Are we designations? (dark warrior)

[bija]

 

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. by dark warrior

 

Or are we simply aspiring servants of a higher plane (dependant upon mercy)?

[Dark Warrior]

Again, without understanding the context.

 

Yes, we are Vaishnavas. Not Shaivas, not Christians, etc. Vaishnavism is the Vaidika path, fully authenticated by the Vedas, that is followed by people who have the jnana to realise that there is only one God, and that the proper way to worship Him is by doing what the Vedas say.

 

Innately, every jiva is a sesha to Lord Narayana. But in samsara, due to maya, a person follows different faiths. Krishna accepts their prayers, but will not give them moksha until they realise the truth - Vaishnavism.

 

A pointless thread, Bija. I told you, if you are a Universalist, say so, and I won't argue. Claiming to be a Vaishnava who thinks Shaivas and Christians are following an authentic path is nonsense.

 

The higher plane for Vaishnavas is Vaikuntha, not Kailasa, Heaven or Mohammed's paradise. And God is Vishnu. Not Shiva, Allah or Jesus.

 

EDIT: Here is a bit of Bija's errant thinking:

 

 

Similarly, the faith of a christian or muslim is not inadequate if they understand such truth. And like all of us...spiritual life is a progression...and an eternal journey. All souls are vaisnava...they just need to realize it (that is the truth of Sri Caitanya).

 

From the viewpoint of Scripture, a Buddhist, a Jain, a Shaivite, a Christian are all in the same boat. Souls who have not realised who Brahman is.

 

There is no such thing as 'Christianity contributes 10% to spiritual progress, so that we can become Vaishnavas in another birth and complete 90%'. Every nastika or a-vaidika matam is futile and useless for moksha. Personal Experiences are simply given by the Lord to help the jiva retain its faith (as Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita). But such faith, without Jnana and Bhakti as sanctioned by Vedas (Christian devotion is not sanctioned, btw), is just as bad as Buddhism or Mayavada.

 

Faiths that are not based on the Vedas are condemned. That is the sole reason Jainism, Buddhism, Shaivism, Shaktism, etc. are invalid. Even Mayavada has a place in Vedanta, but not the other 4 because they have absolutely no connection to the Vedas.

 

Simply put, these A-vaidika faiths are invalid, unauthentic and inadequate. That is the thinking of a Vaishnava. We do not curse them for not following our faith, but we do not accept theirs as authentic.

 

All souls are Vaishnavas. For that matter, innately, Duryodhana, Hiranyakasipu, Ravana and Kamsa are all Vaishnavas. But they certainly did not get moksha due to their actions.

 

Vedas are not even authored by Vishnu. Hence, verify every statement with scripture. Blind belief such as yours has no place in Vaishnavism.

 

Vaishnavism is indeed a designation for jivas who have realised Brahman, ie, Vishnu is the ultimate truth. Remember the Bhagavatam Statement that says 'Vaishnavam yatha Shambhu' that classifies Shiva as a Vaishnava. The term 'Vaishnava' is a proud indicator of a person who wears the lotus feet of Lord Hari (and no ash, cross or anything) and knows who God really is. Of course, this is just the Vaishnava perspective of thinks.

[krsna]

 

 

 

:uzi:

 

[Dark Warrior]

Thank you. Anakin Skywalker is one cool dude!!

 

However, let me make one thing clear. Spiritual Progress means what Krishna says. Something like this, 'My Pure Devotees are constantly immersed in Me and converse with one another about My pastimes'. This is the duty of a Vaishnava.

 

39 Avatars of the Lord have been described by Vyasa. read them, understand the inner meanings. Read Vedas, and other texts, get a grasp of philosophy.

 

No need to go for 'mysticism' or other such process to 'strive' for truth. A true devotee, surrendered to the Lord, will realise that everything has been handed to him on a silver platter by our rishis. Mysticism has no relevance to Vaishnavism, and contrary to popular opinion, Vaishnava sages are not 'mystics'. They have received jnana from the Lord by mere grace, without their effort.

[bija]

 

Or are we simply aspiring servants of a higher plane (dependant upon mercy)? by bija

You asked if I was a universalist. As a child and young man I was. Now I see differently.

 

I have given you the answer of what I am in the above quote (ofcourse my spirituality can not be defined in one sentence). But this will give you a hint:). I hope you can at least appreciate my honesty(with you) of my station...I am not a vaisnava(aspiring).

[Dark Warrior]

Seriously, I don't care what you are or what you believe, Bija. Just stop mistaking Vaishnavism for something else.

 

Vaishnavite definition of 'Spirituality' - Dedicated devotion to Narayana only, and no other gods. No other paths are considered 'spiritual'. So, if you are an aspiring Vaishnava, first redefine your 'spirituality'.

[bija]

 

The term 'Vaishnava' is a proud indicator of a person who wears the lotus feet of Lord Hari (and no ash, cross or anything) and knows who God really is. by dark

I could quote Srila Bhaktivinoda from Sri Krsna Samhita (commentary of the Bhagavatam), about sectarianism in spiritual life to refute your point here. But that would be pointless because you have no faith in him or his words. Lord Caitanya said any forehead without tilaka is a graveyard...unfortunately my forehead is a graveyard:eek4:.

 

 

Vaishnavite definition of 'Spirituality' - Dedicated devotion to Narayana only, and no other gods. by dark

What is the God I worship? It is the same God as you pal!

 

We could go on and on dark, I will finish here (till another day).

 

Good night.

[Dark Warrior]

 

I could quote Srila Bhaktivinoda from Sri Krsna Samhita (commentary of the Bhagavatam), about sectarianism in spiritual life to refute your point here. But that would be pointless because you have no faith in him or his words.

 

It is a fact that Ash wearing Shaivas do not get moksha, according to Vaishnava theology. If Bhaktivinoda said something different, then I am afraid he was sadly wrong. Differentiating the worth of different gods like Vishnu and Shiva is the very core of Vaishnavism.

 

The same Bhagavatam only expounds Krishna Sarvottama and advocates bhakti only to Krishna. Commentaries that do not stick to the basic frame of Veda, ie, Vishnu being the only one to give moksha, are wrong.

 

It has been established that the words of an acharya are valid only if they have vedic sanction. That point is excellently brought out by both Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva. Even Sri Sankara remains true to it.

 

In case you think I am biased towards Sri Ramanuja, let me assure you, I don't quote from his Bhashya. I quote from Gita and Vedas that clearly depict a hierarchy of Gods, and hold that meditation on Sriman Narayana alone is superior.

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakura, no matter how great a devotee you think he is, cannot be taken as pramana. If you think this is sectarian, prove from Bhagavad Gita, that what he says is true. Lord Krishna clearly says worship by any other means is futile.

 

You lack jnana about the basics of Vedanta, and talk about sectarianism. However, it may have escaped your mind that Vaishnavas have not painstakingly shown Vishnu to be the only one worthy of worship for nothing.

 

Answer a basic question - Why do Vaishnavas distinguish themselves from Shaivas? Isn't this 'sectarian' to claim Shaivites are wrong? But then, Vedas do not say there is Spirituality independent of Narayana.

 

 

We could go on and on dark, I will finish here (till another day).

 

Good night.

 

Useless argument, isn't it? One would think, a person who is more equipped with sastra, rather than personal experiences, would qualify as a better debator.

 

Not the case here.

[cbrahma]

 

Or are we simply aspiring servants of a higher plane (dependant upon mercy)?

You fell into the trap bija. The list he gave does not contain items of the same kind. Vaisnavism is not a religion.

[Bishadi]

 

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. by dark warrior

None but all of the above.

Seems that since Vishnu (God) runs the whole show, that perhaps the revealing of knowledge is not one dimensional. Maybe it is a selfish trait that represents such opinion with absolute bias while intoxicated by prideful ignorance which may come from the Dark side (the force)….

 

From the viewpoint of Scripture, a Buddhist, a Jain, a Shaivite, a Christian are all in the same boat. Souls who have not realised who Brahman is

Keywords “viewpoint’… so we have an opinion and then ‘who’……. That is illogical as God is not a ‘who’….

 

Faiths that are not based on the Vedas are condemned. That is the sole reason Jainism, Buddhism, Shaivism, Shaktism, etc. are invalid. Even Mayavada has a place in Vedanta, but not the other 4 because they have absolutely no connection to the Vedas.

perhaps observe a few words?

tataù kalau sampravåtte

sammohäya sura-dviñäm

buddho nämnäïjana-sutaù

kékaöeñu bhaviñyati

PURPORT by HDG Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada:

Lord Buddha, a powerful incarnation of the Personality of Godhead……

It goes on but perhaps you may read with out all the adversity to others about matter, that may not have been known.

 

'My Pure Devotees are constantly immersed in Me and converse with one another about My pastimes'. This is the duty of a Vaishnava

Then you write

 

No need to go for 'mysticism' or other such process to 'strive' for truth

Meditating could be a form of mysticism. A belief in some magic being; could be a form of mysticism. To experience life without having any idea as to what makes you ‘alive’ could be a form of mysticism….

And then again an awakening to how foolish a person can really be; can be mystical to the brain cavity:

 

Srila Prabhupada …. Technically Lord Buddha’s philosophy is called atheistic because there is no acceptance of the Supreme Lord and because that system of philosophy denied the authority of the Vedas. But that is an act of camouflage by the Lord. Lord Buddha is the incarnation of Godhead. As such, he is the original propounder of Vedic knowledge.

[bija]

 

If Bhaktivinoda said something different, then I am afraid he was sadly wrong. by dark

 

Sectarianism in Spirituality

 

 

by Shrila Sacchidananda Bhaktivinoda

Thakura in Shri Krishna Samhita

 

Sectarianism is a natural byproduct of the Absolute Truth. When acaryas first ascertain and instruct the Truth, it is not polluted with sectarianism. But the rules and regulations received through disciplic succession regarding the goal and the method of achieving it are changed in due course of time according to the mentality and locale of the people. A rule that is followed by one society is not necessarily accepted in another society. That is why one community is different from another. As a community gradually develops more respect for its own standards, it develops hatred towards other communities and considers their standards inferior. These sectarian symptoms are seen in all countries since time immemorial. This is prominent amongst neophytes and found to some extent amongst madhyama-adhikaris. Amongst uttama-adhikaris, however, there is no trace of sectarianism.

Adherence to a particular standard is the prominent symptom of a society. There are three types of standards—alocakagata, alocanagata and alocyagata. Alocakagata is when sectarianists accept some external signs. Examples of alocakagata are tilaka, neck beads, saffron robes, and the baptism that is practiced abroad. The different activities practiced in the process of worship are called alocanagata. Examples of alocanagata are sacrifices, austerities, fire sacrifices, vows, studying scriptures, deity worship, constructing temples, respecting the purity of various trees and rivers, dressing like sannyasis, acting like acaryas, dressing like brahmacaris or grhasthas, closing one's eyes, respecting particular types of books, rules and regulations in eating, and respecting the purity of particular times and places. The examples of alocyagata are attributing personalism or impersonalism on the Supreme Lord, installing deities, exhibiting the mood of an incarnation of the Lord, speculating on heaven and hell, and describing the future destination of the soul.

The different forms of these spiritual activities create divisions of sectarianism. Differences that arise from places, times, languages, behaviors, foods, dresses, and natures of various communities are incorporated within people's spiritual practices and gradually make one community so completely different from another community that even the consideration that everyone is a human being may cease to exist. Due to these differences there is disagreement, cessation of social intercourse, and fighting, even up to the point of killing on another. When an ass-like mentality becomes prominent within the kanishta-adhikaris, they certainly indulge in these things. But if they develop a swanlike mentality, then they do not take part in quarrels; rather, they endeavor to attain a higher level. Madhyama-adhikaris do not quarrel so much about external standards, but they are always attacked by philosophical disagreements. Sometimes they condemn the standards of neophytes and establish their own standards as superior. They condemn the neophytes' deity worship in order to establish the worship-able Lord as formless. In such cases, they are also considered ass-like people.

Otherwise, if they had a swanlike mentality and a desire to attain a higher level, they would respect others' practices and inquire about higher topics. Contradictions actually arise only due to ass-like mentality. Swanlike persons consider the necessity for different practices to one's qualification, so they are naturally detached from sectarian quarrels. In this regard, it should be understood that both ass-like and swanlike people are found amongst the kanishta-adhikaris and madhyama-adhikaris.

 

 

 

Useless argument, isn't it? One would think, a person who is more equipped with sastra, rather than personal experiences, would qualify as a better debator.

 

Not the case here. by dark

 

Poor dark, always using the ploy of personal attack in debate. Maybe I am an old fashioned debator lol.

[Dark Warrior]

 

You fell into the trap bija. The list he gave does not contain items of the same kind. Vaisnavism is not a religion.

 

Vaishnavism may be the ultimate truth, but then, the ultimate truth also states that there is one sastra (Veda) and only one Lord (Sriman Narayana). Which means, only devotion to Narayana, with full knowledge of His glorious attributes, is a path to moksha.

 

All paths are not same, and that thought is condemned by the Brahma Sutras itself.

 

Hence, Vaishnavism alone may be a path that anybody can choose, but that doesn't mean everybody chooses it. Because not everybody can, due to karma. Even in krita Yuga, there will be Shaivites, Advaitins, buddhists, etc., with Vaishnavas being a minority.

[Dark Warrior]

 

None but all of the above.

Seems that since Vishnu (God) runs the whole show, that perhaps the revealing of knowledge is not one dimensional. Maybe it is a selfish trait that represents such opinion with absolute bias while intoxicated by prideful ignorance which may come from the Dark side (the force)….

Keywords “viewpoint’… so we have an opinion and then ‘who’……. That is illogical as God is not a ‘who’….

perhaps observe a few words?

tataù kalau sampravåtte

sammohäya sura-dviñäm

buddho nämnäïjana-sutaù

kékaöeñu bhaviñyati

PURPORT by HDG Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada:

Lord Buddha, a powerful incarnation of the Personality of Godhead……

It goes on but perhaps you may read with out all the adversity to others about matter, that may not have been known.

Then you write

Meditating could be a form of mysticism. A belief in some magic being; could be a form of mysticism. To experience life without having any idea as to what makes you ‘alive’ could be a form of mysticism….

And then again an awakening to how foolish a person can really be; can be mystical to the brain cavity:

 

1) If you are not a Vaishnava, you are free to believe that what we believe is nonsense. I am addressing people who claim to be Vaishnavas here. According to Vaishnavism, other paths are not valid.

 

2) Srila Prabhupada's words again, are not pramana. I have explained it a thousand times. Shut the clap-trap.

[cbrahma]

 

 

 

 

Poor dark, always using the ploy of personal attack in debate. Maybe I am an old fashioned debator lol.

Ad hominem is always the last resort of debators who have hit the wall of their intellectual bankruptcy.

[bija]

 

You fell into the trap bija. The list he gave does not contain items of the same kind. Vaisnavism is not a religion. by bigC

I was aware of that cbrahma, but this 'expert' debator uses so many tricks to his advanrage (so he thinks)....I cannot waste my times pointing them all out. I would be here for hours. And still we would not having a meeting point.

 

Instead I chose to show him the personal aspect...rather than debate what is and what is not a vaisnava.

 

He considers himself a vaisnava...I do not consider myself one.

[Dark Warrior]

 

 

 

 

Poor dark, always using the ploy of personal attack in debate. Maybe I am an old fashioned debator lol.

 

Very nice article. Now tell me, where did Thakura give any pramanas there?

 

So, you are free to follow his beliefs. Just do not define Vaishnavism for everyone.

 

For one thing, even if I attack everyone, I post with pramanas. Secondly, personal attacks have been, since times immemorial, a part of Vedantic debates. Madhusudhana Saraswati calls Dvatins 'dogs' in his criticism.

 

Post with substance and pramanas, Bija. Thakura's article looks more Neovedantic than Vaishnavite.

 

EDIT: I notice Bija and cBrahma still haven't provided pramanas.

[bija]

 

So, you are free to follow his beliefs. Just do not define Vaishnavism for everyone. dark

 

I request you also to be so gentlemanly:).

[Dark Warrior]

All in all, a poor article. Bhaktivinoda calls Tilaka and deity worship as an external symbol, when sastras are replete with detailing the importance. Archa Avatara, when consecrated with agamic rites, are verily avatars of the Lord, more accessible than Rama or Krishna, who we cannot see at the moment.

 

Branding oneself with tilaka, chakra or sangha is moksha giving and an indication of our understanding of Veda. Atharva Veda says, 'He who wears Chakra and Conch of Vishnu crosses Samsara'. Not Ash or cross.

 

So much for Neovedantic nonsense.

 

 

I request you also to be so gentlemanly

 

Truth is rough. I define Vaishnavism. I am not trying to be a 'Universal Sympathizer' here.

 

 

The examples of alocyagata are attributing personalism or impersonalism on the Supreme Lord, installing deities, exhibiting the mood of an incarnation of the Lord, speculating on heaven and hell, and describing the future destination of the soul.

 

Such things are not a 'standard' in society. For one thing, we don't 'attribute' or 'imagine' personalism or impersonalism. We debate on what is true, as per Vedanta. Secondly, Installing deities is a necessity to get close to the Lord. When installed properly, the Lord descends with all His kalyana gunas into the archa murthy. Thirdly, we don't 'speculate' on the after life. The Chandogya Upanishad and Kaushitaki Upanishad are authoritative and give full details of what happens after death. Being Vaidikas, we take it literally.

[bija]

ok dark...I am a mystic...the cat is out of the bag (dont tell anyone).

 

I am a mixed devotee/yogi...and rely on grace. lol.

[bija]

 

Secondly, personal attacks have been, since times immemorial, a part of Vedantic debates. Madhusudhana Saraswati calls Dvatins 'dogs' in his criticism.by dark

 

lol:P.

 

But not numbskulls or pinheads. I guess it is a cultural thing:cool:.

[cbrahma]

 

I was aware of that cbrahma, but this 'expert' debator uses so many tricks to his advanrage (so he thinks)....I cannot waste my times pointing them all out. I would be here for hours. And still we would not having a meeting point.

 

Instead I chose to show him the personal aspect...rather than debate what is and what is not a vaisnava.

 

He considers himself a vaisnava...I do not consider myself one.

It's a fatal flaw in his argument.

You are wasting time debating with him under any circumstance. He is an entrenched racist Indian traditionalist. He speaks for all 'real' Vaisnavas. Once one assumes a 'vox populi' , or better yet a 'vox dei', there is nothing left to say to him. He is right because of who and what he is. You will notice that contradicting him always means you are an ignorant fool outside the fold of the all-knowing Vedantists. It is a strategy I coin the 'esoteric' gambit or the Emperor's clothes. If you're not one of the elite, no amount of logical argumentation, or substantive quotation will qualify you to be right. (DW will respond of course, but he is on my ignore list. You called the genie out of the bottle, or should I say the Pandora's box. He's all yours)

[Dark Warrior]

I try to be polite.

 

Good. You are a mystic, and don't call yourself Vaishnava. I have no issues. Believe that what traditional Vaishnavas believe is nonsense, or allegorical or phantasmagoria.

 

Now, if only Theist can get it into his thick head that he too is not even close to being a Vaishnava follower.

 

 

You are wasting time debating with him under any circumstance. He is an entrenched racist Indian traditionalist.

 

Nope. I believe in universality of Vaishnavism, as long as everyone follows the right path. one path, but universal in the sense that everyone will someday follow it when they get a better birth.

 

 

He speaks for all 'real' Vaisnavas.

 

I do!

 

 

Once one assumes a 'vox populi' , or better yet a 'vox dei', there is nothing left to say to him. He is right because of who and what he is.

 

On the contrary, I have been more of an agnostic than anyone else. I am right because I know what Vaishnavism is, unlike mordern day gurus.

 

 

You will notice that contradicting him always means you are an ignorant fool outside the fold of the all-knowing Vedantists.

 

What contradicts sastra is labelled as ignorant. I speak with pramanas.

 

 

 

It is a strategy I coin the 'esoteric' gambit or the Emperor's clothes. If you're not one of the elite, no amount of logical argumentation, or substantive quotation will qualify you to be right.

 

Logic is absent even in your blood. Your atman's dharma bhuta jnana is really contracted, eh?

 

Invitation - cBrahma, get rid of your sentiments and worship Hari properly. You will find that membership to this 'elite club' is completely free of charge.

[bija]

 

All in all, a poor article. Bhaktivinoda calls Tilaka and deity worship as an external symbol, when sastras are replete with detailing the importance. by dark

He was preaching to the christian tainted modern (19th century) Indian intellectual in the above article. Trying to wake them up to their great heritage. He augmented a modern day rejuvination of Gaudiya Vaisnavism...which eventually spread across the whole globe.

 

Whether his approach is accepted by people like you is another thing. But the result is that many western boys worship Krsna...and are gradually making their way home back to Godhead. As you say...maybe they will get there after several more births.

 

Thank God us western boys got to hear of Krsna (not just Krsna as a demigod or stepping stone to the void or impersonal brahman which pervades the west thx to Vivekananda, Yogananda and the likes). Visnu is kind to all his children. Please extend that example as his representative. You are perfect in your theology...now use compassionate intelligence to convince your audience. Ofcourse maybe your way is compassioante and I fail to see that.

[Bishadi]

 

Vaishnavism may be the ultimate truth, but then, the ultimate truth also states

So which is it?

 

 

that there is one sastra (Veda) and only one Lord (Sriman Narayana). Which means, only devotion to Narayana, with full knowledge of His glorious attributes, is a path to moksha.

But you apparently didn't know 'with full knowledge' ..... does that mean you be left on the dock while the boat goes by?

 

 

Hence, Vaishnavism alone may be a path that anybody can choose, but that doesn't mean everybody chooses it. Because not everybody can, due to karma.

and what hole are you shoveling for?

 

 

) If you are not a Vaishnava, you are free to believe that what we believe is nonsense.

Just the interpretation from the Dark force is being considered nonesense

 

 

I am addressing people who claim to be Vaishnavas here.

Then go in a closet and address whom you wish, but you on the air... stiring karma as you sit

 

 

2) Srila Prabhupada's words again, are not pramana.

Then what you be on this site for.... these people have Srila's in every temple; looking at you

 

 

I have explained it a thousand times. Shut the clap-trap.

 

how about some advice

 

 

Ad hominem is always the last resort of debators who have hit the wall of their intellectual bankruptcy.

[Dark Warrior]

 

He was preaching to the christian tainted modern (19th century) Indian intellectual. Trying to wake them up to their great heritage. He augmented a modern day rejuvination of Gaudiya Vaisnavism...which eventually spread across the whole globe.

 

Still doesn't make it pramana, or make those beliefs Vaishnavite.

 

Vaishnavism prides itself on following what is enshrined in the Vedas, therby lending great antiquity to our tradition. We can't change it in one day just because of the needs of a mordern day guru.

 

 

Whether is approach is accepted by people like you is another thing. But the result is that many western boys worship Krsna...and are gradually making their way home back to Godhead. As you say...maybe they will get there after several more births.

 

Let me say one thing - even people like cBrahma may get moksha in this birth itself, because despite all that is said and done, faith in Srila Prabhupada, and a tremendous change in life attitude, has been a part of his (cBrahma's) life. Thus, I have no grudges against him as a person.

 

However, even if he gets moksha, it won't be because his path is perfect. Its because of Srila Prabhupada's grace, and mainly, the Lord wouldn't expect as much out of him as he would out of traditional vaishnavas.

 

But I still have to correct his stupid opinions.

 

 

 

 

Thank God us western boys got to hear of Krsna (not just Krsna as a demogod or stepping stone to the void or impersonal brahman).

 

Sure.