Why Vaishnava & Vaishnav Gods Targeted ?

[gokulkr]

Sometimes, i feel strange that most of the atheists, so-called modern craps always target vaishnava gods such as krsna,rama or vishnu to blame god and also extend of humilating vaishnava gods in a degrading manner

 

Also in films (mostly southindian) vaishnavas & vaishnavas are targeted or humilated whenever opportunity comes to disgrace God.

 

Also atheist politicians and atheists target vaishnav-gods rather than other hindu-sect gods. For ex:- Burning of sri-ram picture in tamilnadu by a political group, Disgracing rama by Tamilnadu CM, Categorizing Rama as north-indian god by a stupid actor sathyaraja during a food-fast function.

 

It is actually humorous that even though many so called uncivilised rituals done in hindu-religion are actually done by shaivas/sakthas and so called funy fake sadhus come in guise of shaivas, but still vaishnavas are targeted .

 

Om Namo Narayanaya

[Avinash]

This is because Lord Ram is highly famous. That is why, they target Him.

[cbrahma]

These are Indians that are blaspheming their own gods? Nice. So it's not just the mean 'ol Westerners.

[Amlesh]

Our dear lord is above any kind of glorification and vilification.

 

So don't worry, they only are writing their own Vikarma.

 

Even then, I'll ask god to Forgive them.

[bija]

It pains the devotee to see his Lord blasphemed!

 

When we argue over religion I like to keep in mind:

"God is bigfella...he dont need defending".

 

At least that helps me, not to defend my own ego or belief system, while in deep conditioning.

 

Jesus has always been the brunt of jokes in the west in one form or another. Some of us even can be light humored - I dont know if that is a good thing:( Maybe Jesu never took offence!

[tackleberry]

 

These are Indians that are blaspheming their own gods? Nice. So it's not just the mean 'ol Westerners.

 

Who cares where blasphemy comes from? Whether it's from India or west, it's wrong and must be condemned. There must be no distinction in these matters, abuse is abuse.

[cbrahma]

 

Who cares where blasphemy comes from? Whether it's from India or west, it's wrong and must be condemned. There must be no distinction in these matters, abuse is abuse.

It's surprising to see this in-fighting , because Hinduism is so cultural.

It's usually Westerners (mlechhas) that are condemned as blasphemers.

[matarisvan]

gokul,

 

There are atheists in India too just like anywhere else. were you expecting indian atheists to behave differently?

 

The recent arguments about Rama were not about the divine Rama. They were about lack of evidence for the mythological rama which upset the sentiments of some people.

[tackleberry]

 

It's surprising to see this in-fighting , because Hinduism is so cultural.

It's usually Westerners (mlechhas) that are condemned as blasphemers.

 

Whatever we think of Hinduism, nobody is suggesting Hindus are angels who can do no wrong. Nobody ever did on this forum, or elsewhere, at least to my knowledge.

[cbrahma]

 

Whatever we think of Hinduism, nobody is suggesting Hindus are angels who can do no wrong. Nobody ever did on this forum, or elsewhere, at least to my knowledge.

Not much. The Westerners, especially the Christians have been demonized as ignorant unintelligent fools and rascals.

[matarisvan]

 

Not much. The Westerners, especially the Christians have been demonized as ignorant unintelligent fools and rascals.

 

Not all westerners. Some people like Kulapavana are intelligent and fair and clearly not rascals.

[cbrahma]

 

Not all westerners. Some people like Kulapavana are intelligent and fair and clearly not rascals.

A Vaisnava that clearly blasphemes other Vaisnavas like Prahbupada.

[Kulapavana]

 

A Vaisnava that clearly blasphemes other Vaisnavas like Prahbupada.

 

give a quote where I do that, or shut up.

[cbrahma]

 

give a quote where I do that, or shut up.

 

Originally Posted by Kulapavana

If this is what Prabhupada thought about his disciples he himself had chosen to lead his movement, why on earth he did not find someone better? He had close to 5000 disciples and he chose 11 monkeys to lead his movement? You expect anyone to believe that?

 

This is yet another load of dung, invented to blame "outsiders" for the failures of our movement

 

Originally Posted by Kulapavana

"Discovered" based on what? The word of Tamal KG? He is your authority now? The transcripts of the "appointment tape" are public knowledge. I do not need you or TKG to figure out what is being said there.

I am not indicting Prabhupada. Read again:

Prabupada was not omniscient. He made his decission in good faith but his disciples did not live up to the standard. It is that simple - to me and to the majority of thinking people on earth familiar with the subject.

Still no answer to my question. But I understand. At least you are not trying to lie about it.

I did not think Harikesa was on the brahma-bhuta platform. But he was inspiring me and many others to serve Krsna by his words and deeds and that was good enough for me. I knew from the very beginning that guru is one, Sri Guru, and He comes in many manifestations.

 

[theist]

 

Jesus has always been the brunt of jokes in the west in one form or another. Some of us even can be light humored - I dont know if that is a good thing Maybe Jesu never took offence!

 

 

No He takes no offense. "Father forgive them they know not what they do." I take offense however. But that means nothing. Most importantly the Supreme Lord takes offense. And the results are sure to follow both for the direct offender and the facilitators.

[Kulapavana]

so what part of that quote is a blasphemy in your opinion? that I do not consider Prabhupada to be omniscient? He himself said so, but even if he did not, that is not a blasphemy.

 

blas·phe·my (blsf-m)

n. pl. blas·phe·mies 1. a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.

b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.

 

2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.

[theist]

 

so what part of that quote is a blasphemy in your opinion?

 

If that's to me Kulapavana it is too obvious to spens time describing. Let me say what I do not consider blasphemy to draw a distinction.

 

Many consider not showing blind faith in the words of a teacher to be blasphemy. I do not think this way. Doubts or respectfully disagreeing on certain points is not blasphemy. It may be an error on the part of the doubter but error is not blasphemy.

 

Less then blasphemy but still offensive is putting words in the teachers mouth as if mind reading what he really meant.

 

Also offensive are the so-called staunch disciples who "praise" guru day and night but still consider him to be his body and treat him like he is a product of the time and space.

 

Highly offensive and even blasphemous are those that change his words and teachings for whatever reason. Yes I am pointing at the BBT.

 

All IMO only.

[theist]

Now that you have edited your post I see you weren't speaking to me.

[cbrahma]

 

so what part of that quote is a blasphemy in your opinion? that I do not consider Prabhupada to be omniscient? He himself said so, but even if he did not, that is not a blasphemy.

 

blas·phe·my (blsf-m)

n. pl. blas·phe·mies 1. a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.

b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.

 

2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.

You presume to 'explain' Prabhupada, to know his intentions and his mind. This at least presumptuous and I find it offensive because it is an attempt to diminish his status as just some bumbling ordinary person. So I will ammend my statement and say you are a Vaisnava that has no compunction in making offensive assumptions about other greater Vaisnavas. Is that better?

[Kulapavana]

 

You presume to 'explain' Prabhupada, to know his intentions and his mind. This at least presumptuous and I find it offensive because it is an attempt to diminish his status as just some bumbling ordinary person. So I will ammend my statement and say you are a Vaisnava that has no compunction in making offensive assumptions about other greater Vaisnavas. Is that better?

 

We all make assumptions in life. I assume that I understand Vaishnava siddhanta to some extent, or that I understand to some extent the intentions and rationale of Srila Prabhupada based on what he himself said or did. I am pretty sure you do the same.

 

I do not consider Prabhupada to be an ordinary man. If I did, I would not base my life on his teachings. But I do not think he was omniscient, and I do not think he was always right. To his simpleton grouppies and personality cultists like yourself, that may be "blasphemous". In all honesty, I care very little about the opinion of such people.

[cbrahma]

 

We all make assumptions in life. I assume that I understand Vaishnava siddhanta to some extent, or that I understand to some extent the intentions and rationale of Srila Prabhupada based on what he himself said or did. I am pretty sure you do the same.

 

I do not consider Prabhupada to be an ordinary man. If I did, I would not base my life on his teachings. But I do not think he was omniscient, and I do not think he was always right. To his simpleton grouppies and personality cultists like yourself, that may be "blasphemous". In all honesty, I care very little about the opinion of such people.

You question the 'Prabhupada said so' even when it's documented.

[Kulapavana]

 

You question the 'Prabhupada said so' even when it's documented.

 

Yes, I do question some of the things he said, because - like I said before - I do not think he was omniscient, and I do not think he was always right. But that is NOT a blasphemy.

[raghu]

 

These are Indians that are blaspheming their own gods? Nice. So it's not just the mean 'ol Westerners.

 

Where have you been? Yes, the English-educated, crypto-socialist, liberal intelligentsia of India habitually attacks Hindu culture up to and including Lord Vishnu and His devotees. They have been like this for decades. And no, they don't make a special case for iskcon devotees. They hate you just as much as they hate the rest of us.

 

Like nice little subjects of the British crown, they learned their lessons well. Now they teach the very derogatory theories that they themselves were taught. This is the tragedy of imperialism - when a culture becomes enslaved to the ideas of a foreign power who have guns and muscle but no civilization or sophistication.

[cbrahma]

 

Yes, I do question some of the things he said, because - like I said before - I do not think he was omniscient, and I do not think he was always right. But that is NOT a blasphemy.

I downgraded the accusation to offensiveness. Saying he made mistakes on major points of siddhanta is offensive. That is bad enough.

[theist]

One thing I find usefull is the phrase, "I don't know," especially when discussing Srila Prabhupada. I may agree or disagree on some minor point but rather than try to put words in his mouth because I feel I know what he would have said or really meant I find it far better to just admit I don't really know.

 

There is no loss in this approach because on all the important teachings he is very very clear and straightforward.

 

The mundane mind wants to fill in the blanks just as the brain does at all times concerning our sense perceptions. But we must control this urge of the mind and keep it in check.

 

I don't know. This three words are more valuable then gold when applied properly.