Christianity and Vaisnavism

[theist]

 

One thing is clear Dark Warrior.U have given enough evidence to prove your point but still peoples like Cbrahma are not ready to accept it.Actually they are not in a position to reply back to your points.I dont think it is advisable on your part to go further & explain them from Sri Vaishnava point of view.

 

<!-- / message --> <!-- sig --> __________________

 

 

How incredibly boorish and rude it is for someone to belittle teachers from another Vaisnava line. You don't accept GV acaryas to be on the same level as though you follow in SV and GV don't accept your teachers views over their teachers. Haven't figured that out yet bright boy?

 

Sorry to have to play the role of moderator but someone has to. Sri Vaisnava discussions are held here. Now please "Go Away".

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/forum17/

[Amlesh]

Dear Dark, it's very surprising for me to know that only devotees coming from SV are the complete Vaishnavas. Your statements say so. With all the 8 elements that makes your constitution, I've understood that ego was more prominent, you went that far, that you couldn't even refrain your industrious mind to let comment on Mira Bai. The more you'll speak the more you'll reveal your puffed up arrogance.

 

No sane man will comment on such a personality.

[bhaktajan]

Originally Posted by Dark Warrior

 

Bhagavan is strange. ... the Sandhyavandanam ritual that Brahmanas do. Vaishnavas know Vishnu is supreme, yet they ... must worship every other deva ... What is the point of doing this ritual when we can worship Vishnu directly?

 

The bhagavata-Purana enumerates approx 3,000 personalites spanning approx 135 genreations

over a time period of 155 Trillions years

since the first prajapati, brahmaji was born, thus Pranams are invocations of the personalities that comprise the "Parampara" of the 'First Family'.

This is a 'personalist concept',

this sentiment is what is missing if,

you are considering the significance of 'acknowledging the Devatas', since the the Devatas are all cousins

of the royal courts of celestial lokas.

Vaisnavas have the sense of ettiqutte to ask permission to proceed from older family members. Simply as a joyfull sense of decorum.

 

 

--------------------------------

Originally Posted by Dark Warrior

We do not know the point. All we know is, it is our duty to do it because Vishnu wants us to. Similarly, we do not know why India is Moksha Bhumi.

 

The Ganges and Himlayas (and the Sarasvati River) are suffiecient reason to establish the authority to be a tirtha, but, also the sense of time immemorial reminds us of the ananta amounts of tapasya the have been performed to earn the unique charateristics of only one place to be known as Bharata-varsa.

 

--

However, we accept it [also] because that is what Sri Parasara Muni says.

[Dark Warrior]

 

There has been enough evidence to disprove his points. His posts are filled mostly with self-serving personal attacks that can hardly be called evidence of anything but his desperation and ignorance of the rules of debate.

 

I am yet to see one piece of evidence provided by you. Apparently, 'The Supreme Personality of Godhead' has not inspired you enough.

 

Of course, you are only capable of quoting Bhaktivinoda Thakura's words, which really isn't evidence.

 

 

 

How incredibly boorish and rude it is for someone to belittle teachers from another Vaisnava line. You don't accept GV acaryas to be on the same level as though you follow in SV and GV don't accept your teachers views over their teachers. Haven't figured that out yet bright boy?

 

Stop bleating. Your ignorance knows no bounds.

 

Tell me, did Jiva Goswami, Rupa Goswami, Sanatana Goswami tell you that all religions are valid? If my memory serves me right, Raghu posted a quote from Jiva Goswami's works which defined Vaishnava as 'one who is initiated into a Vaishnava mantra and worships Vishnu'.

 

Did Jiva Goswami teach you that original sin is a Vedantic philosophy? Or that we were 'once with Krishna' and fell out of the sky like an asteroid?

 

Sri Vaishnavas do not accept Theist's views. Gaudiya Vaishnavas (true ones) do not accept Theist's views.

 

 

Sorry to have to play the role of moderator but someone has to. Sri Vaisnava discussions are held here. Now please "Go Away".

 

There is a Christian forum for discussions about Christianity on the net. Also, you can go to any Neovedantic site and talk about how all paths are same. Now 'go away'.

 

 

Dear Dark, it's very surprising for me to know that only devotees coming from SV are the complete Vaishnavas.

 

And when did I say that?

 

 

Your statements say so. With all the 8 elements that makes your constitution, I've understood that ego was more prominent, you went that far, that you couldn't even refrain your industrious mind to let comment on Mira Bai. The more you'll speak the more you'll reveal your puffed up arrogance.

 

A Gaudiya Vaishnava who sincerely worships Krishna alone is a great Vaishnava. Which Theist is not.

 

And yes, it is possible for Bhakti to exist without Jnana. That doesn't diminish a mahatma's greatness. Of course, you really do not get it, and simply babble on about 'ego'.

 

Mirabai was a Krishna bhakti. However, she certainly did not give high regard to philosophy. Does it matter? No. because some jivas are so exalted that they get moksha without jnana, if they exhibit Bhakti. That was Mirabi's case. My respect for her is always there.

 

Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, etc. are related, and yet sometimes, independent paths. The Bhagavad Gita itself has explained it. Just because a person has perfect bhakti, you cannot expect him to have perfect jnana (knowledge of philosophy/scripture) as well. Similarly, Srila Prabhupada was a perfect bhakta. As far as Jnana is concerned, if he had said that Jesus was a Vaishnava, he was either wrong, or making compromises to convert Christians.

 

Any of these goofs should now show me proof that Jesus was a sanskrit scholar who learned that Hari Sarvottama is the purport of the Vedas. Having failed to do so, they randomly bleat about 'ego' and 'secularism'. Guliaditya was pointing this out, but then they take it out on him as well. Pathetic.

 

The '3 stooges', cBrahma, Theist and Amlesh need to address the following points,

 

- What god was Jesus worshipping? There is equal chance of him being a Shaivite and calling Shiva as 'the most high father'. There is also a chance that he was a closet mayavadi who was simply advocating worship of a personal god at the vyavaharika level. There is a chance of him being just a Jew who worshipped Yahweh.

 

Onus is on you to prove Jesus was a Vaishnava. It is very easy to misinterpret the Vedas and arrive at a false conclusion. What makes you so sure that Jesus, unlike hundreds of other Vedantins who failed, somehow, knew Vishnu was the ultimate purport of Vedas?

 

- Secondly, if one can worship Krishna in a mosque or church, what was the purpose of Lord Narayana so painstakingly elaborating the EXACT details of how He must be worshipped, for 5 nights running, that we have as the Pancharatra Agama? And if all places are holy, why are Shaiva Agamas condemned?

 

- If 'Bhakti to a personal God' is the only criterion for Vaishnavism, why did our acharyas condemn Shiva worshippers?

 

- How is Christianity 'bonafide' when even Jainism and Buddhism are closer to Vedic tradition?

 

- Vedanta says that Brahman, Jivas, Prakrti, Samsara and Karma are all anAdi (beginningless). Christianity says that Souls and matter were created at some point. How can the latter, which is so diametrically opposed to even the most basic teachings of Vedanta, be linked to Vaishnavism? Even Buddhists and Jains accept the beginningless theory and samsara.

 

- Where is the sastric pramana (4 Vedas, Ithihasas, Puranas) that Jesus was a Vaishnava or an avatar of Vishnu?

 

- Where is the sastric pramana that all religions that simply say 'Love God' are valid. If that was the case, why did the early Vedantins regard Advaita as a Vedantic tradition, and condemn Shaivism/Pasupata religion as unvedic?

 

- Finally, Sri Parasara Muni's statement in Vishnu Purana needs to be addressed.

 

For once, use your brains, and quote from scripture, rather than Bhaktivinoda Thakura's words.

[jinglebells]

Out of curiosity, why do Vaishnava acharyas never mention Moses as a pure or empowered vaishnava? He has all the qualities of a vaishnava-doesn't he?-such as faith in God (Krishna), austerity (after all, he gave the ten commandments), and so forth.

 

So why is it he's always left out of the pure vaishnava category, whereas Jesus and Mohammed always find a place therein?

[Dark Warrior]

Well, technically, Jesus's story is pretty tragic, and evokes emotion. Besides, Moses belongs to the Old Testament angry god, whereas Jesus apparently was a 'pure devotee' of a loving God.

 

'Course, I can sympathise with Jesus, he was a peaceful, compassionate bloke, but then, so was Mahavira the Jain. Jnana has nothing to do with this. Neither of them are Vaishnavas.

 

However, I do not know what they find in Mohammed, seriously. And 'Faith in God' is not the quality of a Vaishnava. 'Faith in Vishnu, Lord of Devas' is the quality of a Vaishnava.

[jinglebells]

 

Well, technically, Jesus's story is pretty tragic, and evokes emotion. Besides, Moses belongs to the Old Testament angry god, whereas Jesus apparently was a 'pure devotee' of a loving God.

 

'Course, I can sympathise with Jesus, he was a peaceful, compassionate bloke, but then, so was Mahavira the Jain. Jnana has nothing to do with this. Neither of them are Vaishnavas.

 

However, I do not know what they find in Mohammed, seriously. And 'Faith in God' is not the quality of a Vaishnava. 'Faith in Vishnu, Lord of Devas' is the quality of a Vaishnava.

 

'Faith in God' seems to be sufficient to classify Jesus/Mohammed as Vaishnava. So why not Moses? Maybe, it's because of the number?

[Amlesh]

You cannot be a Perfect Bhakta without being backed by Jyana.

 

Mira Bai is the last stage of perfection.

[jinglebells]

 

You cannot be a Perfect Bhakta without being backed by Jyana.

 

Mira Bai is the last stage of perfection.

 

I personally believe Moses was highest stage of perfection. Oscar-winning movies have been made of him, he's so popular and the perfect blend of bhakti, jnana, and karma yogas.

[Amlesh]

 

I personally believe Moses was highest stage of perfection. Oscar-winning movies have been made of him, he's so popular and the perfect blend of bhakti, jnana, and karma yogas.

 

Ok

[raghu]

 

 

The Vedas teach that the son is non-different from the father and similarly, Christian theology teaches that Christ, the son of God, is also God.

 

 

 

I'm calling your bluff.

 

Where in the Vedas is it said that "the son is non-different from the father?"

 

Where in the Vedas is there any statement that can even remotely be translated like that?

 

The iskcon christian propaganda has gone from fabricating bald assertions based on half truths to outright lies. Have these people no shame?

[jinglebells]

 

I'm calling your bluff.

 

Where in the Vedas is it said that "the son is non-different from the father?"

 

Where in the Vedas is there any statement that can even remotely be translated like that?

 

The iskcon christian propaganda has gone from fabricating bald assertions based on half truths to outright lies. Have these people no shame?

 

When iskconites say veda, it shouldn't be taken literally. It simply refers to iskcon literature, and to an extent, gaudiya literature (except places where criticism of christianity is intense).

[raghu]

 

When iskconites say veda, it shouldn't be taken literally. It simply refers to iskcon literature, and to an extent, gaudiya literature (except places where criticism of christianity is intense).

 

Then it's a LIE.

 

Vedas means Vedas. Vedas does not mean "iskcon literature" or "gaudiya literature." Period.

[theist]

Well I see raghu has shown up and addressed me. Would not have seen it as he is on my ignore list but he quote showed up.

 

Since I have no real interest in talking to raghu I will make it short. I accept Lord Caitanya's conclusion of acintya bhedabheda tattva. I accept what the Gaudiya vaisnavas teach about the nature of a shaktya-vesa avatar is. And I really could not care less what raghu's opinion is on the matter.

 

End of conversation.

[raghu]

Once again the quote cross-posted by Theist:

 

 

The Vedas teach that the son is non-different from the father

 

To which I asked in response the perfectly reasonable question: Where in the Vedas is it said that "the son is non-different from the father?"

 

To which Theist had only this to say:

 

 

Well I see raghu has shown up and addressed me. Would not have seen it as he is on my ignore list but he quote showed up.

 

Since I have no real interest in talking to raghu I will make it short. I accept Lord Caitanya's conclusion of acintya bhedabheda tattva. I accept what the Gaudiya vaisnavas teach about the nature of a shaktya-vesa avatar is. And I really could not care less what raghu's opinion is on the matter.

 

End of conversation.

 

Did anyone see in this an answer to the question posed?

[guliaditya]

 

Once again the quote cross-posted by Theist:

 

 

 

To which I asked in response the perfectly reasonable question: Where in the Vedas is it said that "the son is non-different from the father?"

 

To which Theist had only this to say:

 

 

 

Did anyone see in this an answer to the question posed?

 

Truth is very difficult to accept.

[raghu]

 

Truth is very difficult to accept.

 

Not to those who are honest and have a genuine interest in understanding the truth.

 

Then again, there are those like theist who think they already know the truth and then shut their eyes and ears when any contradictory evidence presents itself.

 

Anyway, it was the posting by Theist which made the baseless claim about the Vedas. I merely asked where such a claim was found in the Vedas. And his answer was some rabble about what is bona fide, what is achintya bedha abedha, etc. Really now, how does one spread philosophy when the answer to any reasonable question is "nyah nyah nyah, I'm bona fide and you are not!"

[shvu]

 

Truth is very difficult to accept.

 

And what is the truth, according to you? Do you even know what the Veda is? It is not iskcon literature or what your theist friend makes up as he goes along.

 

The intent of posting here is not to teach theist the facts of life. He has - over time - proven that he is incapable of admitting his mistakes and chooses to live in denial. We post here, least some rookie is misled by theist and co.

 

Cheers

[Sephiroth]

 

Truth is very difficult to accept.

 

Sometimes, Lies also can look like Truth. Learn not to be fooled by Question the so-called Truth.

[guliaditya]

Truth is Sreeman Narayana.

Truth is HIS bhakti.

Truth is singing of HIS divine lilas.

Truth is Christianity is not comaparable to Vaishnavism.

Truth is follower of Jesus are not Vaishnavas.

 

This is what I meant by truth.

Gaurang Mahaprabhu told the essance of Vedas & other scriptures in 2 lines i.e.

Sab Sastra Ved Kahe Sambandh Abhideya Prayojan

Krishna, Krishna Bhakti, Krishna Prema.

 

Sambandh-Jiva has got eternal relationship with Krishna/Narayana

Abhideya-Bhakti of Narayana is the only path to Moksha/Eternal Bliss

Prayojan-Getting Krishna/Narayana divya prem.

 

This is the eternal truth.

 

Pranaam

[Amlesh]

And here it goes again...

[raghu]

Well he didn't answer the question about the Vedas, but at least he didn't spout more of the "christianity is another version of vaishnavism" nonsense...

[Dark Warrior]

 

And what is the truth, according to you? Do you even know what the Veda is? It is not iskcon literature or what your theist friend makes up as he goes along.

 

The intent of posting here is not to teach theist the facts of life. He has - over time - proven that he is incapable of admitting his mistakes and chooses to live in denial. We post here, least some rookie is misled by theist and co.

 

Cheers

 

Shvu, he was not agreeing with Theist. Guliaditya was saying that Theist refuses to accept the truth, meaning that Jesus is not linked to Vaishnavism in any way. He does not support Theist.

 

However, let me clear things up - For Thiest, cBrahma and the rest, even the words spoken by Srila Prabhupada in an interview is 'apaurusheya' and 'Veda'.

[guliaditya]

 

Shvu, he was not agreeing with Theist. Guliaditya was saying that Theist refuses to accept the truth, meaning that Jesus is not linked to Vaishnavism in any way. He does not support Theist.

 

However, let me clear things up - For Thiest, cBrahma and the rest, even the words spoken by Srila Prabhupada in an interview is 'apaurusheya' and 'Veda'.

 

Thanks Dark Warrior

[shvu]

 

Thanks Dark Warrior

 

Guliaditya,

 

I apologize for confusing you with someone else.

DW, Thanks for clarifying.

 

 

Cheers