bhaktajan Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Have you been falling short of words lately??? Well instead of learning arabic like the world military stratagists . . . Why don't you [not a rhetorical querie] simply repeat the words of Guru, Sadhu & sastra? ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "there is hardly a isckonite left . . . with their persistent abuses and mud slinging" --Sambya Am I being coaxed to think that sambya is in dispair? :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: New Word everyone: Minting lexicon for the new world Ceasers: "ISKCON PESTS" Am I being coaxed to think that American Airline Airport passengers are relieved that there are no longer ISKCON PESTS distributing Bhagavad-Gitas in the Airport terminals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 see bhaktajan ...... how easy you have made it for others to understand what a iskcon pest means ?!! thanks !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 sambya wrote [Post 20]: beutifull . this is precisely what i have been trying to convey to vaishnvas here . im speechless with joy to see an administrator realise this simple truth and advising people accordingly , inspite of his being a vaishnva himself . dandavats to you jahnava ............. you are truly a vaishnav !! Quote: It is sad to see some people's hatred for Hinduism while they themselves follow a subset of it. Sectarian hatred is what makes religion useless. Whether it is Christian sectarianism, Islamic sectarianism, or Hindu sectarianism (under the brand Vaishnava). If a thread doesn't interest you or tally with your belief system, then please don't read it. If there is someone asking about Shiva, Shakti or Ganesh, and if you hate those devas, then please don't read the thread. Try to control your speech. Only speak on those topics which you hold dear. As has been mentioned many times, this is not a vaishnava forum. Have the courtesy to respect all vedic religions here even if you disagree with them. It is a fact that basically all Vaishnavas here have never even read Shiva Purana, so they should just keep quiet. If you don't know a topic, please resist the uncontrollable urge to speak. I used to participate regularly in these forums, but because of so many meaningless posts I lost interest in even reading the forums. Now I don't even have much interest to keep the forums open, as 50% of what is posted here is basically rubbish, with the other 50% being actually valuable information. If we count the number of innocent posters like the starter of this thread who have visited and posted sincere questions on Hinduism, only to be smashed with the vaishnava know it all hammer, it will be thousands and thousands of people. Is it worth it to offend thousands of sincere seekers just to have a place for religious people to argue? The mistake was that I thought Vaishnavas and Hindus could co-exist and discuss religion and philosophy in close proximity. This has obviously proven to be a false assumption. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "...some people's hatred for Hinduism while they themselves follow a subset of it. ..." Hmmm . . . so some one posted "something to this effect" before post #19? No I! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 see bhaktajan ...... how easy you have made it for others to understand what a iskcon pest means ?!! thanks !! Hey Folk! I cut and pasted the words of a Grand High Pundit & Supreme gentleman Bhaktivedanta Swami's tranlations from the ancient sanskrit regarding the Glories of Sri Shiva --and this is the "sorely lacking" response I get from . . . a PFL "Pest Finders Ltd" afficinado. Don't forget the thread's topic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Attention Administrator: I is not enlivening to point out something to someone --and then be ridiculed for everything except the points I highlighted --and then the same occurs like clock-work . . . don't you notice the efforts of percision discophony? PS: sambya says "thanks !!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 even in this forum you hardly find any shaiva or shakta hating a vaishnava.... Not true. You often find sly comments inserted in about the supposed narrow-mindedness of Vaishnavas and these are often interjected by Shaivites, Shaktas, Neo-Vedantins, etc. Vaishnavas of course, we all know, are narrow-minded because they believe based on evidence that Vishnu is the supreme Deity. And this too despite the fact that majority of forum participants are Vaishnavas. On other forums where general Hinduism is the emphasis, Vaishnavas will generally not speak up about their beliefs, even when other Hindus are misrepresenting them (usually by spewing some rubbish to the effect that Hinduism supposedly accepts all gods as equal, an idea that is not a characteristic of many Hindu religions). In fact, I have personally observed that when a Vaishnava does speak up to set the record straight about what Vaishnavism is, the Neo-Hindus will shout him down, call him a fanatic, etc. It does not matter that they have never read Bhagavad-Gita or any other scripture that they claim to venerate. They just know that the Vaishnava is a narrow-minded fundamentalist. And that he is wrong. yes but he was not sectarian ........he rather hated sectarianism. and many statements that he makes are just statement of truths of that time . here he was just mentoning the facts . Swami Vivekananda was every bit as sectarian as those he criticized. Claiming that religious conflict in the world is due to Dvaita is sheer ignorance. When Dvaita as a tradition has been localized to Indian subcontinent until recently, there is no possibility of Dvaita causing the problems he mentioned. His attempt to use "Dvaita" as a term to describe other non-Advaitic religions is just a sneaky attempt to promote Advaita and denounce theism in general. but what he blamed was not the philosophy behind the dvaita . what he was pointing out was the ill effects that dvaita philosophy often seem to generate among the common low-adhikari masses . The idea that dvaita philosophy leads to ill effects among "low-adhikari masses" is nothing more than prejudice trumped up by Neo-Advaitins. an advitist is taught since the begining that all gods are forms of same brahman . this teaching reduced the chances of hating other gods . Neo-Advaitins are taught that acceptance of any hierarchy among the devas is equal to "hating other gods." When such 5-year old logic permeates the public dialog on Hinduism, it is little wonder that ignorant Hare Krishna fundamentalists show up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kali_Upasaka Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Originally Posted by Jahnava Nitai Das I don't see Sri Vaishnavas making such arguments. I don't see Madhva Vaishnavas posting such arguments. Basically it looks like it has to do with people being brought up in another culture converting to Vaishnavism. Those Indian vaishnavas brought up surrounded by "hinduism" don't have the habit to attack it. These Indian Vaishnavas consider themselves to be Hindus. I have not met even a single Sri Vaishnava or Madhva during a couple of decades of stay in South India who believes that he is not a Hindu. The Sri Vaishnavas even attend the Veda Patashalas run by smarthas. Sri Vaishnava priests also participate in the yagnas conducted by Smarthas and Saivite Brahmins. Again in Bengal I have not met any Gowdiya Vaishnavite who thinks he is not a Hindu. I meet them every day. The problem is specific to ISCKON and its followers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 The problem is specific to ISCKON and its followers. What problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kali_Upasaka Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 You know it. You want me to say it. O.K. Whether ISCKON and its followers are Hindu or not. If everyone agreed on one policy then there would not be a problem. During my visits to Mayapur I did not get a feeling that ISCKON is non-Hindu. But then that was the last thing in my mind during the visit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 What present day Iskcon is is anybodies guess. But the founder acarya was very clear on the difference between Hinduism and Vaisnavism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kali_Upasaka Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Again ISCKON does not represent entire Vaishnavism. It is only a very small part. The overwhelming majority of the Vaishnavites are not ISCKON. They consider themselves to be Hindus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Again ISCKON does not represent entire Vaishnavism. It is only a very small part. The overwhelming majority of the Vaishnavites are not ISCKON. They consider themselves to be Hindus. Well do you consider "being a hindu" as the eternal occupation of the soul? Meaning that to become liberate from all false designations means to realize one's eternal identity as Hindu". Lord Caitanya saw the eternal nature of the self as understanding one's self to be the eternal servant of the servant of the servant of Krishna's lotus feet. That is Vaisnavism. Will all who calll themselves hindu agree to this statement? TRANSLATION CC Madhya 13.80 Lord Caitanya speaking. " 'I am not a brāhmaṇa, I am not a kṣatriya, I am not a vaiśya or a śūdra. Nor am I a brahmacārī, a householder, a vānaprastha or a sannyāsī. I identify Myself only as the servant of the servant of the servant of the lotus feet of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the maintainer of the gopīs. He is like an ocean of nectar, and He is the cause of universal transcendental bliss. He is always existing with brilliance.' " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Well I will read your response in the morning. It is getting late in California and I must sleep. Hare Krishna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kali_Upasaka Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Sorry. I was responding to a post by Jahnava Nitai Das. No Theology or Philosophy. This problem is not peculiar to ISCKON. Some of my friends from U.S. also have this problem of identification. Though they are followers of Yoga, Vedanta and Sakthism they are not able to identify themselves as Hindus. May we treat this as closed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Vaishnavas of course, we all know, are narrow-minded because they believe based on evidence that Vishnu is the supreme Deity. so what about the evidences of tantra proclaiming kali as highest or shaiva scriptures projecting shiva as highest . do they amount to 'evidence' as well ? what is the method of determining this status ? In fact, I have personally observed that when a Vaishnava does speak up to set the record straight about what Vaishnavism is, the Neo-Hindus will shout him down, call him a fanatic, etc. It does not matter that they have never read Bhagavad-Gita or any other scripture that they claim to venerate. They just know that the Vaishnava is a narrow-minded fundamentalist. And that he is wrong. this i would say is a prime example of bad behaviour on the part of those advaitins !! Swami Vivekananda was every bit as sectarian as those he criticized. Claiming that religious conflict in the world is due to Dvaita is sheer ignorance. When Dvaita as a tradition has been localized to Indian subcontinent until recently, there is no possibility of Dvaita causing the problems he mentioned. i respect your difference in opinion because you have at least read something before forming a opinion , unlike many others here . but there's a little mistake in what you say ............. dvaita thought was very much present in christian and islamic philosophies . infact this nirguna concept is unique to soil of india . and as i said before , and which you falied to take notice of , he did not blame dvaita as a branch of study . he pointed out the tendency of humans to take up dvaita thought and misuse it . and you could perhaps give me some examples where he showed sectarian hatred , for my better understanding . His attempt to use "Dvaita" as a term to describe other non-Advaitic religions is just a sneaky attempt to promote Advaita and denounce theism in general. thats your personal opinion ............... but how does promoting advaita(which he did ) amount to denouncing theism ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Sorry. I was responding to a post by Jahnava Nitai Das. No Theology or Philosophy. This problem is not peculiar to ISCKON. Some of my friends from U.S. also have this problem of identification. Though they are followers of Yoga, Vedanta and Sakthism they are not able to identify themselves as Hindus. May we treat this as closed? No problem. Closed if you like. At least you are a gentleman on the issue. Thank you for that. Although you failed to answer the last questions. But perhaps you got a glimpse of my point anyway. Hopefully someone else will take it up and answer the questions I posed to Kali-Upsaka. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Words are used because they convey accepted definitions. Once we start creating our own personal definitions for words the communication breaks down. World religion and its main branches is one such established concept that is based on linguistics. In the future the use of language may change, and Vaishnavism may stop being a branch of Hinduism, but in the present times it is accepted throughout the world as being a subset of Hinduism. Again this is based just on the definition of words as accepted by the world. Saying that Vaishnavism is a branch of Hinduism does not indicate anything about what you do or do not believe. It is simply a linguistic system of classification. At the preset time the world chooses to limit their subdivision of "religion" to certain major categories. One day maybe Vaishnavism will get its own heading, but that won't make it any more spiritual of a word. It will still just be a linguistic category that refers to a material designation. The fact is, religion refers to a material designation. You can't say you follow a religion, and then give a new meaning to the word that isn't accepted by anyone in the world. Some people want to bring in a complete new concept, "eternal constitution of the soul", but religion does not refer to that. Yes, the soul has an eternal constitutional function to serve Vishnu, but the word religion doesn't deal with that topic at all. Thus referring to Vaishnavism as a branch of Hinduism isn't about telling which is better, which is more spiritual, which is eternal, which is beyond the mundane... it is simply a broad linguistic classification of religions based on historical factors. The rulers of the world happen to be the Christians. So the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) get highlighted and considered foremost, even though they are basically all the same (as similar to each other as the religions clasified together under Hinduism). Take Judaism for example. How many people are practicing it in the world? There are only 15 to 20 million jews in the world, yet they get included in the list of "major world religions", whereas other religions with a similar number of followers, or more, do not get such a classification. Sikhs don't get classified as a major world religion, neither do Jains, nor Toaists, nor Confuscionists, nor Shintoists, nor those who follow Chinese folk religions, nor African religions. Basically the cultures of the ruling world powers decide what words mean, and at present Hinduism isn't considered important enough to be given seperate headings for each major religion within it. There may be hundreds of millions of Vaishnavas in India, but they will never be considered a seperate major world religion because they are not Abrahamic. Judaism on the other hand has probably one tenth of the followers as Vaishnavism, but they are considered a "major world religion". In summary, being a Hindu is not counter to being a Vaishnava. It is a simple designation. Being a Hindu is just like being an American, being a plumber, being a male, or any other designation. Our ultimate goal isn't to just have a designation. Those designations are there to convey our material position to others so they can understand us better. The "eternal function of the soul" is something on a completely different level, with no connection to the word religion. Thus it is unfair to alter definitions of words on the fly as they suit our use. We can't talk about the need for religion, and then flip and speak about all religions being mundane and useless because they aren't the "eternal constitution of the soul". No dictionary in the world defines religion as "the eternal constitution of the soul", so it is unfair to try to force such made up definitions onto words already universally defined. The problem is we are defining our words in a problematic manner. We take the word religion, and then we try to find a sanskrit equivalent - which happens to be "dharma". Then we go into the sanskrit texts and pull out esoteric definitions for dharma, and then reapply those definitions to the english word religion. Now having forced the esoteric definitions of dharma onto the english word religion, we bash anyone who doesn't accept our "higher" definition of the word "religion". But this isn't the proper way to define words or communicate. It is simply tying two unrelated words from different languages together that are not synonymous. If someone analyzes most of these statements about religion, vaishnavism, "eternal function of the soul", etc., they will see this is the exact thought process in action. religion equals dharma --> "sva"-dharma determined by "sva"-rupa --> svarupa equals soul (atma), so sva-dharma equals eternal service to krishna (jivera svarupa hoy krishnera nitya das) --> final conclusion, religion equals "eternal servant of krishna" The logical process used to come to this conclusion is faulty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Certainly people if your forcibly goingt to call foreign vaishnavs who were christians once as hindu then there might be who will not accept it. Hinduism originally meant those people who were born along the sindhu river. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 This chart highlights the point I made about Judaism being one of the main world religions. It doesn't even show up on the population chart. Don't confuse the blue "Other" category as representing Judaism on the pie chart. Judaism is a micro sliver about the size of Sikhism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Hinduism originally meant those people who were born along the sindhu river. This is why I said it is all based on linguistics. What the word meant "originally" is different to the definition today. The meaning of words change over time based on which culture rules the world. But having said that, Vaishnavas were equally Hindu then and now, even though the meaning of the word changed considerably over the last 500 years. Hundreds of years ago, when the Muslim kings gave orders to kill Hindus, Vaishnavas were included in that list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 The real question is if vaishnavas would be satisfied if they had their own major religion category. Suppose the world religions were Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Vaishnavism. Would the vaishnavas now be satisfied that they had their own mundane religious designation to use? The fact is the words as being used by ISKCON followers in this forum don't refer to a religion at all, they refer to some function of the soul. If that is the case, then you should be able to be a vaishnava while simultaneously being a Christian, Muslim, Jew or even Shaivite. If vaishnavism is not a religious designation, then it has no bearing on your religious designation. If the christian can be a vaishnava, then the shaivite can be a vaishnava as well. Of course the concept starts to become ludicrous, because there is also a Vaishnava "mundane religion" which one should practice to become the "eternal constitutional function of soul" vaishnava, and that religion is called as varnashrama dharma, which includes cultural aspects defined as hinduism today. No need to get into that, as it will only lead to arguments. To give an illustration: Questioner: Are you a Hindu? Answer 1) No, I am not a Hindu, I am a Vaishnava. [Now vaishnavism is a mundane material religious designation just like Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Hinduism.] Answer 2) No, I am a Vaishnava, which is beyond all mundane material designations such as religion. [now you can be any religion and be a vaishnava, such as christian vaishnava, jewish vaishnava, shaivite vaishnava, the last of which is contradictory and acharyas have spoken against it.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Hundreds of years ago, when the Muslim kings gave orders to kill Hindus, Vaishnavas were included in that list. Chritians are christians judaism i have no knowledge about. I said christians and not judaism. Hundreds of years ago, when the Muslim kings gave orders to kill Hindus, Vaishnavas were included in that list. Talk of now 600 years ago is a long time.Prabhupada has said that hare krishnas are not hindus dut to some reason.Now those westerner hare krishna if do not want to be called hindus no need to force them. But if they think they are someone beyond mundane etc... etc. as you have said then i cant comment on that because i have not met many hare krishnas.They can be right or wrong i have no reason or right to talk about them. But i do get your trying to say is that hinduism now is same as sanatan dharm and is includes those people who accept the authority of vedas. Then can you give me a definition of vaishnavism,because the only definition i remember is from lord shiva who said that vaishnav is one who serves the lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindustani Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 JND this line of yours has a very poor taste I am sorry to say.Why so much of "Zunoon"?Vaishnavas are never like that and that I underline.I am talking about true Vaishnavas whom I met and know.Really pitty. Hundreds of years ago, when the Muslim kings gave orders to kill Hindus, Vaishnavas were included in that list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 But i do get your trying to say is that hinduism now is same as sanatan dharm and is includes those people who accept the authority of vedas. Then can you give me a definition of vaishnavism,because the only definition i remember is from lord shiva who said that vaishnav is one who serves the lord. You have sanatana dharma, the eternal Vedic religion, which contains many paths and includes the worship of all deities. In ancient times everyone followed the Vedas, that was the universal common demoninator. Their religion was the vedic religion, sanatana dharma. Service to Narayana is the perfection of that Vedic religion. Shaivites and Vaishnavas both belong to the same religion, sanatana dharma. The purpose of the religion is to free you from the bondage of karma. Different people are on different stages of the purification process, but all are on the same path. In the end, one attains the feet of Narayana, which is the conclusion of the Vedic religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 JND this line of yours has a very poor taste I am sorry to say.Why so much of "Zunoon"?Vaishnavas are never like that and that I underline.I am talking about true Vaishnavas whom I met and know.Really pitty. I couldn't understand what you wrote. Maybe if you make it clearer I can understand what you are trying to say. You quoted this sentence of mine, so even though I don't know what your point is I will try to explain my sentence: Hundreds of years ago, when the Muslim kings gave orders to kill Hindus, Vaishnavas were included in that list. This is in reference to historical invaders of India who gave decrees that "all Hindus are to be killed" (for example in Delhi where 100,000 Hindus were massacred in a single day), or that all Hindus had to pay special taxes to be allowed to continue living. Such statements where the word Hindu was used always included all subsects of Hinduism, including Vaishnavas. Thus Vaishnavas have always been considered a branch of Hinduism. This is just to point out that the definition of Hinduism has always included Vaishnavas. Imagine back then trying to explain to the soldiers that actually you weren't a Hindu, you were a Vaishnava, which is the eternal constitutional position of the soul. It wouldn't have gotten you out of that mess because from the very creation of the word "Hindu", it included all branches of Vedic religion such as shaivism, vaishnavism, shaktism, etc. Even today Hindus must pay a tax if they live in certain regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts