 

 

<!-- google_ad_section_end(name=def) --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0 minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD minmax_bound="true"><CITE minmax_bound="true">Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.</CITE>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- end luna -->

 

<CITE minmax_bound="true">Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)</CITE> - Cite This Source - <CITE minmax_bound="true">Share This</CITE> <!-- google_ad_section_start(name=def) -->

sec·tar·i·an –adjective <TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">1.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">of or pertaining to sectaries or sects. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">2.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">narrowly confined or devoted to a particular sect. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">3.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">narrowly confined or limited in interest, purpose, scope, etc. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>–noun <TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">4.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">a member of a sect. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">5.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">a bigoted or narrow-minded adherent of a sect. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

<HR class=ety minmax_bound="true">[Origin: 1640–50; sectary + -an]

 

—Related forms sec·tar·i·an·ly, adverb

 

 

<!-- google_ad_section_end(name=def) --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0 minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD minmax_bound="true"><CITE minmax_bound="true">Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.</CITE>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

A1: Krishna tells Arjuna to give up Dharma and surrender to him

A2: CBrahma believes Dharma means religion/sect in A1. Therefore Cbrahma believes Krishna told Arjuna to give up Hinduism/Vaishnavism

A3: But everyone knows Krishna is part and parcel of Hinduism. Giving up Hinduism/Vaishnavism means giving up Krishna which is paradoxical with A1 as you cannot give up Hinduism/Vaishnavism/Krishna and surrender to Krishna at the same time.

 

Therefore one of A1 and A2 is incorrect. A1 is a Gita statement and should be accepted as correct. A2 is a CBrahma interpretation and is incorrect to maintain consistency.

 

Applying this conclusion to CBrahma's argument,his similar statement C is incorrect. Therefore the argument breaks and A continues to be true.

 

LOL

[raghu]

 

The verse posted by you does not refer to Krishna. It refers only to Vishnu. It can be argued that Vishnu and Krishna are same - so it does not matter. But, in that case, we should say Vishnu/Krishna/Rama or any form of Vishnu. That will be more accurate.

 

Correct. This is an iskcon translation, and iskcon worship is Krishna-centric. This means whenver there is a reference to any form of Vishnu in the mUla they will insert "Krishna" into the translation.

 

But yes, as far as the padma purANa quote by sanAtana gosvAmI is concerned, one who is initiated into Vaishnava mantra and worships Vishnu (or any proven form of Vishnu) is a Vaishnava. One who is devoid of these practices is not a Vaishnava. This is a very simple and clear definition.

[cbrahma]

 

A1: Krishna tells Arjuna to give up Dharma and surrender to him

A2: CBrahma believes Dharma means religion/sect in A1. Therefore Cbrahma believes Krishna told Arjuna to give up Hinduism/Vaishnavism

A3: But everyone knows Krishna is part and parcel of Hinduism. Giving up Hinduism/Vaishnavism means giving up Krishna which is paradoxical with A1 as you cannot give up Hinduism/Vaishnavism/Krishna and surrender to Krishna at the same time.

 

Therefore one of A1 and A2 is incorrect. A1 is a Gita statement and should be accepted as correct. A2 is a CBrahma interpretation and is incorrect to maintain consistency.

 

Applying this conclusion to CBrahma's argument,his similar statement C is incorrect. Therefore the argument breaks and A continues to be true.

Wrong pattern.

You obviously don't understand reductio.

 

I am taking the statements at face value. Belief is beside the point.

 

I am not 'interpreting' anything.

 

The contradiction lies at the heart of the statement to abandon all varieties of religion. If (that is a conditional) Vaisnavism is a sect and it is surrender to Krsna then Krsna's command makes no sense.

So I don't believe what is illogical - ie. that Vaisnavism is a variety of religion. I can't believe I have to step through this logic.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

<CITE minmax_bound="true">Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)</CITE> - Cite This Source - <CITE minmax_bound="true">Share This</CITE> <!-- google_ad_section_start(name=def) -->

sec·tar·i·an·ism –noun <TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">sectarian spirit or tendencies; excessive devotion to a particular sect, esp. in religion. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

 

<HR class=ety minmax_bound="true">[Origin: 1810–20; sectarian + -ism]

 

 

<!-- google_ad_section_end(name=def) --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0 minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD minmax_bound="true"><CITE minmax_bound="true">Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.</CITE>

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- end luna -->

 

<CITE minmax_bound="true">Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)</CITE> - Cite This Source - <CITE minmax_bound="true">Share This</CITE> <!-- google_ad_section_start(name=def) -->

sec·tar·i·an –adjective <TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">1.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">of or pertaining to sectaries or sects. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">2.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">narrowly confined or devoted to a particular sect. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">3.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">narrowly confined or limited in interest, purpose, scope, etc. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>–noun <TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">4.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">a member of a sect. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">5.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">a bigoted or narrow-minded adherent of a sect. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

 

<HR class=ety minmax_bound="true">[Origin: 1640–50; sectary + -an]

 

—Related forms sec·tar·i·an·ly, adverb

 

 

<!-- google_ad_section_end(name=def) --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0 minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD minmax_bound="true"><CITE minmax_bound="true">Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.</CITE>

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

Going by the above, it is crystal clear that Vaishnavism fits the definition like a glove, and vice versa.

 

CONCLUSION: Vaishnavism is as sectarian as one can get. End of discussion!

[raghu]

 

The verse posted by you does not refer to Krishna. It refers only to Vishnu. It can be argued that Vishnu and Krishna are same - so it does not matter. But, in that case, we should say Vishnu/Krishna/Rama or any form of Vishnu. That will be more accurate.

 

Correct. This is an iskcon translation, and iskcon worship is Krishna-centric. This means whenver there is a reference to any form of Vishnu in the mUla they will insert "Krishna" into the translation.

 

But yes, as far as the padma purANa quote by sanAtana gosvAmI is concerned, one who is initiated into Vaishnava mantra and worships Vishnu (or any proven form of Vishnu) is a Vaishnava. One who is devoid of these practices is not a Vaishnava. This is a very simple and clear definition.

[sanatan]

 

It's called 'reductio ad absurdum' or indirect proof.

This is the pattern.

 

A Vaisnavism is a 'variety of religon' (sect) - premise is true?

B Vaisnavism is surrender to Krsna - premise is true - (Gita)

C Krsna tell us to abandon A, ( A = B).

Therefore there is a religious sect whose god tells them to abandon religious sects. Invalid - a contradiction.

 

Since the conclusion is invalid, one of the premises, either A or B must be false.

We know B is not false because of the Gita.

Therefore A must be false.

 

That the Gita (Bible) is true or absolute is an assumption or item of faith until proven true.

 

That the Krishna (Jesus) is the Supreme Person is also an assumption or item of faith until proven true.

 

These assumptions cannot be proven to be absolute by the conventional scientific manner or by argument through logical process, because they both start with faith in something for which there is no empirical standard or universally-accepted demonstration.

 

So it all comes down to these arguments:

 

A. To begin with, the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God...God in a theistic sense.

 

Assuming we accept on faith or "prove" by formal logic (which requires initial presentation of a premise as true or false) that God exists, then we come to:

 

B. Is there a concept of God that is absolutely true?

 

C. Is there a scripture that is absolutely true and capable of demonstrating B beyond reasonable doubt?

 

Obviously, Christians and Vaisnavas each will claim the the superior answers to B and C and go to great lengths to support the veracity of their particular claims.

 

But neither has yet succeeded in providing universally-acceptable proof for A, B, and C, so the logical conclusion would seem to be they remain sects or sectarian.

[cbrahma]

 

That the Gita (Bible) is true or absolute is an assumption or item of faith until proven true.

 

That the Krishna (Jesus) is the Supreme Person is also an assumption or item of faith until proven true.

 

These assumptions cannot be proven to be absolute by the conventional scientific manner or by argument through logical process, because they both start with faith in something for which there is no empirical standard or universally-accepted demonstration.

 

So it all comes down to these arguments:

 

A. To begin with, the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God...God in a theistic sense.

 

Assuming we accept on faith or "prove" by formal logic (which requires initial presentation of a premise as true or false) that God exists, then we come to:

 

B. Is there a concept of God that is absolutely true?

 

C. Is there a scripture that is absolutely true and capable of demonstrating B beyond reasonable doubt?

 

Obviously, Christians and Vaisnavas each will claim the the superior answers to B and C and go to great lengths to support the veracity of their particular claims.

 

But neither has yet succeeded in providing universally-acceptable proof for A, B, and C, so the logical conclusion would seem to be they remain sects or sectarian.

 

Questioning the authority of the Gita is a novel approach to the problem.

But if the Gita fails, then appeal to authority fails and no proof is possible.

For those who accept no proof is necessary. For those who doubt no proof is adequate.

[shvu]

Not to disrupt the flow or anything, but in my opinion, this discussion would be more meaningful if standard, accepted definitions of the two words - Vaishnava and Sect are provided and shown per standard definitions that Vaishnavism is indeed a sect. Without using prevailing understanding as a frame of reference, this thread will merely exchange individual opinions and no one is right or wrong.

 

Then people who disagree with accepted standards can offer their arguments and make a case for deviating from standards. Obviously, singing the praises of their own affiliations and Gurus without any objective data does not qualify as an argument. An argument that can be reused by other sects by simply substituting the term Vaishnava with their own affiliation, is not a valid argument either. For example, a statement such as "Vaishnavism is the true religion of the soul" can be used by a Shaiva as "Shaivism is the true religion of the soul". Such statements are no better than idle praise and are completely worthless as arguments.

 

Just to go the extra step, here are the accepted standards as I know them.

Vaishnava - worshipper of Vishnu

Sect - a group adhering to a specific teacher or doctrine

 

Vaishnavism is a doctrine that selects scriptures which praise Vishnu as the highest entity and lays down the principles of Vishnu worship and the ultimate goal to be attained by mankind, among other things. Hence, by the above definitions, it follows that Vaishnavism is a sect or a family of sects when it may consist of multiple groups with certain differences in detail.

 

Now one can raise the argument that Vaishnavism is not about the physical world. but of the soul and a trascendental realm. This concept however is still part of the doctrine [or it would be an invalid statement otherwise] and hence does not deviate from the standard.

 

Cheers

[gHari]

In the following short treatise, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura explains that ultimately religious truth becomes non-sectarian when the final goal is reached:

 

 

 

http://geocities.com/caitanyamahaprabhu/garland1.htm

 

 

 

 

<img src=http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/0/02/Character_of_the_donkey_from_Shrek_2.JPG width=283 height=325>