How is Vaishnavism not sectarianism?

[matarisvan]

 

I didn't say that at all. Krsna said to abandon all varieties of religion. The word 'dharma' is used. That must certainly cover religious sects, which after all with the deva-worship etc... are material.

 

Then Krishna told Arjuna to give up Hinduism (which was not existing during his time). As Krishna is an integral part of Hinduism you are saying Krishna told Arjuna to abandon Krishna and simulatenously surrender to Krishna too?

 

Forget the rest of the world one other than theist will agree to your way of thinking on this forum.

[cbrahma]

 

willing acceptance of an authorized religious process offered by a particular sampradaya is not considered to be a material responsibility or obligation.

Of course not, since sampradayas are not sects. Calling a sadhana a 'religious process' is a little questionable also.

[cbrahma]

 

Then Krishna told Arjuna to give up Hinduism (which was not existing during his time). As Krishna is an integral part of Hinduism you are saying Krishna told Arjuna to abandon Krishna and simulatenously surrender to Krishna too?

 

Other than theist no one on this forum will agree to your way of thinking.

Speak for yourself. Only trenchant Hindus accept your way of thinking.

I didn't mention Hinduism at all. You are inventing in order to defeat. That is 'straw man' argument - your only argument so far.

[Kulapavana]

 

A sampradaya is a sect? That is highly questionable.

 

That is how 99% of all Vaishnavas would see it, along with the rest of the world. Madhvas are one Vaishnava sect, for example, Ramanujas are another. Gaudiyas are a separate Vaishnava sect too, broken into even smaller sects, like the Vallabhas, Nityananda-vamsis, Saraswatas, etc.

[cbrahma]

 

That is how 99% of all Vaishnavas would see it, along with the rest of the world. Madhvas are one Vaishnava sect, for example, Ramanujas are another. Gaudiyas are a separate Vaishnava sect too, broken into even smaller sects, like the Vallabhas, Nityananda-vamsis, Saraswatas, etc.

It's not how Gaudiya Vaisnavas would see it. Prove it.

[matarisvan]

 

Speak for yourself. Only trenchant Hindus accept your way of thinking.

I didn't mention Hinduism at all. You are inventing in order to defeat. That is 'straw man' argument - your only argument so far.

 

Your nose is growing Pinochio...

 

You have been shouting all this time that Krishna told Arjuna to give up religions and sects. Now when cornered did you suddenly develope short term memory loss?

 

Here is one post in your own words.

 

CBrahma - Krsna said to abandon all varieties of religion. The word 'dharma' is used. That must certainly cover religious sects

[matarisvan]

 

It's not how Gaudiya Vaisnavas would see it. Prove it.

 

Kulapavana is a Gauidya and he sees it that way. Proved.

 

And the original question was about Vaishnavism in general. If 99% of Vaishnavas say one thing and you alone are say something else, guess what?

[Beggar]

 

It's not how Gaudiya Vaisnavas would see it. Prove it.

Lost in langurage semantics again. Also if it doesn't really have a bearing on the siddhanta then how Gaudiya Vaisnavas see it is relative. It would even be relative to the language that they speak or the era in which they live. When Srila Prabhupada wrote of the "cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu" in the 1960s, his use of the world cult meant something far different that the common usage in America by the mid-70s. During the 19th Century, the word sectarian meant only - of or pertaining to sects. The word sect meant a religious order. The use of the word sectarian in a pejorative manner came about at a later date.

[Kulapavana]

 

It's not how Gaudiya Vaisnavas would see it. Prove it.

 

"It is evident that Bilvamangala belonged to the Vishnusvami sect, because neither the Ramanuja sect nor the Madhva sect had yet come in to being."

http://nitaaiveda.com/All_Scriptures_By_Acharyas/Biographical_Works/Five_Poets/SRI_BILVAMANGALA_THAKUR.htm

 

there are tons of similar references among the Gaudiya writings

[sanatan]

 

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.

 

That's the point....it all comes down to an initial faith, and proof comes in a very personal way, that is, generally not demonstrable or demonstrated.

 

BTW, I'm on your team, in the sense of not attempting to diss religion or spirituality, be it Christianity or Vaisnavism, just adding an angle to the discussion.

[cbrahma]

 

"It is evident that Bilvamangala belonged to the Vishnusvami sect, because neither the Ramanuja sect nor the Madhva sect had yet come in to being."

http://nitaaiveda.com/All_Scriptures_By_Acharyas/Biographical_Works/Five_Poets/SRI_BILVAMANGALA_THAKUR.htm

 

there are tons of similar references among the Gaudiya writings

I don't know who wrote that page but it contradicts the writings of Bhatkivinode Thakur and Bhaktisiddhanta

[cbrahma]

If vaisnavism is a sect and the sampradayas are sub-sects , then there is no doubt vaisnavism is a religion in exactly the same way that Jainism or Saivism are religions. They have no over-arching claim to be a universal yoga - the bhakti yoga practiced by G Vaisnavas, because that is particular to a religious sect.

[Malati dasi]

On the other hand if we go outside of the Hari Bhakti Vilas definition by Srila Sanatan Goswami:

 

"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)

 

and worship a "random God" as what CBrahma and theist are insisting then what does Krishna really mean from the quote below from the BHagavat :

 

(Bhag. 9.4.68):

 

 

 

 

sAdhavo hRdayaM mahyaM sAdhUnAM hRdayaM tv aham

mad-anyaM te na jAnanti nAhaM tebhyo manAg api

 

 

 

“The pure devotee is always within the core of My heart, and I am always in the heart of the pure devotee. My devotees do not know anything else but Me, and I do not know anyone else but them.”

 

Know why theist and cbrahma keep harping around these topics, krishna-jesus, christianity is vaishnavism, etc? It is because they want to be accepted as Vaishnava without doing the hard work, like following the shastra's injunction of taking mantra initiation , doing daily sadhana, jap, puja, etc. Just go through their posts in the past and you will know their real agenda.

 

[Beggar]

 

If vaisnavism is a sect and the sampradayas are sub-sects , then there is no doubt vaisnavism is a religion in exactly the same way that Jainism or Saivism are religions. They have no over-arching claim to be a universal yoga - the bhakti yoga practiced by G Vaisnavas, because that is particular to a religious sect.

 

The word sect and the word section are obviously related. Would it be blasphemous to say that a certain section of persons practice Gaudiya Vaisnavism and certain section are Sri Vaisnavas and so on? Words, words, words. The idea is that all jivas are intrinsically Krsna's servants not withstanding what section of life they presently are appearing in.

[cbrahma]

 

On the other hand if we go outside of the Hari Bhakti Vilas definition by Srila Sanatan Goswami:

 

"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)

 

and worship a "random God" as what CBrahma and theist are insisting then what does Krishna really mean from the quote below from the BHagavat :

 

(Bhag. 9.4.68):

 

 

 

 

sAdhavo hRdayaM mahyaM sAdhUnAM hRdayaM tv aham

mad-anyaM te na jAnanti nAhaM tebhyo manAg api

 

 

 

“The pure devotee is always within the core of My heart, and I am always in the heart of the pure devotee. My devotees do not know anything else but Me, and I do not know anyone else but them.”

 

Know why theist and cbrahma keep harping around these topics, krishna-jesus, christianity is vaishnavism, etc? It is because they want to be accepted as Vaishnava without doing the hard work, like following the shastra's injunction of taking mantra initiation , doing daily sadhana, jap, puja, etc. Just go through their posts in the past and you will know their real agenda.

 

Apparently your spiritual consciousness isn't clear enough to stop misrepresenting what other people say. You don't even realize that it's a form of lying. I could care less if you accept me as Vaisnava, especially if you have prounounced it upon yourself. Seems like a clear disqualification. I've done everything to show that Vaisnavism is not sectarian and that it is the essence of religion by quoting Gita and Vaisnava acaryas. What's your problem?

[raghu]

Theist and Cbrahma have done quite a job with character assasinations against all those who disagree with their theories on Vaishnavism. At first they labeled their opponents as atheists, but then we saw Hindus disagreeing with them. Subsequently, they dismissed the Hindus objections with the typical prejudiced and condescending remarks which they direct against non-Vaishnavas. But then we started to see Sri Vaishnavas and Tattvavadis disagreeing with them. Then cbrahma and Theist rationalized this by assuming these non-Gaudiyas were just "sectarian" and did not understand the great truth of Caitanya. And now we have initiated Gaudiya Vaishnavas disagreeing with them.

 

Let's see now - atheists, Hindus, Sri Vaishnavas, Tattvavadis, and Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Now that's quite a list of people who disagree. But.... cbrahma and Theist are nothing if not stubborn. "It's not me! Everyone else in the world is crazy!"

[shvu]

 

I've done everything to show that Vaisnavism is not sectarian and that it is the essence of religion by quoting Gita and Vaisnava acaryas. What's your problem?

Everything you say about the Gita, Acharyas, etc., is part of the doctrine and is hence sectarian. This is like Christians arguing for the validity of the bible by quoting the bible.

 

I cannot believe it is so hard for you to get it. You are just being stubborn in your old age.

 

If Prabhupada had not made the following pitch,

 

1. Vaishnavism is not Hinduism

2. Vaishnavism is above every religion

3. Jesus was a super-duper guy and he has an elevated place in Vaishnavism

 

you, theist and a number of your buddies would never have become Hare Krishnas to begin with. Having been conditioned to think this way for years, it is now impossible for you to think objectively and call a spade a spade.

 

 

Cheers

[cbrahma]

 

Everything you say about the Gita, Acharyas, etc., is part of the doctrine and is hence sectarian. This is like Christians arguing for the validity of the bible by quoting the bible.

 

I cannot believe it is so hard for you to get it. You are just being stubborn in your old age.

 

If Prabhupada had not made the following pitch,

 

1. Vaishnavism is not Hinduism

2. Vaishnavism is above every religion

3. Jesus was a super-duper guy and he has an elevated place in Vaishnavism

 

you, theist and a number of your buddies would never have become Hare Krishnas to begin with. Having been conditioned to think this way for years, it is now impossible for you to think objectively and call a spade a spade.

 

 

Cheers

There is so much corroboration in sadhu-sastra and guru, it has nothing to do with old age or stubbornness. I have already posted the relevant quotes several times which is why I can't believe you can't get it.

[Avinash]

I think we can agree that the worship of Lord Vishnu (or a form of Him) is an essential part of Vaishnavism. May be that some other conditions are also needed but this much at least is essential.

But, what is sectarianism?

[raghu]

 

I think we can agree that the worship of Lord Vishnu (or a form of Him) is an essential part of Vaishnavism. May be that some other conditions are also needed but this much at least is essential.

But, what is 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>

[raghu]

 

On the other hand if we go outside of the Hari Bhakti Vilas definition by Srila Sanatan Goswami:

 

"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)

 

and worship a "random God" as what CBrahma and theist are insisting then what does Krishna really mean from the quote below from the BHagavat :

 

(Bhag. 9.4.68):

 

 

 

 

sAdhavo hRdayaM mahyaM sAdhUnAM hRdayaM tv aham

mad-anyaM te na jAnanti nAhaM tebhyo manAg api

 

 

 

“The pure devotee is always within the core of My heart, and I am always in the heart of the pure devotee. My devotees do not know anything else but Me, and I do not know anyone else but them.”

 

Know why theist and cbrahma keep harping around these topics, krishna-jesus, christianity is vaishnavism, etc? It is because they want to be accepted as Vaishnava without doing the hard work, like following the shastra's injunction of taking mantra initiation , doing daily sadhana, jap, puja, etc. Just go through their posts in the past and you will know their real agenda.

 

 

What a very profound observation. I think you hit the nail on the head. Spiritual political-correctness is invariably the tool of the lazy and uncommitted.

[Avinash]

 

<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>

<TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true"></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"></TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">narrowly confined or limited in interest, purpose, scope, etc. </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"></TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">a bigoted or narrow-minded adherent of a sect. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

How much devotion is excessive devotion? How much confinement is narrow confinement? Who is bigoted? What is narrow-mindedness?

[Amlesh]

I suppose that there is a liking to raise issues not to converge towards a solution but instead to oscillate.

[matarisvan]

 

I suppose that there is a liking to raise issues not to converge towards a solution but instead to oscillate.

 

I agree.

[cbrahma]

 

Therefore those who are Krsna conscious devotees have taken shelter of Krsna, and the beginning is hearing and chanting. Sravanam kirtanam visnoh. So our fervent, humble request to everyone is to please accept this chanting. This movement of Krsna consciousness was introduced by Lord Caitanya five hundred years ago in Bengal, and now all over India and especially in Bengal there are millions of followers of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Now this movement is starting in the Western countries, so just be very serious in understanding it. We do not criticize any other religion. Don't take it in that way. We have no business criticizing any other process of religion. Krsna consciousness is giving people the most sublime religion - love of God. That's all. We are teaching to love God. Everyone is already loving, but that love is misplaced. We love this boy or this girl or this country or that society or even the cats and dogs, but we are not satisfied. So we must place our love in God. If one places one's love in God, he will be happy. Don't think that this Krsna consciousness movement is a new type of religion. Where is the religion which does not recognize God ? One may call God "Allah" or "Krsna" or something else, but where is that religion which does not recognize God ? We are teaching that one should simply try to love God. We are attracted by so many things, but if our love is reposed in God, then we will be happy. We don't' have to learn to love anything else; everything else is automatically included. Just try to love God. Don't try to love just trees or plants or insects. This will never satisfy. Learn to love God. That is Caitanya Mahaprabhu's mission; that is our mission.

By His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada