How is Vaishnavism not sectarianism?

[shvu]

I think both sides [Theist, CBrahma vs. Rest of the world] have said enough and repeated their position multiple times for everyone to know exactly what they are saying. No point in repeating the same stuff over and over again.

 

I am fine accepting that CBrahma and his company of over-the-hill geriatrics are incapable of change or undoing the brainwashing that has happened to them over a long time. The real concern was that no novices should be taken by the same nonsense and I believe we have made enough posts to avoid that and make people think instead of blindly sticking on to incorrect views for sentimental reasons.

 

So in making people think, we have done our job. Case closed as far as I am concerned.

 

Cheers

[cbrahma]

 

I think both sides [Theist, CBrahma vs. Rest of the world] have said enough and repeated their position multiple times for everyone to know exactly what they are saying. No point in repeating the same stuff over and over again.

 

I am fine accepting that CBrahma and his company of over-the-hill geriatrics are incapable of change or undoing the brainwashing that has happened to them over a long time. The real concern was that no novices should be taken by the same nonsense and I believe we have made enough posts to avoid that and make people think instead of blindly sticking on to incorrect views for sentimental reasons.

 

So in making people think, we have done our job. Case closed as far as I am concerned.

 

Cheers

Your drawing of the battle lines is an exercise of feverish imagination.

It's not me and theist vs. the rest of the world.

There are a number of Vaisnavas who have the same opinion, not the least of which is SP and his spritual master which is good company to be in.

I don't know how you think you know my age. But I have not been in ISKCON for a long time, so I don't know where you think the brainwashing comes from. I have done nothing but use logic and authoritative evidence. All you've done is slander with insults and incoherent diatribes a childish tactic you are too old to have an excuse for using.

[matarisvan]

 

I think both sides [Theist, CBrahma vs. Rest of the world] have said enough and repeated their position multiple times for everyone to know exactly what they are saying. No point in repeating the same stuff over and over again.

 

I am fine accepting that CBrahma and his company of over-the-hill geriatrics are incapable of change or undoing the brainwashing that has happened to them over a long time. The real concern was that no novices should be taken by the same nonsense and I believe we have made enough posts to avoid that and make people think instead of blindly sticking on to incorrect views for sentimental reasons.

 

So in making people think, we have done our job. Case closed as far as I am concerned.

 

Cheers

 

Me too.

[theist]

Actually it is shvu who is the real outsider on this forum being an atheist. Notice how he never puts forward a positive idea on the nature of God either Advaita or Vaisnava?

 

I have no problem with someone being an atheist and posting on this forum, I just find it stange and especially so when he claims to be a part of the thinking of the rest of the world.

 

Shvu please briefly explain your conception of God. I would hate to think I am falsely labeling you something so nasty as an atheist if it's not true. Set me straight if I am wrong.

[raghu]

 

Actually it is shvu who is the real outsider on this forum being an atheist. Notice how he never puts forward a positive idea on the nature of God either Advaita or Vaisnava?

 

 

Yeah.... I noticed that too. Could that be because he's an atheist?

[raghu]

 

 

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.

 

 

Just for the sake of curiosity, I decided to investigate Malati dasi's claim about cbrahma's motivations and found that she is spot on:

 

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/446356-chant-then-what.html

 

 

I love chanting, even under the rigors of the four principles.

What I find impossible are all the other requirements that drag along and come out of a brahminical, Vedic culture that cannot be practiced in this day and age without serious alienation and impracticality.

It's just too damn complicated. Furthermore it is material-religion and I find that devotees get so caught up in those distinctions and performances, that they lose sight of the spiritual dimension that the Gaudiya vaisnavas claim to proceed solely from the chanting.

 

Ditto on theist:

 

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/446356-chant-then-what-5.html#post1090193

 

 

From one angle all those rules and regulations and rules of ritual force one to concentrate on doing things correctly and while you are attempting to follow strictly dottin the i's and crossing the t's you are not using the mind to chase after sense gratification and one moves more into the mode of goodness.

 

Then as one progresses we start to realize the futility of trying to approach God in such structured and ritualistic way and the focus comes more strongly to the simple things of the heart, approaching the Lord in humility and prayer. That is the second angle.

 

The religion was indespensible at first but as one develops a genuine attachment for Krsna consciousness he naturall can despense with religion as an emphasis.

 

The danger is one may artifically despense with rules and rituals before he is ready and eventually just fall down or worse yet become a self deluded sahajiya.

 

Another mistake to avoid is to teach others that all the religious do's and do nots are meaningless and can be skipped.

 

IOW's religion is meant to be a stepping stone to transcendence. Once you reach the roof one no longer needs the ladder but it you toss out the ladder before making full use of it you may never reach the roof.

 

 

and http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/446356-chant-then-what.html#post1089445

 

 

Your right. Many people are trying to practice what they conceive of as being a brahmana by imitating religious practices from a past era...often with embarassing consequences.

 

Better then concentrating on the external trappings of what we think of as a brahmana is to take the essence on braminical life by concentrating on developing the qualities of a brahmana which are transcendental to time place cultural and religous tradition.

 

 

Malati is right. Theist and cbrahma hold to such views as "Vaishnavism is not sectarian,Christianity is another form of Vaishnavism" etc because they regard regulative principles of scripture inconvenient or that they are somehow above them.

[tackleberry]

 

Actually it is shvu who is the real outsider on this forum being an atheist. Notice how he never puts forward a positive idea on the nature of God either Advaita or Vaisnava?

 

I have no problem with someone being an atheist and posting on this forum, I just find it stange and especially so when he claims to be a part of the thinking of the rest of the world.

 

Shvu please briefly explain your conception of God. I would hate to think I am falsely labeling you something so nasty as an atheist if it's not true. Set me straight if I am wrong.

 

An atheist is far better than the religious hypocrites we often see at this forum. For, if the atheist were truly sAtvika, Krishna would give him the right knowledge, as confirmed in BG 10.11. At least, he has hope. Wish I could say the same about self-proclaimed Vaishnavas who commit one aparAdha after another, with no regard for shruti.

 

So Theist, are you Vaishnava or not?

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

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.

I think he put 'Vishnu/Krishna' b/c there are many Gaudiya Vaishnavas on here who think of Krishna as being the Highest Form of Divinity (I would be one of those), even higher than Vishnu (I would disagree with that, since Vishnu is a form of Krishna, and I believe that Krishna is nondifferent from His forms).

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

Actually it is shvu who is the real outsider on this forum being an atheist. Notice how he never puts forward a positive idea on the nature of God either Advaita or Vaisnava?

I've never really noticed it before. But, now that you mention it, from what I can recall, it's true. Maybe he is an atheist?

[theist]

 

I've never really noticed it before. But, now that you mention it, from what I can recall, it's true. Maybe he is an atheist?

 

Yes shvu has been on this forum for a long time. Clearly somebody who has an interest in Indology but no position philisophically. Only posts to tell others how wrong they are with no mention of what he thinks is right.

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

Yes shvu has been on this forum for a long time. Clearly somebody who has an interest in Indology but no position philisophically. Only posts to tell others how wrong they are with no mention of what he thinks is right.

How true. Hmmm... I wonder why he does that if he has any religious beliefs of his own?

LOL, I just realized that even if he does believe in God, he dislikes you so much that he's still 'a'theist or even 'anti'theist.

[theist]

That is always possible. I can have that effect on people.

[suchandra]

 

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.

Point is if you don't believe in Vaishnavism you automatically believe in something else. And this something else - can it be proven?

Just like here they say: "Immortal soul? This cannot be proven".

However, the rascal then believes that there's no soul and everything is finished when death comes. When examining this understanding and why this is exactly accepted, no proof! They still can't proof what is life, but reject the vedas. At least, if we have to believe something, why not say it is 50:50 and respect the vedic thought? If they cannot prove their material understanding that we're mortal biological life, they have to accept that it is from their point of view 50:50 and don't treat the Vaishnavas like crazy fellows.

 

 

“Who is Crazy?”. Now how to decide? You are thinking the Swamiji and the party, they are crazy. And we are thinking those who are materially engaged, they’re crazy. Now how to decide it? Can you suggest any way how to decide it, how, who is crazy? Who will decide it? Everyone, two parties, when there is something disagreement, the two parties will say that, “You are in wrong,” the other party will say, “You are…” Now who will decide it? That who is wrong? Can you suggest any one of you who’ll decide? The world is going on in partyism and each opposite party is thinking that the other party is crazy. Now who will decide who is actually crazy? The actual… Then you have come to the point of reason, who is crazy?Now just see. Take any common man. Not yourself, not myself. Any common man. If you ask him that, “What you are?”, he’ll say… His conception is that I am this body. Everyone will say. He’ll give you some description that, “I am Christian.” “I am Hindu.” “I am Mr. Such and Such.” “I am Mrs. Such and Such.” Everything, whatever he or she will say, that is all due to this body. All due to this body. Everyone. When you say, “You are American,” that means this is the body. Because by accident, by something, by some reason, you were born in this land of America. That is also another artificial name. The land is neither America nor India. The land is land. But we give some designation, “This is America.” We make some boundary. This is United States of America. This is Canada. This is Europe, and this is Asia. This is India. So this is our name, but actually was there any history that the land is American, or the land…? Say, four hundred years before, or five hundred years before, was this land was known as America? You have named it, America. Say, some thousands of years before was this, this, the continent which is known as, I mean, Europe, can you trace out history, that it was known as Europe? They are all designations.

Just like we can say from historical point of view of Vedic literature, this whole world was known as Ilāvṛta-varṣa. Ilāvṛta-varṣa. And, later on, since the reign of one great king, emperor, his name was Bharata. He changed the name into his own name, Bhārata-varṣa. So this whole planet was now Bhārata-varṣa. Then, as the days go on, the some part of this world was, I mean to say, separated from the original Bhārata-varṣa, and it was called Europe or some other place. Just like you have got practical experience even in this age, that India, say about twenty years before, the area of India was including Burma, Ceylon and the modern Pakistan and everything. Now it is separated. Now they are calling this is Pakistan. Somebody’s calling there is Ceylon. So this process is going on. Actually the land is neither Bhārata-varṣa, nor Asia, nor America, nor India, but we give this name. With the change of time, with the change of influence, they are all designations.

Fifty years before when some of you, of course, not all of you are fifty years old. Say, forty years before, or thirty-five years before, when you were, or twenty-five years before, when you were not born, can you say what was your designation? Were you American or Indian or Chinese or Russian, can you say? Say, after getting out of this body, do you think that you’ll continue as American or Indian or Chinese or Russian? Suppose you are now in America, in the land of America. So next life you may be in China. Who can say? Because we are changing our bodies, you cannot say that we are not changing our bodies. Can you say that you are not changing your body? Yes, we are changing. When I was born, from the mother’s womb, my body was so little. Now how I have changed my…? Where is that body? Where is that body when I was a child? Where is that body when I was a boy? Where is that body when I was a young man? I have got my photograph, my studentship. Oh, Swamiji, you were like this? Where is that body? Where it has gone? So we are changing, but I am the same man. I am thinking, “Oh, in my childhood, I was doing like this. Oh, in my youthhood, I was thinking like this. In my boyhood, I did so many things.” Now where those days gone? If my body, everything has gone away? It is simply remembrance.

 

 

But still we are sticking to this body, and, when I ask you or when you ask me, “What you are?”, I say something in relationship with this body. Are you not crazy? Can you tell, any of you, that you are not crazy? If you, I mean to say, so far your identification, if you identify with something which you are not, then are you not crazy? Are you not crazy? So everyone who identifies with this body, he’s a crazy man. He’s a crazy man. It is a challenge to the world. Anyone who claims God’s property, God’s land, God’s earth, as own property, he’s a crazy man. This is a challenge. Let anyone establish that this is his property, this is his body. You are simply, by nature, you are, by the fix of nature, you are put into some place. You are put under some body. You are put under some consciousness, and you are dictated by the laws of nature. And you are mad after that.

 

 

 

Bhagavad-gītā 9.34

by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

New York, December 26, 1966,

“Who is Crazy?”

 

 

full lecture: http://causelessmercy.com/t/t/661226BG.NY.htm

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

I can have that effect on people.

Vous me fait rire.

[theist]

 

Vous me fait rire.

 

I no speaky frenchy. What mean?

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

I no speaky frenchy. What mean?

You make me laugh

[indulekhadasi]

Yes, theist prabhuji has a good sense of humor. I like devotees like that. Krishna consciousness is fun, not hard or saddening.

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

Yes, theist prabhuji has a good sense of humor. I like devotees like that. Krishna consciousness is fun, not hard or saddening.

Me too. I can't stand people that take it so seriously. Krishna takes hardly anything seriously in Goloka! Why should we? Krishna loves to have fun, and I think He likes His devotees to have fun, too.

[Amlesh]

 

Me too. I can't stand people that take it so seriously. Krishna takes hardly anything seriously in Goloka! Why should we? Krishna loves to have fun, and I think He likes His devotees to have fun, too.

 

Me too in certain circumstances. If we take a look at the Battlefield of Kurukshetra, while giving the lecture of the Gita, at times he was Humorous but I don't think that there is a conversation as sober as the Celestial Song.

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

Me too in certain circumstances. If we take a look at the Battlefield of Kurukshetra, while giving the lecture of the Gita, at times he was Humorous but I don't think that there is a conversation as sober as the Celestial Song.

But He wasn't in Goloka Vrindavan at that time. Right now, He's probably wrestling with the gopas, playing in the Yamuna with Radharani, or stealing butter from Mother Yashoda.

But, yes, of course the Lord is serious at times, and the Gita is certainly no laughing matter.

[Amlesh]

 

But He wasn't in Goloka Vrindavan at that time. Right now, He's probably wrestling with the gopas, playing in the Yamuna with Radharani, or stealing butter from Mother Yashoda.

But, yes, of course the Lord is serious at times, and the Gita is certainly no laughing matter.

 

Yes, you are right. His lilas he only knows.