listening to the holy name from the lips of mayavadis

[bija]

 

Sarcasm ill befits you. by dark

 

I was not being sarcastic dark....this was from my heart (honestly).

[bija]

My understanding of christ is different from cbrahma...and in some ways my heart is different than Theist. Three peas in a pod does not make a carrot:eek4:.

[Dark Warrior]

Once again, you are simply quoting someone. Refer to sastra, refer to even the works of the traditional founders. Why are you so blindly relying on mordern day gurus?

 

I have read Srila Sridhar Maharaja's comparisons of Christianity and Vaishnavism. Funny, nobody has compared Shaivism and Vaishnavism, and yet, he seems to think Jesus has some credibility.

 

Therefore, if you are a sincere seeker of knowledge, go to any traditional Vaishnava acharya/guru (Gaudiya, Madhva or Sri-) and inquire about it. Not ISKCON, who are obviously influenced by their previous religion and attachments.

 

Sri Ramanuja wastes no time calling Advaitins and Shaivites as loaded with tamo guna. Upanishads give dire warnings of a blinding darkness descending on those with false knowledge. Tell me, if all paths are same, why would such warnings exist? Obviously, Upanishads were not talking specifically about 'mayavada' as ISKCON puts it.

 

The right way to inquire about the absolute is to read the Prasthna Trayam, and reach the conclusion. Jesus, a person who was devoted to his own conception of God, is sorely lacking in the light of the Vedas. You need to prove, with proper satric quotes, that Jesus was a Vaishnava.

 

God has 4 hands, a lotus, mace, discus, conchshell. True devotees will read Vishnu Sahasranama and Bhagavad Gita regularly, and understand that one should never worship other Gods or go to other religions and regard them as authentic. Vyasa is particularly emphatic about this, 'There is no sastra greater than Veda and no God superior to Kesava'. If all paths were same, he wouldn't be saying this.

 

Personal experience is redundant.

[bija]

 

Not ISKCON, who are obviously influenced by their previous religion and attachments. by dark

I am not a member of Iskcon (or any institution)...and never have been. Also I am not a christian.

 

 

Sri Ramanuja wastes no time calling Advaitins and Shaivites as loaded with tamo guna. Upanishads give dire warnings of a blinding darkness descending on those with false knowledge. Tell me, if all paths are same, why would such warnings exist? Obviously, Upanishads were not talking specifically about 'mayavada' as ISKCON puts it. by dark

Your own mind runs wild with imagination, and subjective experience here. I am not saying this at all. It all depends on the jivas desires...therefore some desires have been classified as tamastic.

 

 

Personal experience is redundant. by dark

This will be my last post for now. Maybe some others with deeper realization and knowledge of sastra can comment. Thx dark.

[Dark Warrior]

However, Srila Sridhar Maharaja, Srila Prabhupada and Sri Thakura are personalities regularly quoted by ISKCON, and followed. And you have been quoting them.

 

It will suffice to say that the teachings of mordern gurus, while having merit as far as Hari Bhakti is concerned, may not always be accurate.

 

Its as simple as this,

 

Christian - Follows Jesus, condemns Vedas as heretic.

 

Shaivite - Worships Shiva, considers Vishnu a demi-god. Against sastra.

 

Vaishnava - Worships Vishnu only. Emphasis on only. He is tolerant in the sense that all ajnanis will someday get moksha by Hari's grace. He is intolerant in the sense that all other paths, which fail to recognise Hari, is futile and will only lead to a better birth.

 

Pramanas include Pratyaksha, Anumana and Shabda. Of these, scripture, particularly the apaurusheya Vedas are important. What Vedas say, go. What they don't say, is discarded.

 

I have outlined it for you to understand. Its up to you to decide whether you are Christian, Shaivite, Vaishnava or just a Universalist, who feels all paths are authentic.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Your own mind runs wild with imagination, and subjective experience here. I am not saying this at all. It all depends on the jivas desires...therefore some desires have been classified as tamastic

 

Haha...Bija, its funny you accuse me of imagination. Your own posts in this forum have been nothing but a case of your imagination running riot. At the outset, you post somethings like 'I feel conscious of the other plane and reaching out to the transcendental awareness' or something like this. But on closer examination, I find that such pseudo-intellectual posts do not contribute to spiritual progress. Vaishnavism defines spiritual progress as 'describing and enjoying lilas of the Lord' and not ravings on personal experience that may be a product of maya.

 

Religions not based on Vaidika Matam cannot give moksha. So, can you please tell me, exactly how is it authentic?

 

Firstly, desires are a different matter. What Upanishads say is that, 'Wrong Knowledge is tamasic'. That is the very premise which was used to defeat Advaita, Shaivism and other paths.

 

Bija, you do a great dis-service to Vaishnavism by confusing yourself with this nonsense. All paths are not valid, but Christianity is not inadequate, etc.. A religion that doesn't even have the very basic mantra 'OM' is related to Vaishnavism? Even Buddhists and Jains are closer than Christians in that respect, as they atleast share some common mantras with Vedantins.

 

 

Or is Jesus alone barred

from making further progress?

 

Is the Dalai Lama alone barred from making progress? Is Vivekananda alone barred from making progress? Is George Bush alone barred from making progress?

 

Jesus knew what he thought he knew about God. Because of karma. Vaishnavas would be inclined to recognise him as a normal jivatma with no god realisation, just a mystic/good guy. He may have done miracles or really resurrected, but then even Yogis, normal Jivas with no realisation, can do those things.

 

Of course, if he had remained a sattvik person, compassionate to all, he will get a birth as a Vaishnava. Or, if Hari wills, he may even get moksha without jnana.

 

 

This will be my last post for now. Maybe some others with deeper realization and knowledge of sastra can comment. Thx dark.

 

Clearly, your ignorance of Eastern Philosophy is revealed. There is no doubt that some personal experiences are valid. However, one cannot trust it unless scripture confirms it.

 

An Advaitin can argue, 'Brahman is Nirguna by my personal experience', or a Shaivite could say, 'Vishnu is not supreme by my personal experience'. Hence, it leads us nowhere. We have a reliable authority in scripture to verify whether our experiences are genuine.

 

Stop talking like a pseudo-intellectual, and please, for goodness sake, learn something about our tradition.

[jinglebells]

Most advaitins worship Krishna, so I don't see anything wrong with listening to an advaitin. Advaitins are staunch Krishna Bhaktas.

[Dark Warrior]

Natch, Christians are pure devotees and mayavadis are 'demonic' according to some people here. Sort of like Satan and Job, I guess.

[bija]

 

'demonic' by dark

The vedic understanding of demon and christian understanding of demon is different hey! Theologically...the christian understanding of satan is very basic, and dualistic. We need to get beyond words, definitions....and ingrained belief systems. In this sense dark you have an excellent point. For some it would be best to be fixed with a single eye to have rapid advancement. Ofcourse that does not apply as a hard and fast rule.

[Dark Warrior]

 

The vedic understanding of demon and christian understanding of demon is different hey! Theologically...the christian understanding of satan is very basic, and dualistic.

 

Finally, atleast a difference is being acknowledged here.

 

Rest assured, I know the basics of every religion from Wicca to Paganism to Christianity to Judaism. I was a devoted agnostic for many years before understanding that my own tradition is the best.

 

 

We need to get beyond words, definitions....and ingrained belief systems.

 

You still don't get it, do you?

 

Vedanta is not an 'ingrained belief system'. It is a coherent exposition of the Vedas, Upanishads, Upa-Brahmanas, etc. It conveys the ultimate reality to be a Dark hued God resting on the causal ocean, on a snake bed. It also establishes exactly what one must do to attain Him - ie, shun every tradition that doesn't recognise Him.

 

Nothing is accepted based on personal experience, or belief. A Vaishnava accepts things based on Vedas. For instance, Vedic texts say a person will get spiritual experience when he prays to an Archa of Vishnu. Hence, that experience is authentic. However, when a person like Ramakrishna says he merged with Jesus and Shiva, it is nothing more than a product of maya, designed by the Lord to simply give jivas what they want.

 

Get it out of your system that Vaishnavism is an 'ingrained belief system that we must transcend'. If you are a Vaishnava, accept that it is the path advocated by Veda, that must never be discarded.

 

 

In this sense dark you have an excellent point. For some it would be best to be fixed with a single eye to have rapid advancement. Ofcourse that does not apply as a hard and fast rule.

 

Hopelessy wrong again. A 'single eye', meaning, one minded devotion to Vishnu alone is the ONLY path recommended by all acharyas, including Sri Chaitanya. There is no way another person can derive benefit from another.

 

Devotion without Vedic sanction will only cleanse karma for a better birth. Bhakti as dictated by the Vedas is moksha dharma.

 

One minded devotion to Vishnu is a hard and fast rule for every Vaishnava.

[bija]

 

Get it out of your system that Vaishnavism is an 'ingrained belief system that we must transcend.......accept that it is the path advocated by Veda, that must never be discarded. '. by dark

 

Goodness...not talking about vaisnavism here dark. Talking about theological terminologies and understandings. To back your thinking up to some degree.

 

You have pointed out my personal shortcomings continually in this debate.

 

Let me be constructively critical of at least one of your 'personal' shortcomings.

 

"You have an inability to see another person clearly...because of your own subjective experience of mind and thought patterns."

 

Let me say this...you are correct scripturally 99% of the time about what a Vaisnava is...but you paint a picture of others 'heart life' incorrectly. Just religiously.

[bija]

boia noche:sleep:

[cbrahma]

 

Debate prabhu is your qualification...due to the good fortune of being born in the sacred land of the ganga. I was not raised with such an exalted heritage...and am not qualified as you are. In this area your sastric knowledge is vast...and I am your servant.

You will never get anywhere with DW because you have been disqualifed by birth.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Goodness...not talking about vaisnavism here dark. Talking about theological terminologies and understandings. To back your thinking up to some degree.

 

'Vishnu' and 'Bhakti Yoga', along with 'Archa' and 'Vaikuntha' are not 'terminologies' to be discarded. They are the very instructions of Vedanta. No Vaishnava ever discards them in search of 'transcendence'.

 

 

You have pointed out my personal shortcomings continually in this debate.

 

Let me be constructively critical of at least one of your 'personal' shortcoming.

 

This will be good.

 

 

"You have an inability to see another person clearly...because of your own subjective experience of mind and thought patterns."

 

The 'patterns' that you convey suggest that your brand of spirituality is about as far from Vaishnavism as possible.

 

First of all, single minded devotion to Narayana is not a 'subjective experience of mind'. It is an order given by Rishis, Alvars and Vaishnava Acharyas. Hence, anyone who follows it is a Vaishnava. Anyone who doesn't, is not.

 

Secondly, I am not interested in deciphering your inner most thoughts. What you have revealed is basically this - people who think Vishnu alone gives moksha, and who condemn other paths as wasteful, are 'sectarian'.

 

Basically, this message is simply contradictory to hundreds of years of hard work by Vaishnava thinkers who have shown that one path and one god is all that the Vedas advocate.

 

 

Let me say this...you are correct scripturally 99% of the time about what a Vaisnava is...but you paint a picture of others 'heart life' incorrectly. Just religiously.

 

Vaishnavism, as I have presented it, is 100% correct and is the Vaidika Dharma. Anything that veers off this path is not Vaishnavism. You have the liberty to accept or reject this path.

 

'Heart Life' is not a pramana. As mentioned before, Lord Krishna in the Gita clearly says that anyone who prays incorrectly will nonetheless get some experience, because He abides in their hearts and makes their faith strong. It doesn't make this experience or this way correct.

 

Get out of personal experiences, hallucinations, delusions and resort to a sincere read of Sriman Narayana's divya lilas.

 

 

You will never get anywhere with DW because you have been disqualifed by birth.

 

Wow, that is the wittiest come back of the century.

[srikanthdk71]

Has anybody here ever thought what is above Brahma-Creator,Vishnu-Sustainer and Shiva-Layakaraka. It is that conciousness which had a basic thought. Thus was a Creator(Sattva-Brahma), The thought was later given a shape and direction (Rajas-Vishnu) and when the thought dies, it is in darkness (tamas-Shiva). All these three gunas are in all of us. So, reach the Chaturta which is that pure conciousness where there is no need to get into lower level discussions. You will also know 'What Mayawada means..and also know to what extent the Holy name can help you'. If your Dhyana contains any one of the gods name, then it is not Dhyana, you are trying to adjust your mind on one form and concentrate on it. It should be above that. Formless. There the truth lies. Some call it Shunya, some call it Atma, but the experiencer know what it is.

[RadhaMukunda]

 

1.Are offenders to the holy name pure Vaisnavas?

Persons who commit offense against the holy name are never pure Vaisnavas; thus, Srlman Mahaprabhu has distinguished them by saying that they are not pure Vaisnavas but are like Vaisnavas. (Sajjana-tosani 8/9)

Impure Vaishnavas are only those who see difference in Shiva and Vishnu. Those are not accepted as Bhaktas by Vishnu according to the padma purana. Meaning that most people in lineage of Madhvacharya or Ramanujacharya can not be considered real Vaishnavas.

 

Yes, Shankaracharya was a Vaishnava. But Ramanuja was not. Madhvacharya was not. Chaitanya was not. Srila Prabhupada was not.

 

Shankaracharya was also a Shaiva, a Shakta etc.

[bija]

Dear RadhaMukunda, I have very little interest in debating about Lord Shiva and Lord Krsna (as some may do on this forum). The below quotes express my mood and aspiration for service...to allow a sense of harmony to exist, as an aspiring follower of Sri Krsna, while trying to keep offences to others as minimal as possible while in philisophical discussion. Infact I dislike attitudes that minimalize other peoples faith.

 

I actually started this thread to try and defend myself from some personal criticism. On a previous thread I expressed on this forum how I went to see Sri Amritananda Mayi (Amma), and how she changed my life. Infact her love is still an ongoing work in my heart (and yes I am an aspiring Gaudiya Vaisnava). She is a wonderful saint, who would never enter low grade discussions that go on in some internet forums.

 

I have even been called dangerous, by some brothers in this forum. And was experiencing a stretching of faith some weeks back, which has now been resolved by grace. My starting this thread was an error of judgement...please forgive my offence.

 

 

http://nitaaiveda.com/All_Scriptures...ita_Kanika.htm

 

By Srila Vishvanatha Cakravarti Thakura

 

......Hereafter the gunavatars are being introduced.

By the action of the mode of goodness, the Master of the milk ocean, Shri Vishnu, maintains the universe. By the action of the mode of passion, the universe is created by Lord Brahma, who is generated from the lotus flower arisen from Garbhodasayi Vishnu's navel. In some kalpas, a jiva (living entity) who has amassed profuse piety takes the position of Lord Brahma and creates the universe. In this instance, due to the infusion of the Lord's potency in that jiva, he is referred to as an avesavatar. Because in that Brahma there is a connection with the mode of passion, he cannot be compared on a equal footing with Lord Vishnu. In those kalpas when there is an absence of any qualified jiva to take up the position of Lord Brahma, then Lord Vishnu Himself becomes Lord Brahma. Similarly, during some manvantaras, the incarnation of the Lord as Yagya has to take up the position of Lord Indra. During that manvantara when Yagya becomes Indra and during that kalpa when Vishnu becomes Brahma, then it can be said that they (Brahma and Indra) attain equality with Lord Vishnu.

The gross body of Brahma, consisting of the total material substance (the aggregate of the universal form of material nature, extending from Patala up to Satyaloka), is also known as Brahma. Hiranyagarbha, Who is manifested within that gross body as subtle living entities, is also known as Brahma. The indwelling soul therein, the second purusha, Garbhodasayi, is Iswar, the Supreme Controller. He Who is the destroyer, by the action of the mode of ignorance is Lord Siva. The indwelling purusha within the Universal Form as well as the subtle form of the Creator, Hiranyagarbha, Who is the super excellent controller born of the lotus flower, have both been referred to as Brahma. This Brahma also accepts the form of Siva for the purpose of destruction. During some kalpas very pious jivas attain this position whereas in others, Lord Vishnu Himself accepts the position of Lord Siva. However, the personality of Sadasiva, is a plenary portion (vilas-vigraha: as distinct from svamsa expansions which are endowed with a smaller degree of potency from the original Godhead) of the self-same form of the Supreme Lord, Shri Krishna, and He is transcendental to the three modes of material nature. It is from Him that the gunavatar of Siva is expanded. Therefore He should be understood to be superior to Brahma, equal to Lord Vishnu, and entirely separate from jivas, who are influenced by the material modes of nature.......

 

 

Madhurya Kadambini by Srila Vishvanatha Cakravarti Thakura - click here

 

Those who desire to become one with the Lord are in a dangerous and suicidal situation, whereas those who perform devotional activities mechanically are not in such a precarious position, because they are able to relish a sweet and more intimate relationship with the Supreme Lord.

Because both Lord Vishnu and Lord Siva (Sadasiva) embody the same Supreme Consciousness they are nondifferent. However, both Lord Vishnu and Lord Siva (Sadasiva) reside simultaneously on dual planes of nirguna (transcendence), and saguna (material nature). The unmotivated and transcendental devotees worship only the nirguna Supreme Consciousness, while the sakama fruitive workers can worship simply the saguna aspect of the Supreme Consciousness. This shows the inherent distinction between Lord Vishnu, Lord Siva, Lord Brahma, and the jivas.

It is important to note that many Puranas propound the theory of Lord Vishnu and Lord Brahma being one. The analogy of the sun and the precious gem suryakanta mani, will help as to understand this oneness. In a sense, the sun and the reflected glory of the sun in the gem are the same. In some mahakalpas, or millenniums, the Supreme Lord empowers certain jivas to take up the position of Lord Siva or Lord Brahma. just as the jewel is dependent on the sun for its glory, Lord Brahma and Lord Siva are dependent on the Supreme Lord for theirs. This point has been confirmed in the Hari-bhakti-vilasa (1.73):

yas tu narayanam devam brahma-rudradi-daivataih

samatvenaiva viksheta sa pashandi bhaved dhruvam

The scriptures also state that if a person, after considering all these facts, adamantly equates Lord Vishnu with demigods like Lord Brahma, Lord Siva, and so on he is condemned as an atheist and an offender. The basis of this scriptural injunction lies in the fact that while Lord Brahma is generally an empowered jiva, Lord Siva at times is also an empowered jiva. Persons who have not researched deeply 'into this subject matter end up forming their own speculative ideas. They make such comments as, “Lord Vishnu is God and not Lord Siva”, or “Lord Siva is the Supreme, not Lord Vishnu.” They continue to say, 'We are undeviating devotees of Lord Vishnu; we do not care for Lord Siva”, and vice versa. Hence their inclination to polemics leads them to commit offences. Now, the only way they can mitigate their offences is to meet a devotee well-versed in this topic who is willing to instruct them properly. The confused can become enlightened about everyone's real position, including in which way Lord Siva and Lord Vishnu are qualitatively nondifferent. Such persons begin to repent of having committed such offences and sincerely take up chanting the Lord's holy name. In fact, it is this chanting that finally exonerates such people from their offence.

Some say that these sections of the Vedas do not carry the slightest mention about the science of devotional service, so they are fit to be praised and appreciated only by mundane scholars. Those who lash out with such caustic criticism against those parts of the Vedas that propound the process of empirical knowledge and fruitive action will have to appease, with reconciliatory praises, those who follow such sections. Additionally, the offenders must chant the holy name to absolve the fourth nama-aparadha: blaspheming the Vedic scriptures and its corollaries.

One may ask why not indeed criticize those section emphasize empirical knowledge and fruitive action. The answer is because the scriptures are most merciful. By some unexpected good fortune if an offensive person meets a devotee who is knowledgeable about the Vedas, he will receive proper instructions on Vedic understanding. If the offender sincerely understands these instructions then he will truly appreciate the Vedas. Out of compassion for persons who are unfit for devotional service, who are duplicitous in action, and totally absorbed in mundane matters, the Vedas inspire them to become resolute in following its divine edicts, thus helping to uplift them. The Vedas benevolently draw these erring souls away from the pravrtti-marg (the path of worldly-mindedness) and towards nivrttt-marg ,(the path of detachment). Without having the realization that the Vedas are benevolent, and without possessing a deferential mood towards the sruti, one's offences cannot be mitigated. Thus we have discussed the prime cause of offences as well as how to absolve them.

In my home I also worship Shiva Lingam. These Lingams can also be found in many Gaudiya temples also, so my worship is not in discord with my faith. Even if we do worship differently than the shaivite. The world is full of difference and diversity, and as God is so unlimited and unbounded, surely his worship will be diverse in this world, in my humble opinion. Degrading others faith is a trap us foolish religionists often fall into sadly.

[bija]

 

Quote:

1.Are offenders to the holy name pure Vaisnavas?

Persons who commit offense against the holy name are never pure Vaisnavas; thus, Srlman Mahaprabhu has distinguished them by saying that they are not pure Vaisnavas but are like Vaisnavas. (Sajjana-tosani 8/9) Srila

 

 

Madhurya Kadambini by Srila Vishvanatha Cakravarti Thakura - click here

....Some say that these sections of the Vedas do not carry the slightest mention about the science of devotional service, so they are fit to be praised and appreciated only by mundane scholars. Those who lash out with such caustic criticism against those parts of the Vedas that propound the process of empirical knowledge and fruitive action will have to appease, with reconciliatory praises, those who follow such sections. Additionally, the offenders must chant the holy name to absolve the fourth nama-aparadha: blaspheming the Vedic scriptures and its corollaries.

One may ask why not indeed criticize those section emphasize empirical knowledge and fruitive action. The answer is because the scriptures are most merciful.....

This is one example of how some of us who claim to be vaisnava are not yet vaisnava, but are like vaisnava in our appearance, claim, acts etc....

 

By chanting the Holy Name, in self-less devotion, we evetually will be cleared of all offence and attain the status of vaisnava. This is what Srila Bhaktivinoda was referring to, to those in our own fold who are like vaisnava - but not yet pure. Not some silly sectarian debate, and minimizing others. In our tradition a 'pure vasinava' is one who seeks nothing, but selfless devotion to God, to please God, seeking nothing for oneself - love.

 

I hope your intelligence is sharp to see this point prabhu.

[RadhaMukunda]

I also don't have interest in debating on Vishnu and Shiva. It actually bothers me to read what some people write on this forum on this topic. What are the other offences of chanting the holy name? If I am right in some vaishnava sampradaya it is considered offensive to believe in mayavada, or to believe Shiva to be Paramatman. I think this is causing all the fighting on the forum between Shaivas and Vaishnavas.

 

I also consider myself to be a devotee of Shri Krishna. Allthough I am not claiming to be as pure as great saints like Meera Bai, TulsiDasa, Surdasa. But I don't see it as an offence to chant God's name while being imperfect. The story of Ajamila explains everything. Considering pronouncing the holy name an offence is a Christian and Jewish thing, not Hindu. Not long ago there was a large campaign in the Netherlands to make people aware not to say biblical names, like Jesus or Christ, during the day.

 

You are blessed to have met a great devotee like Amma. We are all devotees of the same brahman. I didn't meant to attack anyone personally, I sometimes get a little annoyed reading some messages.

[bija]

No worries mate...thx. I was actually concerned about my starting a thread by this name, not realizing the outcome (such is the way of bija the foolhearted:))

 

 

I also don't have interest in debating on Vishnu and Shiva. It actually bothers me to read what some people write on this forum on this topic. What are the other offences of chanting the holy name? posted by radhamukunda

http://nitaaiveda.com/All_Scriptures_By_Acharyas/Bhaktivinoda_Thakura/Hari_Naam_Cintamani/Chapter-IV.htm

 

Chapter Four

Sadhu-ninda

Blasphemy of the Great Saintly Persons

satam ninda namnah paramam aparadham vitanute

yatah khyatim yatam katham u sahate tad vigariham

"Blasphemy of the great saintly persons who are engaged in preaching the Hare Krishna maha-mantra is the worst offense at the lotus feet of the holy name. The Nama-prabhu, who is identical with Krishna, will never tolerate such blasphemous activities, even from one who passes as a great devotee."*

1.Glory to Lord Chaitanya, the life of Gadadhara! Glory to Lord Nityananda, the life of Jahnava-devi! Glory to Advaita, the husband of Sita! Glory to Shrivasa and all the devotees of the Lord!

2. Then Lord Chaitanya said, "Haridasa, please describe in detail the offenses to the holy name."

3. Haridasa said, "Lord, whatever You make me say, I will say by Your power.

Ten Kinds of Offenses to the Holy Name

4. "There are ten kinds of offenses to the holy name. This the scriptures say. I greatly fear these offenses. (1)

5. "Please give me the power, and I will describe these offenses one by one.

6-8. "The ten offenses to the holy name are: 1. to blaspheme the devotees who have dedicated their lives for propagating the holy name of the Lord. 2. To consider the names of the demigods like Lord Shiva or Lord Brahma to be equal to or independent of the name of Lord Vishnu. 3. to disobey the orders of the spiritual master. 4. To blaspheme the Vedic literature or literature in pursuance of the Vedic version. 5. To consider the glories of chanting Hare Krishna to be imagination. 6. To give some interpretation on the holy name of the Lord. 7. To commit sinful activities on the strength of the holy name of the Lord. 8. To consider the chanting of Hare Krishna one of the auspicious ritualistic activities offered in the Vedas as fruitive activities (karma-kanda). 9. To instruct a faithless person about the glories of the holy name. 10. To not have complete faith in the chanting of the holy names and to maintain material attachments even after hearing so many instructions on this matter.* Now I will diligently explain these offenses.

9. "The Puranas' author says that anyone who carelessly commits these offenses is a great fool.

10. "Anyone who, even though he knows the holy name's glory, remains attached to the things of `I' and `mine' and does not worship the holy name remains plunged in the world of birth and death.

The First Offense: Blasphemy of the DEvotees

11. "Now I will speak of the first offense: blasphemy of the devotees. Because of this offense everything the soul possesses is destroyed.

The Devotees' Qualities Are of Two Kinds: Svarupa (Natural) and Tatastha (Borderline)

12. "O Lord, now I will describe the qualities of the devotees, qualities that You, in the form of Lord Krishna, described to Uddhava in the Eleventh Canto of Shrimad-Bhagavatam.

13-16. "A devotee is merciful, tolerant, equal, free of hatred, truthful, pure at heart, engaged in acting for the welfare of others, unagitated by material desires, intelligent, self-controlled, not interested in collecting material possessions, gentle, and pure, eats frugally, is peaceful at heart, takes shelter only of Lord Krishna, is sober and grave, has defeated the six vices, and is prideless, respectful to others, expert, honest, and wise. I say that a true devotee has all these good qualities.

17. "O Lord, these qualities are of two kinds: svarupa (natural) and tatastha (borderline). Now I will describe them. (2)

The Primary Qualities Are Called Svarupa. The Tatastha Qualities Take Shelter of Them

18. "Taking shelter of to Krishna is the only svarupa quality. All other qualities are considered tatastha.

19. "When by good fortune a person associates with devotees, becomes attracted to the holy name, and chants the holy name, then he naturally takes shelter of Lord Krishna's feet.

20. "That is the primary good quality. As he chants and chants the holy name, the other good qualities naturally come to him.

21. "All other good qualities are considered tatastha (secondary). They will also inevitably make there appearance in the body of a true Vaishnava.

The Outward Signs of Varnashrama. One Does not Become a Saintly Devotee by Wearing Certain Kinds of Clothing. Taking Shelter of Lord Krishna is the Mark of a True Devotee

22. "Certain kinds of clothing mark the various positions in varnashrama. However, one's status as a devotee is not marked in that way.

23. "Taking shelter of Lord Krishna is the mark of a devotee. From a devotee's mouth comes the chanting of Lord Krishna's holy name.

24. "Grihastha, brahmacari, vanaprastha, and sannyasi (3) are the first four divisions and shudra, vaishya, kshatriya, and brahmana are the second four divisions of varnashrama.

25. "One is not known as a devotee by these divisions. A devotee is known because he takes shelter of Lord Krishna. This the scriptures say.

The Qualities of a Grihastha Devotee

26. "O Lord, You taught Raghunatha dasa how to be a householder devotee. (4)

27. "You said to him: `Be peaceful. Go home. Don't be a madman. Gradually you will cross to the farther shore of the ocean of birth and death.

28. " `Turn away from monkey-renunciation. (5) Without attachment, accept what material pleasures are appropriate.

29. " `In your heart keep spiritual faith. Externally act like an ordinary person. Lord Krishna will soon deliver you.'

The Qualities of a Devotee Who Has Renounced Grihastha Life

30. "Seeing that Raghunatha dasa had renounced grihastha life, You gave him these instructions wonderful to hear:

31. " `Don't hear gossip. Don't speak gossip. Don't eat opulent foods. Don't wear opulent clothing.

32. "Don't desire that others will honor you. You give all honor to others. Always chant Lord Krishna's holy name. In your heart serve Shri Shri Radha-Krishna in Vraja.'

The One Primary Quality Shared by a Grihastha Devotee and a Devotee Who Has Renounced Grihastha Life

33. "The primary quality is one. That is honored everywhere. The differences that begin with varnashrama are all secondary.

34. "If I see that a person who has completely taken shelter of Lord Krishna acts badly, I still say, `He is a saintly devotee.' Such a person should be served by everyone. (6)

35. "Lord Krishna says this in Bhagavad-gita and Shrimad-Bhagavatam. Therefore I will always earnestly worship such a devotee.

36. "O Lord, You mercifully gave this one confidential teaching. I have no power to find the end of Your mercy.

A person Who Criticizes a Devotee Because of That Devotee's Previous Sins Or The Fragrance of His Previous Sins Is an Offender to the Holy Name

37. "When a person attracted to the holy name once says the holy name, his previous sins are destroyed.

38. "The scent of his previous sins may still linger for some days, but by the power of the holy name they two are gradually destroyed. (7)

39. "The scent of sin is quickly thrown away. Then that person becomes known as a great saint.

40. "During those days when the scent of sin is not yet destroyed, to ordinary eyes he may still seem to be a sinner.

41. "Seeing that scent of sin, someone may criticize that devotee. Seeing that he had previously sinned, someone may criticize his character.

42. "That critic is an offender. Because he blasphemed a devotee, he commits an offense to the holy name. Because Krishna is angry with him, he falls down.

The Quality of a Devotee Is That He Takes Shelter of Lord Krishna and No One Else. Persons Who Announce, "I Am a Saintly", Are Arrogant Hypocrites

43. "A persons who chants the holy name and takes shelter of Lord Krishna and no one else, becomes known, by Lord Krishna's mercy, as a saintly person.

44. "Only Lord Krishna's devotees, and no one else, are truly saintly. Person who announce, `I am saintly' are vain hypocrites. They are the incarnation of arrogance personified. (9)

In a Few Brief Words: The Nature of a Truly Saintly Person

45. "Someone who keeps the holy name of Lord Krishna in his mouth and who says, `I am just a poor person who has taken shelter of Lord Krishna' is a true saintly person.

46-47. "A person who keeps a straw between his teeth, who thinks of himself as a lowly person, who is tolerant like a tree, who does not strive to receive honor from others, who gives honor to everyone, and who keeps Lord Krishna's holy name in his mouth has the power to make others fall in love with Lord Krishna.

A Person Devoted to the Holy Name Is a Saintly Vaishnava. Lord Krishna's Power Rests in His Body

48. "Any person from whose mouth I once hear the holy name, I call a Vaishnava. I offer respectful obeisances to him.

49. "A true Vaishnava is the spiritual master of the entire world. He is the friend of the entire world. A true Vaishnava is always an ocean of mercy to every spirit soul.

50. "Anyone who criticizes such a Vaishnava falls into hell. There he stays birth after birth.

51. "Every spirit soul can attain devotional service by a Vaishnava's mercy. There is no other way to attain devotional service.

52. "Lord Krishna's power rests in the body of such a Vaishnava. (10) Simply by the touch of his body others may attain devotional service.

53. "Three things are very powerful: the nectar that is food or drink touched by a Vaishnava's lips, the water that has washed his feet, and the dust that has touched his feet.

[bija]

http://nitaaiveda.com/All_Scriptures_By_Acharyas/Bhaktivinoda_Thakura/Hari_Naam_Cintamani/Chapter-IV.htm

A Vaishnava's Powers

54. "If for a few moments one stays near a Vaishnava, one will come into contact with Lord Krishna's power coming from that Vaishnava's body.

55. "When it enters a faithful person's heart, that power makes the body tremble. It makes devotional service arise in that heart.

56. "A person who faithfully stays near a Vaishnava finds that devotional service arises within his own heart.

57. "From the moment Lord Krishna's holy name enters his mouth, by the holy name's power he attains all good qualities.

To Find Fault With a Vaishnava is Blasphemy of a Vaishnava - Criticizing a Vaishnava's Birth, His Previous Faults, the Almost Comepletely Destroyed Remnant of His Previous Faults, and His Momentary Lapses

58-59. "A person who criticizes a Vaishnava' birth, previous faults, the almost completely destroyed remnant of his previous faults, or his momentary lapses is a fool who will be punished by Yamaraja. (11)

60. "Lord Krishna will not forgive anyone who criticizes a true Vaishnava, a Vaishnava in whose mouth the glories of the holy name stay.

61. "Anyone who, turning away from dharma, yoga, yajna, and the jnana-kanda part of the Vedas, instead worships Lord Krishna's holy name is the best of persons.

A Saintly Person Who Takes Shelter of the Holy Name Does Not Blaspheme the Demigods or Other Scriptures

62. "A pure saintly person who takes shelter of the holy name does not blaspheme the demigods or other scriptures.

63. "Whether he be a householder or a sannyasi, I yearn to attain the dust of such a saintly person's feet.

64. "A Vaishnava's level of advancement in spiritual life is determined by the extent of his attraction to the holy name. (12)

65. "His varnashrama status, wealth, learning, youthfulness, handsome features, bodily strength, or host of followers have no bearing on his spiritual status.

66. "Therefore a person who takes shelter of the holy name will avoid criticizing saintly devotees. That is his nature.

67. "A true devotee takes shelter of the holy name and engages in pure devotional service. He becomes like devotional service personified. A so-called devotee who has no devotion for the Lord is a grotesque person, a monster.

68. "A person who blasphemes a saintly devotee has no status in devotional service. His offense turns him into a nondevotee.

69. "Therefore a true devotee should avoid criticizing saintly devotees. He should be devoted to them. Association with saintly devotees and service to them are the activities of the true religion.

Bad Association is of Two Kinds. Of the Two: Improper Association with Women

70. "A Vaishnava should always avoid the association of ordinary people. By associating with nondevotees one comes to criticize saintly devotees.

71. "Bad association is of two kinds. This all the scriptures say. (13) Of these two improper association with women is one kind of bad association.

72. "Associating with a man who is too attached to women is also considered bad association. (14) A spirit soul who avoids associating with such persons becomes fortunate.

Improper Association with Women

73. "A husband and wife may stay together in Krishna-conscious family life. The scriptures do not call that bad association.

74. "However, a person who is attached to women in ways that break the rules of religion is wicked. That is the scriptures' opinion.

The Second Kind of Bad Association (Association with Persons Who Are Not Devotees of Lord Krishna) Is of Three KInds

75. "Wicked persons who are not devotees of Lord Krishna are of three kinds: mayavadis, hypocrites who wrap themselves in the flag of religion, and atheists. (15)

One Should Avoid Persons Who Criticize Saintly Devotees

76. "One should avoid the association of persons who criticize saintly devotees.

77. "Anyone who avoids these persons, chants Lord Krishna's holy name, and takes shelter of Lord Krishna and no one else, attains a great treasure of pure love for Lord Krishna (krishna-prema).

Vaishnavabhasa (the dim light of a Vaishnava), Prakrita-Vaishnava (a Materialistic Vaishnava), Vaishnava-praya (Almost a Vaishnava), and Kanishtha-Vaishnava (a Neophyte Vaishnava) Are Different Words For the Same Kind of Person

78. "A person who has ordinary faith, who worships the Deity but does not serve the saintly devotees is a prakrita-Vaishnava or Vaishnava-praya (almost a Vaishnava).

79. "He is a Vaishnavabhasa. He is not a perfect Vaishnava. Somehow or other he has attained the great treasure that is association with saintly devotees.

80. "Therefore I think of him as a kanishtha-Vaishnava (neophyte Vaishnava). By the devotees' mercy he eventually becomes a true Vaishnava.

Madhyama-Vaishnava (Intermediate Vaishnava)

81-82. "A person who loves Lord Krishna, makes friendship with the devotees of Lord Krishna, and avoids people who hate Lord Krishna is a madhyama-bhakta (intermediate devotee). He is qualified to chant Lord Krishna's holy name. He becomes a shuddha-bhakta (pure devotee).

Uttama-Vaishnava (Advanced Vaishnava)

83-84. "A person who sees Lord Krishna everywhere, who sees that everything rests in Lord Krishna, who considers Lord Krishna the great treasure of his life, and who makes no distinction between Vaishnavas and non-Vaishnavas is an uttama-Vaishnava (advanced Vaishnava). For him the chanting of Lord Krishna's holy name is everything.

A Madhyama-Vaishnava Should Serve Saintly Devotees

85. "Therefore a madhyama-Vaishnava should serve this kind of saintly devotee. (16)

A Prakrita-Vaishnava Is Qualified for Namabhasa Chanting

86. "A prakrita-Vaishnava, or Vaishnava-praya, is qualified for namabhasa chanting. This all the scriptures say.

A Madhyama-Vaishnava Is Qualified to Properly Chant the Holy Name, But He Should Also Take Care To Avoid Offenses

87. "A madhyama-Vaishnava is qualified to properly chant the holy name, but he should take care to avoid offenses in the worship of the holy name.

88. "An uttama-Vaishnava never commits offenses, for he sees Lord Krishna's glory everywhere.

89. "Each according to his own qualification, every devotee should avoid the offense of criticizing saintly devotees. (17)

90. "A devotee should associate with saintly devotees, serve saintly devotees, chant the holy name (nama-sankirtana), and give mercy to all spirit souls. These are the activities of a devotee.

If One Has Blasphemed a Saintly Devotee, What Should One Do?

91-92. "If one foolishly blasphemes a saintly devotee, one should repent, grasp the devotee's feet, weep, and say, `O master, please forgive my offense. Please give a Vaishnava's mercy to this wicked blasphemer.'

93. "His heart melting with compassion, the saintly devotee will forgive the offense and compassionately embrace the repentant offender. (18)

94. "O Lord, by Your order I place before Your graceful feet this description of the first offense."

95. "May this Hari-nama-cintamani become the life and soul of the devotees who are like bumblebees at Haridasa's lotus feet.

Chapter Four Footnotes by Shrila Bhaktivinoda Thakura

(1) The ten offenses to the holy name are: 1. to blaspheme the devotees who have dedicated their lives for propagating the holy name of the Lord. 2. To consider the names of the demigods like Lord Shiva or Lord Brahma to be equal to or independent of the name of Lord Vishnu. 3. to disobey the orders of the spiritual master. 4. To blaspheme the Vedic literature or literature in pursuance of the Vedic version. 5. To consider the glories of chanting Hare Krishna to be imagination. 6. To give some interpretation on the holy name of the Lord. 7. To commit sinful activities on the strength of the holy name of the Lord. 8. To consider the chanting of Hare Krishna one of the auspicious ritualistic activities offered in the Vedas as fruitive activities (karma-kanda). 9. To instruct a faithless person about the glories of the holy name. 10. To not have complete faith in the chanting of the holy names and to maintain material attachments even after hearing so many instructions on this matter.*

(2) The direct qualities are called "svarupa". The other qualities, which are like visitors or guests, are called "tatastha".

(3) A person who marries within his varna is called a “grihastha". A celibate student who is notyet married is called a "brahmacari". A person who, growing old with the years, goes to live in the forest is called a “vanaprastha". A person who becomes renounced and leaves his home is called a "nyasi" or a "sannyasi".

(4) Raghunatha dasa, who appeared in this world as the tilaka mark of a family of kayasthas, lived in Saptagrama. Called "Dasa Gosvami", he is counted among the Six Gosvamis.

(5) A person who externally wears a sannyasi's kaupina and bahirvasa and bears the other external signs of sannyasa, but within his heart has no true faith in renunciation, bears the mark of a monkey-sannyasi (markata-vairagya).

(6) Taking shelter of Lord Krishna and no one is else is the primary quality of devotional service. All other qualities are inevitably secondary (tatastha). If a person has this quality of taking shelter of Lord Krishna and no one else, the secondary qualities may be only partly, and not yet completely, manifested in him. Thus it may be seen that sometimes he acts badly. However, he is still saintly.

(7) Previous sins cannot stay when a person is attracted to the holy name. The scent of previous sins may stay, but they also perish after a few days.

(8) When a person takes shelter of Lord Krishna, that person's previous sins are almost all destroyed. Only the scent of sin remains. A person who, thinking of his previous sins, criticizes that Vaishnava, commits a great offense.

(9) "The incarnation of arrogance personified" here refers to vain hypocrites, people who wrap themselves in the flag of religion, people who dress like saintly persons only to earn their livelihood.

(10) The Lord's hladini (pleasure potency) and sandhini (knowledge potency) combine to become the bhakti-shakti (potency of devotional service). The perfect devotee (siddha-bhakta) gives to the aspiring devotee (sadhaka-bhakta) the potency of devotional service (bhakti-shakti), with the help of which the aspiring devotee makes gradual advancement in devotional service. By performing the spiritual activities of devotional service, the aspirant eventually becomes a perfect (siddha) devotee. When the aspirant is free of aversion to devotional service and is completely inclined to engage in devotional service, then a merciful perfect devotee takes his own spirit of devotion and gives it to the aspiring devotee. This is a great secret.

(11) A person who criticizes a Vaishnava' birth, his lapses created by momentary foolishness, the almost completely destroyed remnant of his previous faults, or misdeeds performed before he took shelter of Lord Krishna commits the offense of blaspheming a Vaishnava. Such a person will not be attracted to the holy name. A person who takes shelter of pure devotional service (shuddha-bhakti) becomes a pure Vaishnava (shuddha-vaishnava). no one should pay any attention to his previous faults. No one should remember those faults.

(12) A person is an elevated Vaishnava to the degree he is attracted to Lord Krishna's holy name.

(13) Avoidance of bad association is an important activity for a Vaishnava. Bad association is of two kinds: improper association with women and association with nondevotees. Association with a man too attached to women is also said to be bad association. Association with women according to religious principles and association with women not according to religious principles are two kinds of association with women.

(14) Association with a man too attached to women is a great impediment to devotional service.

(15) Here the word "mayavadi" refers to persons who believe that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is not eternal, that the form of Lord Krishna and the other forms of the Lord are all made of maya, and that the individual souls are also made of maya. The hypocrites who wrap themselves in the flag of religion are persons who have neither devotion nor renunciation in their hearts and are only cheaters wearing the garemnts a saintly person would wear and putting on a show of performing spiritual activities.

(16) A pure Vaishnava is considered more exalted than a madhyama-Vaishnava. A madhyama-Vaishnava considers one person a Vaishnava and another person not a Vaishnava. And why not? Such a person needs to serve a pure Vaishnava (shuddha-Vaishnava). If he abandons the understanding that some people are Vaishnavas and others are not Vaishnavas, then the madhyama-Vaishnava commits an offense to the Vaishnavas (Vaishnavaparadha). A madhyama-Vaishnava should earnestly seek out a pure Vaishnava (shuddha-Vaishnava) and serve him. An Uttama-Vaishnava (pure Vaishnava) makes no distinction that one person is a Vaishnava and another person is not a Vaishnava. How, then, can he serve the Vaishnavas? An uttama-Vaishnava makes no distinction between friends and enemies. How can he distinguish between Vaishnavas and non-Vaishnavas?

(17) According to their different natures, the different kinds of devotees have different conceptions. That is inevitable. To chant the holy name (nama-sankirtana) with the kind of faith he is qualified to possess, is a Vaishnava's duty.

(18) In this way Gopala Capala's offense to a Vaishnava was forgiven. One should look in the scriptures and find there the garland of quotes that describe this truth.

The rest of the ten offences mentioned in Padma Purana are described in detail in the above links in the Hari-Naam-Cintamani book.

It is also worth reading this book http://nitaaiveda.com/All_Scriptures_By_Acharyas/Bhaktivinoda_Thakura/Bhajana_Rahasya.htm where the internal aspect of bhajan is revealed, in that inner realm there is no disharmony (which is caused by ignorance)

your servant.

 

[bija]

 

I also consider myself to be a devotee of Shri Krishna. Allthough I am not claiming to be as pure as great saints like Meera Bai, TulsiDasa, Surdasa. But I don't see it as an offence to chant God's name while being imperfect. The story of Ajamila explains everything. Considering pronouncing the holy name an offence is a Christian and Jewish thing, not Hindu. Not long ago there was a large campaign in the Netherlands to make people aware not to say biblical names, like Jesus or Christ, during the day. posted by radhamukunda

 

If I could not chant the holy name presently (in this imperfect stage)...what hope would there be?

 

What a strange speculation the christian sect mentioned above must have!

 

[Dark Warrior]

 

Those are not accepted as Bhaktas by Vishnu according to the padma purana. Meaning that most people in lineage of Madhvacharya or Ramanujacharya can not be considered real Vaishnavas.

 

Yes, Shankaracharya was a Vaishnava. But Ramanuja was not. Madhvacharya was not. Chaitanya was not. Srila Prabhupada was not.

 

Shankaracharya was also a Shaiva, a Shakta etc.

 

Interesting. So, Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva are not Vaishnavas? I suggest you brush up on Vedanta before making these statements.

 

If you are referring to the Padma Purana verse that says 'Shiva is Vishnu and Vishnu is Shiva', I am afraid that is an interpolation. Proof? Because there are 4 versions of Padma Purana and this little verse does not occur in all of them, nor is it quoted by the Big 3 - Sri Sankara, Sri Ramanuja, Sri Madhva. And all 3 of them have used the Padma Purana liberally in their works.

 

Coming to Sri Sankara - What makes you think he was a Shaiva or Shakta? Read his works on the Prasthna Traya - Upanishads, Brahma Sutras and Bhagavad Gita. Everywhere he has equated only Vishnu as Saguna Brahman. In his Gita Bhashya, he denounces worship of Rudra, Agni, etc.

 

Furthermore, his chief disciples, Sureshvara and Anandagiri too affirm that Vishnu is Saguna Brahman. This 'Vishnu=Shiva' is just nothing more than a Neovedantic premise, and is not Classical Advaita.

 

Works like Saundarya-Lahiri, Sivananda Lahiri, etc. are later compositions passed off as Sankara's. He was a staunch Vaishnavite, atleast, as staunch as an Advaitin can be. He never said Vishnu=Shiva. Just because people depict him with ash smeared across his forehead doesn't mean it is true. All evidence points to the fact that he was wearing a tilak.

 

And no, I am not interested in proving the supremacy of Vishnu in this thread. Its been done many times already. Refer the 'Shiva is a Demigod' thread.

 

If you want to worship Shiva as Supreme, that's fine by me. Just don't define 'Vaishnavism' by your own terms. Its a disservice to the likes of Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva that nobody has even read their works on proving Vishnu's Supremacy, and yet rabidly argue that all gods are equal.

 

 

If I am right in some vaishnava sampradaya it is considered offensive to believe in mayavada, or to believe Shiva to be Paramatman. I think this is causing all the fighting on the forum between Shaivas and Vaishnavas.

 

Advaita, Vishishtadvaita, Dvaita, etc. are philosophies. They have nothing to do with supremacy of a God. Early Vedantins, from the time of Sankara were all vaishnavas. The debate was only as to whether the Vedanta preached Advaita, VA or Dvaita.

 

Hence, a Mayavadi should actually be a Vaishnava. Historically, Adi Sankara was a Vaishnavite 'Mayavadi'.

 

Number two, Shiva is not considered Paramatma by any school of Vaishnavism, but as a Jivatma. The Gaudiyas, apparently, give him a unique position as 'neither jiva nor Brahman', but that is based on their sampradayic texts like Brahma Samhita.

 

Thirdly, Shaivism has never been considered as a Vedantic tradition. Shiva may be a Vedic deity, but Shaivism is not Vedic because it is not based on Vedic Pramanas. Adi Sankara himself condemns the Pasupata and Shakta Religions as unvedic. He, however, accepts the Bhagavata (Vaishnava) sect as Vedantic, although he rejects the Pancharatra Agama. This rejection though, is a misunderstanding on his part, as he considered the agamas to promote creation of souls. Sri Yamunacharya has written a brilliant work proving the authenticity of Pancharatra.

 

No Shaivite, to date, has ever succeeded in proving that Shiva is Supreme, from the Vedas. Vishnu Sarvottama has remained undefeated, and that is a historical fact. Use Pratyaksha - How many Bhashyas of Vedanta are Shaivite? Very few (Srikantha and Appaya Dikshitar, for instance), and these have been disproved easily. Only Vaishnavas have written Bhashyas for the source texts of Vedanta. And there is absolutely no scholar who has mentioned that all gods are equal!!

 

Please, I beg people to first read up on historical and philosophical details before blindly expressing your beliefs.

[RadhaMukunda]

There have been interpolations in the Padma Purana, but those are made by Vaishnavas. The original padma purana also contains the Shiva gita which was removed from the Purana by vaishnava scholars.

 

What you are saying about Shankara is just fantasising. The reason so many Vaishnavas made commentaries on the Brahma sutra is because they took offence in Shankara's commentary.

 

Anyone considering Shiva to be a Jivatma or not really brahman can only be an impure Vaishnava or neo-vaishnava.

[Dark Warrior]

Oh really? If Shiva Gita was present in Padma Purana, care to explain why nobody has commentated on it from the past?

 

Shankara never commentated on Shiva Gita or Shiva Sahasranama. The Nayanmars, staunch Shaivites, make no mention of these two texts. Furthermore, Appaya Dikshitar, who was desperately trying to prove that Shiva is Supreme, does not quote either Shiva Gita or Shiva Sahasranama.

 

Shankara commentated on Vishnu Sahasranama, where He interprets Kesava as 'One who has Ka (Brahma) and Isa (Shiva) as his parts'. I have his Bhashya right now. And He commentated on Bhagavad Gita, not Shiva Gita.

 

Vaishnavism means 'Vishnu is Supreme'. Shiva is a Jivatma because of reasons you can read in the Shiva is a Demigod thread. Shiva Gita, Shiva Sahasranama, etc. are interpolations because no scholar has ever referenced them.

 

However, like I said before, I have no intention to prove the Supremacy of Vishnu to Shaivites here. The evidence is there in both Sri Bhashya and Madhva Bhashya. Heck, sufficient proof is even there in Sankara's Gita Bhashya itself.

 

The fact is, Vishnu=Shiva is logically untenable. Even according to Advaita, you have a personal entity in Saguna Brahman. Upanishads say that this entity has ONE form (rupa) and simply is ONE person. Hence, it can only be either Vishnu or Shiva. Vaishnavas have defeated Shaivites in this respect.

 

Vishnu=Shiva is not possible as there cannot be two different Brahmans, or two manifestations from an 'impersonal' source, as Upanishads state that Brahman has a distinct form. Even Sri Sankara accepts that there can only be one Saguna Brahman.

 

 

he reason so many Vaishnavas made commentaries on the Brahma sutra is because they took offence in Shankara's commentary

 

Correction. Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva attacked the philosophy of Advaita. This is not related to the Supremacy of Vishnu at all. Advaitins, VA and Dvaitins during those times were agreed on one point - that Hari is Supreme.

 

Similarly, the followers of Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva have attacked each other over philosophy (VA or Dvaita). But both agree on the supremacy of Vishnu.