Shiv Maha Puran doubts

[raghu]

 

Thanks Kulapavana.

 

There is the problem right there. An isolated quote is taken completely out of context to create a confused ideaology.

 

Vaishnava has been redefined. But this redefinition, to make sense has to be able to redefine Shaivism, Shaktism and everything else or else it has no meaning. Avoiding these questions and resurfacing later with the same old mumbo-jumbo to brand people who challenge these inconsistencies as "rabid" is juvenile.

 

Cheers

 

I have also pointed out Theist's (and others') inconsistent use of many terms such as "Hindu." What this means is that I am a rabid Hindu. When you question Theist in anyway, you are a rabid Hindu.

 

The fact that Bhaktivedanta Swami used the term "Hindu" in some of his writings is ample evidence that even he acknowledged the commonly accepted definition of the term. Whether he used the term consistently or not is irrelevant. I would argue that in other instances when he sought to distance "Krishna-consciousness" from "Hinduism," he was most likely referring to Neo-Hinduism/Neo-Advaita in those instances.

 

Of course, some people cannot fathom this at all. They accept one instance of the term's use and ignore the others, and the rest of us suddenly become "rabid Hindus."

[theist]

 

It would be nice if we had clear cut definitions of the terms we use, and were consistent about it.

I use Bhaktisiddhanta's definition consistently and also have.

 

 

One time we say "every Jiva is a Vaishnava", and at other times we are contrasting Vaishnavas with Buddhists, Christians, Advaitins, etc.

The contrast is in philosophy. We accept the self that inhabitating a Buddhist mind as in reality a jiva whose eternal function is Vaisnavic. The same for the Christians Advaitins animals plants and demi-gods. This is called seeing with equal vision which is a basic tenent of spiritual life.

 

 

And when we say: "'Vaishnava', which literally and naturally means one who worships Vishnu out of pure love expecting nothing from Him in return", we are actually speaking of supremely pure Vaishnavas. How many jivas in this world worship Lord Vishnu out of pure love expecting nothing from Him in return? I am not even sure you can say that about jivas who exist in the Brahmajyoti. Do they even know Lord Vishnu?

Just like we say we are bhakti-yoga practionser and it is also said that real bhakti begins after liberation from false designations. What's the mystery? If you break it down a little further then you see the term "materialist devotees".

 

The jivas in the brahmajyoti have all retained their individuality. Or do you think that brahman realization really entails the end of the jivas indivduality as the impersonalists claim?

 

They simply haven't revived the dormant krishna consciousness.

 

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's statement quoted above can be taken as his devotional mood rather than an objective and fact (or shastra) based truth.

As to this statement it reminded me of why I ignore your posts. This is so full of cr*p. It is highly offensive to Bhaktisiddhanta by calling him a sentimentalist, ignorant of objectivity and factual knowledge of shastra.

[Kulapavana]

 

As to this statement it reminded me of why I ignore your posts. This is so full of cr*p. It is highly offensive to Bhaktisiddhanta by calling him a sentimentalist, ignorant of objectivity and factual knowledge of shastra.

 

You see just what you want to see - both in me and the world AROUND YOU. There are very elevated sentiments in some devotees and that is what I had in mind saying: "Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's statement quoted above can be taken as his devotional mood rather than an objective and fact (or shastra) based truth."

 

While all jivas may have the potency to become Vaishnavas, they are most certainly not all Vaishnavas (one who worships Vishnu out of pure love expecting nothing from Him in return) NOW. That is an observable reality you are trying to ignore.

 

There is a potency of fire in wet wood but calling wet wood 'fire' is not an objective knowledge.

 

People like you will make all kinds of ridiculous word gymnastics and logical charades to 'prove' their point. But who is getting fooled by such jugglery? And when cornered, all you can do is to scream: Aparadha!!!

[theist]

 

You see just what you want to see - both in me and the world AROUND YOU. There are very elevated sentiments in some devotees and that is what I had in mind saying: "Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's statement quoted above can be taken as his devotional mood rather than an objective and fact (or shastra) based truth."

 

It may be what you had in mind but it is not what you expressed! The pure devotee's devotional mood is perfectly in line with sastra, is based on the pure objective true, and is 100% factual. You statement that there is a difference between his devotional mood and sastra is tantamount to calling him a sentimentalist with no philosophical understanding.

 

 

While all jivas may have the potency to become Vaishnavas, they are most certainly not all Vaishnavas (one who worships Vishnu out of pure love expecting nothing from Him in return) NOW. That is an observable reality you are trying to ignore.

Here is your mistake in this idea. The soul is unchanging NOW. It only appears that there is a break in the loving service to Krishna when the question is viewed from within the illusion of past and future which are in themselves only wispy dreamlike states.

 

It's not that the jiva becomes a dog and then returns to being a Vaisnava. Thisnecessary way of speaking and conceptualizing is a limitation forced on us because of our bondage to the time conception and our living (speaking and thinking) under it's influence.

 

 

There is a potency of fire in wet wood but calling wet wood 'fire' is not an objective knowledge.

This is true but again only from the plane of material vision. Vaisnavism is a transcendental reality, in other words a fire that always is burning.

 

 

People like you will make all kinds of ridiculous word gymnastics and logical charades to 'prove' their point. But who is getting fooled by such jugglery? And when cornered, all you can do is to scream: Aparadha!!!

Right.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

It's not that the jiva becomes a dog and then returns to being a Vaisnava.

Again you are using different definitions interchangeably when its convenient. There is a "vaishnava" that refers to a person practicing the vaishnava religion in this world, and then there is the other esoteric definition which you keep going back to that refers to the eternal function of the soul. You can't use them interchangeably. When speaking of other worldly religious cultures or practices, the word Vaishnava must be assumed to refer to a similar worldly religious culture.

 

For example if there are two people standing next to each other, one is a shaivite and one is a vasihnava. If you say "The person on the left is a vaishnava and the person on the right is a shaivite" it is specifically referring to the external activities they perform in the world. It has nothing to do with the eternal function of the soul. We can even refine it further, with other adjectives. There is a madhva vaishnava, a sri vaishnava, a gaudiya vaishnava, etc. None of this refers to the eternal function of the soul, which is the same for all living entities. This is how language functions, whether we accept it or not. If I say "Mr. X is a Sri Vaishnava" it specifically refers to the external beliefs, rituals and practices he does in the world. It doesn't refer to the eternal function of his soul.

 

You are taking a word that already has an accepted linguistic usage, and then putting your own esoteric meaning on top of it and expecting non-believers (say Hindus or anyone else) to immediately understand your own private language. It is not only illogical, it goes against all rules of language.

 

Communication means two parties speaking the same language with the same definitions. If everyone gets to make up their own definitions to words, there is naturally going to be misunderstanding. The fault lies with the person who made up his own unique definitions (in this case, us gaudiya vaishnavas). We can speak our own language amongst ourselves, and we can all understand it. But when you speak amongst outsiders, the definition of words is different, and you can't blame people for not understanding what you say or for becoming offended sometimes.

 

To give another example, in South India "vaishnava" mostly refers to a specific brahmin caste (Iyengar), and if we use the word here we will be accused of castism and many people will be offended. We have to follow language conventions, and if one single word is not clear, use many other words to make our point. We can't insist the world understand our usage of words that differ from the standard accepted meaning. Language is about conveying concepts, not about sticking to particular code words and trying to get people to understand our unique code words.

 

Just as Prabhupada was willing to say "Hinduism is based on the worship of Vishnu as the supreme person", so in the same way I see Hinduism as synonymous with Vedic culture, though it may have formed many new branches over the thousands of years. Today neo-advaita or neo-hinduism is more popular, so the public assumes Hinduism refers to that, but real Hinduism is a synonym of Vedic culture. If we see Prabhupada's criticisms of "Hinduism", it has always been directed to neo-advaita or neo-hinduism, i.e. the popular modern form, not the orthodox scriptural form. For example, when Prabhupada visited Tirupati, he did not say "oh, this is all nonsense hodgepodge hinduism". He appreciated the Vedic traditions being followed and the orderly system of management. Prabhupada respected Hinduism and Vedic culture when it followed tradition. He rejected it when it was modern neo-advaita or neo-hinduism.

[Amlesh]

Satya Vachan.

[Kulapavana]

 

Here is your mistake in this idea. The soul is unchanging NOW. It only appears that there is a break in the loving service to Krishna when the question is viewed from within the illusion of past and future which are in themselves only wispy dreamlike states.

 

It's not that the jiva becomes a dog and then returns to being a Vaisnava.

 

How is jiva not changing? It desires may change, it's taste may change, it's consciousness may change. That is what separates those who chase independent enjoyment trom Vaishnavas - desires, taste, and consciousness. And you can not become a Vaishnava unless you get the seed of bhakti from one who is already a Vaishnava.

 

When shastra says that Brahman is changeless it simply means that it does not transform into something else.

 

Here is an example of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta using a different definition of a Vaishnava than the one you quote above:

 

(16)

je ‘phalgu-vairagi,’ kohe nije ‘tyagi,’

se na pare kabhu hoite ‘vaishnava’

hari-pada chadi’, ‘nirjanata badi,’

labhiya ki phala, ‘phalgu’ se vaibhava

je-who; phalgu-vairagi-false renunciant; kohe nije-calls himself; tyagi-an accomplished renunciant; se-he; na pare-is not able; kabhu hoite-to ever be; vaishnava-a devotee; hari-pada-the lotus feet of the Lord; chadi’-rejecting; nirjanata badi-residence in solitude; labhiya-obtaining; ki phala-what result?; phalgu-false; se vaibhava-that opulence.

16) "One who falsely gives up things that could actually be used in the Lord’s service proudly calls himself a ‘renunciate,’ but unfortunately he can never become a Vaishnava by such an attitude. Abandoning his servitorship to the lotus feet of Lord Hari, and resigning himself to his solitary home-whatever is gained by that exercise can only be the worthless treasure of deception." From Vaishnava Ke?-“Who is a Real Vaishnava?”

As JN pointed out, you can not have several different definitions of one term without creating confusion. It is a common problem in our movement - contradictory statements, and contradictory definitions confusing the heck out of the followers and creating needless divisions among them.

[theist]

 

Again you are using different definitions interchangeably when its convenient. There is a "vaishnava" that refers to a person practicing the vaishnava religion in this world, and then there is the other esoteric definition which you keep going back to that refers to the eternal function of the soul. You can't use them interchangeably. When speaking of other worldly religious cultures or practices, the word Vaishnava must be assumed to refer to a similar worldly religious culture.

 

As I already addressed in this world we must use the word with an understanding of different meanings ACCORDING TO THE CONTEXT! When I encounter an Iskcon person on the street I acknowledge them by saying "Hare Krishna vaisnava." That doesn't mean I am saying they are a pure devotee or something.

 

But when we are speaking of precise definitions as we are here or when we are searching for an exact definiton AS WE ARE HERE then the only one that fits is Bhaktisiddhanta's.

 

"

When speaking of other worldly religious cultures or practices, the word Vaishnava must be assumed to refer to a similar worldly religious culture."

I assume it all the time and then I try to correct their misunderstanding rather than remain silent. "silence means agreement" or at least it is taken that way.

 

What is this forum for, discussing spiritual life threadbare or is it an intercultural exchange forum?

 

JNDAS, In understand the ackwardness of your situation. If somebody refers to themselves as a hindu or most likely Christian to me I don't immediately staring raising objections to how they are using the word.

 

However this is a philosophical forum and in particular the Spirtual Discussion thread. If not here then just where would it be appropriate to relay on the highest definition for Vaisnava?

[theist]

 

Satya Vachan.

 

Yes this is our duty otherwise we should just remain silent. Pure cultural exchanges are for those that want to remain in worlds such as these.

[raghu]

 

You are taking a word that already has an accepted linguistic usage, and then putting your own esoteric meaning on top of it and expecting non-believers (say Hindus or anyone else) to immediately understand your own private language. It is not only illogical, it goes against all rules of language.

 

Communication means two parties speaking the same language with the same definitions. If everyone gets to make up their own definitions to words, there is naturally going to be misunderstanding. The fault lies with the person who made up his own unique definitions (in this case, us gaudiya vaishnavas). We can speak our own language amongst ourselves, and we can all understand it. But when you speak amongst outsiders, the definition of words is different, and you can't blame people for not understanding what you say or for becoming offended sometimes.

 

Is this not, word-for-word, what I said earlier in regards to "Hinduism?"

 

Of course it is. Jahnava-Nitai das is an offender who is running the risk of being put in Theist's ignore list.

 

But in any case it does not matter - whether Theist ignores you or not, it is fairly obvious that he has not grasped what is being told to him in plain English. As usually, he is trying to turn a simple discussion about language into a complicated discussion on metaphysics (which he also does not understand from the looks of it). If I ever needed an operating definition of the word "Fanatic," then this would be it - a person who insists on spewing the same nonsense over and over again even when simple, cool-headed logic is offered to explain why he is in error.

[theist]

 

Kulapavanna:As JN pointed out, you can not have several different definitions of one term without creating confusion. It is a common problem in our movement - contradictory statements, and contradictory definitions confusing the heck out of the followers and creating needless divisions among them.

 

 

So let's stick to one defintion and that should be Bhatisiddhanta's, not yours.

[theist]

It should be noted that Bhatisiddhanta was giving the defintion of Vaisnava to a culture that had been long misusing it in hopes of rectifying the situation.

[Kulapavana]

 

So let's stick to one defintion and that should be Bhatisiddhanta's, not yours.

 

It must be tough to be this dense...

 

I just showed you TWO different definitions used by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and not a single one that I developed.

[theist]

 

It must be tough to be this dense...

 

I just showed you TWO different definitions used by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and not a single one that I developed.

 

Truthfully I do not value your instructions Kulapavanna. You have for years been offering up your version of what Srila Prabhupada was "really" thinking and doing despite what he actually did. This is just more of the same.

 

But I do accept that I am dense in consciousness. Can anyone born into this dense corner of the material world claim otherwise?

[hindustani]

The day focus will change to Soul from a devotee journey for liberation will begin.

 

When I encounter an Iskcon person on the street I acknowledge them by saying "Hare Krishna vaisnava." That doesn't mean I am saying they are a pure devotee or something.

 

[bhaktajan]

theist & Kulapavana [i'd like to grab both of you two by the ear lobe and make yous write on the Black-board] --the problem is lack of academic protocol.

 

I was interested in Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's definition ... but neither of you two would re-iterate what you say you posted as his definition.

 

Where is yours Theist? [i looked and then got tired of searching]

 

Where is yours Kulapavana? [your Post #107 --"Abandoning his servitorship to the lotus feet of Lord Hari" is the anti-thesis of Vaishnava]

 

It is almost like you are arguing --only to find out later that y'all forgot to DEFINE what the actually debate was about.

 

Oye Vey talk about non-sequetors . . . off-topic yet again.

[bhaktajan]

 

Quote: theist:

When I encounter an Iskcon person on the street I acknowledge them by saying "Hare Krishna vaisnava." That doesn't mean I am saying they are a pure devotee or something.

 

He Hindustani,

You probably outside the loop of confidentiality of "Hare Krishna vaisnava" training dogma:

The First thing to teach a newbee [other than removing shoes at the mandir] is:

"You are not the material body--you are spirit SOUL"

I hope that will convince you that every member in ISKCON is awaiting the chance to tell you the rest of the story . . .

YALL come back soon, Hindustani!

[raghu]

 

It should be noted that Bhatisiddhanta was giving the defintion of Vaisnava to a culture that had been long misusing it in hopes of rectifying the situation.

 

OK, when you make prejudiced comments like this about Hindu culture, I think it only fair to analyze and give a rebuttal.

 

First of all, the culture that you say has "misused" the term Vaishnava has produced commentaries on the Upanishads, Vedanta Sutras, Bhagavad-gita, and Bhagavatam which emphasize Vaishnavism.

 

Now in contrast, the culture that you represent, despite supposedly having had the benefit of a pure devotee, free of all mundane designations, has produced numerous degraded swamis who have committed every vulgar and degraded act known to history in just a few short decades. After Prabhupada, we have yet to even see one worthwhile commentary on any scripture that serves the cause of propagating Vaishnavism. And by "commentary," I mean precisely that - a verse by verse explanation of a particular scripture, not the "Christ and Krishna" comic books that are standard fare.

 

So believe whatever you want. But listen to the facts. And since you are ignoring me, we thankfully do not have to hear you spewing any more anti-Hindu venom in response to this, and others will have the benefit of looking at the facts and deciding for themselves.

[theist]

 

theist & Kulapavana [i'd like to grab both of you two by the ear lobe and make yous write on the Black-board] --the problem is lack of academic protocol.

 

I was interested in Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's definition ... but neither of you two would re-iterate what you say you posted as his definition.

 

Where is yours Theist? [i looked and then got tired of searching]

 

Where is yours Kulapavana? [your Post #107 --"Abandoning his servitorship to the lotus feet of Lord Hari" is the anti-thesis of Vaishnava]

 

It is almost like you are arguing --only to find out later that y'all forgot to DEFINE what the actually debate was about.

 

Oye Vey talk about non-sequetors . . . off-topic yet again.

 

Silly boy. Why would you think Srila Prabhupada would have a definition that differs from his spiritual masters?

 

Besides that Bhaktisiddhanta is the one who wrote Vaisnavism Real and Apparent.

 

It's clear that the apparent version is the one favored on this forum.

[hindustani]

Hello Mr.Copy paste!

Yes I know but seems you failed to attend those classes or forgot all those lessons due to poor memories or remaining busy to find ready made material to copy and dump it here.That is why I see huge difference between you and jnd type Iskconites.Gyan never comes from attending classes it comes from within Mr.C.P.

 

The First thing to teach a newbee

 

I don't care,all wind will go above my head so come,come with a bang I am ready.

 

I hope that will convince you that every member in ISKCON is awaiting the chance to tell you the rest of the story

[bhaktajan]

Theist for giving me the attention I obviously crave so desperately, Thanks.

1] [erzats]: If you agree with this --I AGREE WITH IT: "I think Srila Prabhupada's definition does not differ from his spiritual masters!!!

 

And Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is the one who wrote Vaisnavism Real and Apparent."

 

2] You wrote: "It's clear that the apparent version is the one favored on this forum."

Again I respond: Why do you not "Re-state it explicitly?" --[yes, I know the what it says in the 'Art of War', "the general must be inscrutable" --so . . . if you don't say so . . . I'll just have to understand via heavy investigation . . . ]

 

<I'll be leaving a message at 1-1-2 soon.>

[bhaktajan]

Hindustani,

ARE YOU READY? HERE IT COMES NEWBEE:

 

1st: "You are not the material body--you are spirit SOUL"

 

2nd: "Always Remove your shoe at the mandir"

 

Homework assignment [finally exam scores will be issued in your next life]:

Choose a Mandir of your choosing [i prefer ISKCON Temples best]

--and wash the pots there after the feasts.

Start slowly,

follow the lead of the other washers,

then advance to biggedr feasts each time.

 

Now you are own your own recognisance --aishman bhava!

[theist]

 

Theist for giving me the attention I obviously crave so desperately, Thanks.

1] If you agree with this: "I think Srila Prabhupada's definition does not differ from his spiritual masters!!!

 

And Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is the one who wrote Vaisnavism Real and Apparent."

 

2] You wrote: "It's clear that the apparent version is the one favored on this forum."

Again I respond: Why do you not "Re-state it explicitly?" --[yes, I know the what it says in the 'Art of War', "the general must be inscrutable" --so . . . if you don't say so . . . I'll just have to understand via heavy investigation . . . ]

 

<I'll be leaving a message at 1-1-2 soon.>

 

No reason to keep the topic alive. It's my bringing attention to the matter that seems to ignite the fire in the first place so what need to strike a second match?

[bhaktajan]

Hindustani wrote to bhaktajan [Post 120]:

That is why I see huge difference between you and jnd type Iskconites.Gyan never comes from attending classes it comes from within Mr.C.P.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

bhaktajan replies: in regards to your obviously sarcastic end statement in bold:

Are you saying that gyan (intellectual knowledge & research) comes to YOU from within and not from study and lessons from an instructor?

 

Can you provide ME the benefit of your association HERE and NOW . . . as I ask you to:

 

Please provide the assembly of vaishnavas [or just direct your erudition solely at me] the answers to these questions:

 

{Note: Post 14-Keiserose & 15-Ganeshprasad --failed to reveal any NECTAR --yet continued to mystify . . . }

 

Where, in sastra, has Lord Shiva explained the topics:

jiva,

parkriti,

karma,

isvara,

kala (time),

the differences between the yogic schools of thought,

basic sitting silent meditation,

dharma,

moksha,

sat-sanga,

good vs passionate vs bad foods/actions/austerities/fearlessness/equanimity/faith/

sacrifice/charity/renunciation/knowledge/performers/(doers of actions)/understanding/determination/happiness?

 

Please remember to provide your own hard earned Insights & especially the verbatim of your Dear Bhagavan's melodious words.

[sant]

 

Gyan never comes from attending classes it comes from within Mr.C.P

True then what was the reason for ved vyaas to write the vedas and purana.What is the need for the sudent to ask questions from the guru.What is the need for anyone to ask anything if he already knows everything.What you think might be coming from within may be afected by the three gunas and has a chance to be contaminated.What you think is from within can be from the mind also.But it is true that everything comes from within since everything is within but how deep do people look inside.How much purity is there in me that i can look inside and listen to my inner voice without garbage of jealousy,envy,hatred,foolishnes not coming to block my way.