What is a Vaisnava

[suchandra]

 

The difference between the Gaudiya Vaishnavas and the Hare Krishnas is this - The former only emphasize the difference in rasas as far as the forms of the Lord are concerned, but the latter make assumptions without pramanas and attempt to label Narayana as a demigod or something.

 

 

There shouldn't be any difference between the Gaudiya Vaishnavas and the Hare Krishnas, at least we should theoretically understand this.

One who has actually seen the Supreme Lord wouldn't be bewildered like that.

That means that people are posing as knower of the truth but actually haven't seen the truth.

 

"Prabhupāda: So Arjuna has seen the Supreme Brahman. So you make Arjuna guru, Krishna guru. Arjuna is representative of Krishna, friend of Krishna. So why do you go to a bogus guru? You must be cheated. Guru is essential. It is necessary. But take the real guru. But if you go to the bogus guru, you must be disappointed. For your treatment you need to go to a physician. That’s all. When you are diseased you cannot say, “No, no, I don’t want to…” It is necessary. But go to the real physician. Don’t go to a cheater. He has no knowledge in the medical science, and he places himself as “I am physician, MD.” Then you’ll be cheated. The guru is necessary, that’s a fact. But go to the real guru. Who is real guru? Real guru is Krishna or one who has seen Krishna, Arjuna. Take them. Then you’ll be benefitted. And if you go to a bogus man who does not know Krishna, who does not know what is Krishna’s instruction, then you must be cheated. So the answer is guru is absolute necessary. Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet [MU 1.2.12] This is Vedic injunction, that one must go. But he must go to the real guru. And who is real guru?

 

 

Who knows Krishna. Take, for example, Arjuna, how he studied Krishna. And he says, paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma [Bg. 10.12]."

 

Answers to a Questionnaire

from Bhavan’s Journal

by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

June 28, 1976, Vṛndāvana

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

Theist equates Lakshmi with Durga, which is blasphemous.

 

"Durga rupa nirantara, sukha sampati data. Jo koi tumako dhyavata, riddhi siddhi dhana paata."

"In the form of Durga, You (Lakshmi) grant both happiness and prosperity, and he who centers his attention on You becomes the recipient of all prosperity and fulfillment."

--Lakshmi Aarti

[Dark Warrior]

 

"Durga rupa nirantara, sukha sampati data. Jo koi tumako dhyavata, riddhi siddhi dhana paata."

"In the form of Durga, You (Lakshmi) grant both happiness and prosperity, and he who centers his attention on You becomes the recipient of all prosperity and fulfillment."

--Lakshmi Aarti

 

 

However, the Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya considers all devas, including goddesses like Saraswati, Durga, Parvati and Kali as unworshippable. Even if you claim that Durga is an avatar of Lakshmi, fact remains that this is just a post. After the death of Brahma, the jiva who is Durga will no longer be so, and another Jiva who may have done some penance will earn the post of Durga.

 

A Jiva is eligible for worship, ONLY if he has done great devotional service to the Lord. Like Sri Hanuman, for instance. But neither Brahma, or Siva, or Durga have actually done anything like that, so we just respect them and avoid worshipping them, even as devotees of Vishnu.

 

In Gita, Lord says:

 

"O son of Kunti! At the end of the Cosmic Cycle, all enter into My nature, and at the beginning of another cycle, by My free will, and potency, I create them again."

 

This includes all Devas, like Brahma, Siva, Indra, Saraswati, Durga, etc. They are also Jivas, like us and by virtue of their karmas, have reached that position. They are posts, and jivas keep changing at that post.

 

Lakshmi is also a Jivatma, but She is in Sri Vaikuntha, with Narayana. Hence, Her powers are eternal (She is unaffected by pralaya), and She is also endowed with the compassion of the Lord. There is no point in going to Durga and asking her for prosperity, when Lakshmi is fully capable of granting it Herself.

 

No issues. I know other Vaishnava sampdarayas (particularly Gaudiya Vaishnavism) hold Shiva to be a bhakta of the Lord, and worthy of worship, but like I said before...its a theological difference.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

Thankfully it is just your opinion above, as such it don’t count,

I take the words of Lord Shree Krishna, when asked by Arjun

(Therefore), You alone are able to fully describe Your own divine glories, the manifestations, by which You exist pervading all the universe. (10.16)

How may I know You, O Lord, by constant contemplation? In what form are You to be thought of by me, O Lord? (10.17)

Now you may argue or interpret however you want but is clear to anyone who is honest and neutrals that lord Krishna is responding to this question, and here what he says.

The Supreme Lord said: O Arjuna, now I shall explain to you My prominent divine manifestations, because My manifestations are endless. (10.19)

O Arjuna, I am the Atma abiding in the heart of all beings. I am also the beginning, the middle, and the end of all beings. (10.20)

We all know who brings forward the beginning , middle and end, just for you in case we are reading different Shastra.

S.B 8.7.23 O lord, you are self-effulgent and supreme. You create this material world by your personal energy, and you assume the names Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Maheśvara when you act in creation, maintenance and annihilation.

 

 

I am Vishnu among the (twelve) sons of Aditi, I am the radiant sun among the luminaries, I am Marici among the gods of wind, I am the moon among the stars. (10.21)

I am the Sama Veda among the Vedas; I am Indra among the Devas; I am the mind among the senses; I am the consciousness in living beings. (10.22)

Note; indra among devas where do you get jiva?

I am Shiva among the Rudras; (I am) Kubera among the Yakshas and demons; I am the fire among the Vasus; and I am Meru among the mountain peaks. (10.23)

If that is not enough

SB 8.7.24: You are the cause of all causes, the self-effulgent, inconceivable, impersonal Brahman, which is originally Parabrahman. You manifest various potencies in this cosmic manifestation.

SB 8.7.25: O lord, you are the original source of Vedic literature. You are the original cause of material creation, the life force, the senses, the five elements, the three modes and the mahat-tattva. You are eternal time, determination and the two religious systems called truth [satya] and truthfulness [r?ta]. You are the shelter of the syllable om?, which consists of three letters a-u-m.

SB 8.7.26: O father of all planets, learned scholars know that fire is your mouth, the surface of the globe is your lotus feet, eternal time is your movement, all the directions are your ears, and Varun?a, master of the waters, is your tongue.

SB 8.7.27: O lord, the sky is your navel, the air is your breathing, the sun is your eyes, and the water is your semen. You are the shelter of all kinds of living entities, high and low. The god of the moon is your mind, and the upper planetary system is your head.

SB 8.7.28: O lord, you are the three Vedas personified. The seven seas are your abdomen, and the mountains are your bones. All drugs, creepers and vegetables are the hairs on your body, the Vedic mantras like Ga-yatri- are the seven layers of your body, and the Vedic religious system is the core of your heart.

SB 8.7.29: O lord, the five important Vedic mantras are represented by your five faces, from which the thirty-eight most celebrated Vedic mantras have been generated. Your Lordship, being celebrated as Lord S'iva, is self-illuminated. You are directly situated as the supreme truth, known as Parama-tma-.

SB 8.7.30: O lord, your shadow is seen in irreligion, which brings about varieties of irreligious creations. The three modes of nature — goodness, passion and ignorance — are your three eyes. All the Vedic literatures, which are full of verses, are emanations from you because their compilers wrote the various scriptures after receiving your glance.

SB 8.7.31: O Lord Giri-s'a, since the impersonal Brahman effulgence is transcendental to the material modes of goodness, passion and ignorance, the various directors of this material world certainly cannot appreciate it or even know where it is. It is not understandable even to Lord Brahma-, Lord Vis?n?u or the King of heaven, Mahendra.

SB 8.7.32: When annihilation is performed by the flames and sparks emanating from your eyes, the entire creation is burned to ashes. Nonetheless, you do not know how this happens. What then is to be said of your destroying the Daks?a-yajña, Tripura-sura and the ka-laku-t?a poison? Such activities cannot be subject matters for prayers offered to you.

SB 8.7.33: Exalted, self-satisfied persons who preach to the entire world think of your lotus feet constantly within their hearts. However, when persons who do not know your austerity see you moving with Uma-, they misunderstand you to be lusty, or when they see you wandering in the crematorium they mistakenly think that you are ferocious and envious. Certainly they are shameless. They cannot understand your activities.

I can quote a lot more because Sri Vyasdev in his wisdom wrote other Shastra eulogising lord shiva and his shakti as devine but I know its no use.

Jai Shree Krishna

[tackleberry]

 

Pranam

 

Thankfully it is just your opinion above, as such it don’t count,

I take the words of Lord Shree Krishna, when asked by Arjun

 

Don't see the point of your post, but if you're denying differences, it goes against pratyaksha. And if you quote Agama to counter it, it will suffer from the flaw of upajivya virodha. Hence, your interpretation will be deemed incorrect, even if the Agama is accepted. Besides, Agama itself is replete with references to differences amongst various deva-s, how they all differ (and are subordinate to) from ViSnu, and so forth.

 

Just a few cases will not do, and English translations cannot be trusted. Please post in Sanskrit, the very word impersonal in one of the verses you quoted sounds dubious. There's no equivalent in Sanskrit to mean "Impersonal Brahman." So your so-called references are not valid.

[Ganeshprasad]

 

Don't see the point of your post,

 

Just a few cases will not do, and English translations cannot be trusted. Please post in Sanskrit, the very word impersonal in one of the verses you quoted sounds dubious. There's no equivalent in Sanskrit to mean "Impersonal Brahman." So your so-called references are not valid.

 

Pranam

I would not have entered in to this discussion of who is a vaishnav, it is easy to see there is enough strife and I for one have no appetite for such discussion, but when some one makes a major statement ,not pertaining to actual thread, calling Lord Shiva a mere jiva I could not just stand by.

Here is the verse

tvaḿ brahma paramaḿ guhyaḿ

sad-asad-bhāva-bhāvanam

nānā-śaktibhir ābhātas

tvam ātmā jagad-īśvaraḥ

 

You are correct there is no Impersonal Brahman but the auther has somehow inserted this, which makes the verse even more important, the auther is none other that Srila Prabhupada, I have no other source of Bhagvatam other then my Gujrati version.

 

As I said I have no desire to enter a debate on Vishu V Shiva on this thread, so if anyone interested could open which already exist.

Jai Shree Krishna

[tackleberry]

 

Here is the verse

tvaḿ brahma paramaḿ guhyaḿ

sad-asad-bhāva-bhāvanam

nānā-śaktibhir ābhātas

tvam ātmā jagad-īśvaraḥ

 

You might want to provide verse number?

 

You are correct there is no Impersonal Brahman but the auther has somehow inserted this, which makes the verse even more important, the auther is none other that Srila Prabhupada,

 

Which means nothing to me, since I am NOT his follower. And why does that make the verse interesting?

[matarisvan]

 

Which means nothing to me, since I am NOT his follower. And why does that make the verse interesting?

 

 

Some hks on this forum think all Vaishnavas (not just iskcon vaishnavas) have to follow Prabhupada or accept everything he says just because he said them.

[cbrahma]

 

Some hks on this forum think all Vaishnavas (not just iskcon vaishnavas) have to follow Prabhupada or accept everything he says just because he said them.

Yes how silly , to quote an exalted Gaudiya Vaisnava , as an authority on Gaudiya Vaisnavism. Who are we supposed to accept as an authority? You? Who are you?

[matarisvan]

 

Yes how silly , to quote an exalted Gaudiya Vaisnava , as an authority on Gaudiya Vaisnavism. Who are we supposed to accept as an authority? You? Who are you?

 

more dumb responses...come out of your narrow little shell and understand what is discussed here before making nonsensical posts.

 

vaishnava does not mean gaudiya vaishnava. gaudiya vaishnavas are a small branch of the vaishnava group. Why on earth do you think other vaishnava groups care for prabhupada's teacings? they have their own gurus and their own teachings much older than gaudiya vaishnavism.

 

how much more time before you can realize this is not a gauidya discussion forum?

[cbrahma]

 

more dumb responses...come out of your narrow little shell and understand what is discussed here before making nonsensical posts.

 

vaishnava does not mean gaudiya vaishnava. gaudiya vaishnavas are a small branch of the vaishnava group. Why on earth do you think other vaishnava groups care for prabhupada's teacings? they have their own gurus and their own teachings much older than gaudiya vaishnavism.

 

how much more time before you can realize this is not a gauidya discussion forum?

I am literate. I can read. Don't be stupid.

A Gaudiya Vaisnava is not a Vaisnava?

I agree your response is dumb.

[matarisvan]

 

I am literate. I can read. Don't be stupid.

 

Hasn't done you much good.

 

 

A Gaudiya Vaisnava is not a Vaisnava?

 

Who said that? Raises doubts aboout your ability to read or your ability to comprehend what you read.

 

 

I agree your response is dumb.

 

worth nothing as your response is to a statement that was never made.

 

Assuming accurately that your intelligence equals that of a third grader, "fruit does not mean apple" is not the same as "apple does not mean fruit".

[cbrahma]

 

Hasn't done you much good.

 

 

 

Who said that? Raises doubts aboout your ability to read or your ability to comprehend what you read.

 

 

 

worth nothing as your response is to a statement that was never made.

 

Assuming accurately that your intelligence equals that of a third grader, "fruit does not mean apple" is not the same as "apple does not mean fruit".

 

There isn't much to understand.

Gaudiya-Vaisnava is to Vaisnava as apple is to fruit.

You said it wasn't about Gaudiya Vaisnvaism but Vaisnavism ,which is like saying it's not about apples but about fruit.

I'm not sure about your ability to make assumptions, third grade or otherwise, but your logic needs a grade school refresher.

[Ganeshprasad]

 

You might want to provide verse number?

 

 

And why does that make the verse interesting?

 

Pranam

It would not have been difficult to work that out, the verse was given with English translation since you queried that verse, I thought it was obvious, here it is any way SB 8.7.24:

 

I said it was important, since it is personal I keep to my self.

Coming back to the thread as to who is a Vaishnava, Narsinhmehta sang a great Bhajan in this regards, check it out might just help. II Vaishnav Jan to tene II वैष्णव जन त

Jai Shree Krishna

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

However, the Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya considers all devas, including goddesses like Saraswati, Durga, Parvati and Kali as unworshippable. Even if you claim that Durga is an avatar of Lakshmi, fact remains that this is just a post. After the death of Brahma, the jiva who is Durga will no longer be so, and another Jiva who may have done some penance will earn the post of Durga.

 

A Jiva is eligible for worship, ONLY if he has done great devotional service to the Lord. Like Sri Hanuman, for instance. But neither Brahma, or Siva, or Durga have actually done anything like that, so we just respect them and avoid worshipping them, even as devotees of Vishnu.

 

In Gita, Lord says:

 

"O son of Kunti! At the end of the Cosmic Cycle, all enter into My nature, and at the beginning of another cycle, by My free will, and potency, I create them again."

 

This includes all Devas, like Brahma, Siva, Indra, Saraswati, Durga, etc. They are also Jivas, like us and by virtue of their karmas, have reached that position. They are posts, and jivas keep changing at that post.

 

Lakshmi is also a Jivatma, but She is in Sri Vaikuntha, with Narayana. Hence, Her powers are eternal (She is unaffected by pralaya), and She is also endowed with the compassion of the Lord. There is no point in going to Durga and asking her for prosperity, when Lakshmi is fully capable of granting it Herself.

 

No issues. I know other Vaishnava sampdarayas (particularly Gaudiya Vaishnavism) hold Shiva to be a bhakta of the Lord, and worthy of worship, but like I said before...its a theological difference.

I never knew that Sri Vaishnavas believed that way. Quite an interesting difference between Gaudiya- and Sri Vaishnavas. Thanks for teaching me your Sampradaya's views on this issue