raghu Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Hahaha sambya. Think before you pick a fight. Ask yourself, "Is it really worth it?" Once again, Theist's exact words: Can't worship some demi-god or the things of this world and expect to also have Krishna too. And once again, Prabhupada's exact words: "One should begin the worship of the demigod Gaṇapati, who drives away all impediments in the execution of devotional service. In the Brahma-saḿhitā it is stated that Gaṇapati worships the lotus feet of Lord Nṛsiḿhadeva and in that way has become auspicious for the devotees in clearing out all impediments. Therefore, all devotees should worship Gaṇapati." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 I do not want to claim anything. These are based on academic research. Take or leave it. Subject closed. You're right. The case is closed. You don't know what you are talking about, and are just blindly repeating the conclusions of what you think is "academic research." Come back when you have reviewed the evidence, and then we will discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 well , when viewed independently vidhi can be interpreted as rule , dictum , manner , method , usage or way . a-vidhi-purvaka would mean "out of the common way" or "out of norms" . they do not mean "wrong" in strict sense ! and krishna is clearly saying that those who worship devas with faith also worship him which is out of norms . now , its but obvious that if someone does not worship krishna directly and worship him indirectly it shall be "out of norms" . here krishna is definately placed in the highest position but other forms of worship are not termed as wrong ! most importantly if krishna saw something absolutely wrong in deva worship he would have directly said -- those who worship devas are wrong . he would'nt have started by saying that they also eventually worship him and he would have used the specific word of wrong such as mithya , paap , doshpurna etc . without the use of such a word i see no reason why the words 'a-vidhi' are to be interpreted as 'wrong' !!!! Samyba, First of all, you should know better than to try and have an intelligent conversation with Theist. Just as he should know better than to try and have an intelligent conversation with you. Or maybe both of you really do not know, which is precisely the problem here. Sri Krishna's statement that anya-devata worship is "avidhi-pUrvakam" is very clear and does not require any interpretation to water down the sense of the verse. In 7.21, Sri Krishna explains that it is He who facilitates one's worship of anya-devatas. Then in 7.22 He states that the benefits granted by worship of anya-devatas are actually granted by Him. Then in 7.23 He distinguishes between the destination reached by anya-devata worship and worship of Himself. He also states there that the fruits of anya-devata worship are temporary. Then in 9.20-21 Sri Krishna says the same thing (viz temporary fruits of anya-devata worship) albeit in a different way. So what is the conclusion? BG 9.23 - those who worship anya-devatas actually worship Sri Krishna but without proper knowledge. Proper knowledge of what? Of the fact that He is the ultimate enjoyer of all sacrifices as stated in BG 9.24. And of the fact that desiring the temporary fruits granted through anya-devata worship instead of the lasting benefits of Vishnu worship is due to improper understanding. Hence, the real goal of the Vedas is Vishnu - "vedaish cha sarvair aham eva vedyaH" (Gita 15.15). You can translate avidhi-pUrvakam however you want, "in a wrong way,without proper knowledge,out of the common way." But the sense is very clear. Bhagavad-gita clearly distinguishes between Krishna worship and anya-devata worship, and there is simply no way of getting around that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Try posting this maxim in front of your store: " Credit is good but we need cash." Or better yet, "In God we trust, all others pay cash up front." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kali_Upasaka Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 You're right. The case is closed. You don't know what you are talking about, and are just blindly repeating the conclusions of what you think is "academic research." Come back when you have reviewed the evidence, and then we will discuss. I have much better things to do than waste my time in Vithanda Vada. You are entitled to your opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisersose Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 I have much better things to do than waste my time in Vithanda Vada. You are entitled to your opinion. How does offering evidence to support our claims become Vithanda Vada? Anyone can say anything then, without evidence. A varna system not based on birth is not practically viable - because there exists no satisfactory system to identify individual varnas. No such method has been written about in the past either. Arbitrary selection is the only way out and we know how that went in the case of Prabhupada. I do not know which Veda you are referring to, but Upanishads, Puranas, Mahabharata, Ramayana, etc., always talk about birth based Varna. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 How does offering evidence to support our claims become Vithanda Vada? Anyone can say anything then, without evidence. Whether you talk to Hare Krishnas or Ramakrishnas, in the end their reasoning process and epistemology can be reduced to one simple principle: They are right, and they do not need to provide any evidence to back it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kali_Upasaka Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Whether you talk to Hare Krishnas or Ramakrishnas, in the end their reasoning process and epistemology can be reduced to one simple principle: They are right, and they do not need to provide any evidence to back it up. Like you talk about Neo-Hindus without defining who is Hindu? You have been ridiculing all the Gurus/Acharyas except the Goudiya Vaishnavite ones. According to you. All Hindus except those who believe in Krishna Consciousness are Neo-Hindus. All other ideas are rubbish and ridiculous. Academic research is blind. In fact I was amused by your attacking the ISCKON people of anti-Hinduism. You are more anti-Hindu than any of them. Intolerant. Ridculing entire Hinduism. With Hindus like you we do not need any enemies. Why should I try to convince a person who thinks the only correct interpretation of Hindu scriptures is that of the Goudiya Vaishanvite Acharyas and all others are rubbish. And who has started threads just to ridicule all Hindu thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Samyba, First of all, you should know better than to try and have an intelligent conversation with Theist. Just as he should know better than to try and have an intelligent conversation with you. Or maybe both of you really do not know, which is precisely the problem here. why do you persistently hold the opinion that it is only you who knows, barring anyone else , whether it be a hare krishna or neo hindu ?!! this is a excellent example of egoism !! you dont like iskcon , you dont like swaminarayan , ramakrishna , any of the modern hindu movements . in other words you bash up everyone holding different opinions and live in your own little well . and when i ask you some important questions you remain silent thereby showing your complete and willfull ignorance about the matter !! You can translate avidhi-pUrvakam however you want, "in a wrong way,without proper knowledge,out of the common way." But the sense is very clear. Bhagavad-gita clearly distinguishes between Krishna worship and anya-devata worship, and there is simply no way of getting around that. i never denied that .........bhagavad gita clearly places krishna at the top . i just showed them the incorrect interpretation of the word ...a-vidhi . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 : They are right, and they do not need to provide any evidence to back it up. I find the Hks slightly better than the neohindus here. If you question any neohindu here they/he will go berserk and start personal attacks and worse trash entire hinduism if you don't agree with the version of his guru/mentor. The neohindus are completely sure of what they say but if you question them then hell breaks loose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 . i just showed them the incorrect interpretation of the word ...a-vidhi . Here are the translations of Avidhi abnormal, anomalous,perverted,anomaly,aberration. May be you can provide a better translation with reference. http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&tinput=avidhi&country_ID=&trans=Translate&direction=AU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kali_Upasaka Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 HKs are far better than the pseudo-Hindus who snipe at everyone. Malice toward one and all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 HKs are far better than the pseudo-Hindus who snipe at everyone. If you don't mind Here is my view. HKs are far better than the pseudo-Hindus who are derisive of hinduism.Hks are atleast loyal to their faith unlike the neohindus. Malice toward one and all. Lol.Example of personal attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 why do you persistently hold the opinion that it is only you who knows, barring anyone else , whether it be a hare krishna or neo hindu ?!! this is a excellent example of egoism !! you dont like iskcon , you dont like swaminarayan , ramakrishna , any of the modern hindu movements . in other words you bash up everyone holding different opinions and live in your own little well . and when i ask you some important questions you remain silent thereby showing your complete and willfull ignorance about the matter !! It took you who boasts about his psychology a long time to know what intentions raghu has and about him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Here are the translations of Avidhi abnormal, anomalous,perverted,anomaly,aberration. May be you can provide a better translation with reference. http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&tinput=avidhi&country_ID=&trans=Translate&direction=AU anomalous = deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected : irregular, unusual perverted = abnormal, unnatural - not normal; not typical or usual or regular or conforming to a norm aberration = the fact or an instance of being aberrant especially from a moral standard or normal state this is what i just said , "out of norms" or "out of way " ........ they are still not the same as wrong .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 anomalous = deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected : irregular, unusual perverted = abnormal, unnatural - not normal; not typical or usual or regular or conforming to a norm aberration = the fact or an instance of being aberrant especially from a moral standard or normal state this is what i just said , "out of norms" or "out of way " ........ they are still not the same as wrong .... Sambya you dont find anything 'wrong' in abnormal or perverted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 they are still not the same as wrong If you meant to say "it is not an offense punishable", then i am with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Like you talk about Neo-Hindus without defining who is Hindu? Not true. I offered a very clear and concise definition on "Hinduism" based on its historical usage in the Neo-Hinduism thread and elsewhere. It's not my fault that you can't read. You have been ridiculing all the Gurus/Acharyas except the Goudiya Vaishnavite ones. That's strange. gHari and theist say that I've been ridiculing the Gaudiyas all along and that I am a smartha caste brahmin. Whereas you say that I am ridiculing Neo-Hindus and favoring Gaudiyas. Would you guys like to get together and decide what your story is going to be? According to you. All Hindus except those who believe in Krishna Consciousness are Neo-Hindus. Not true. Frankly I think many Hare Krishnas are Neo-Hindus. All other ideas are rubbish and ridiculous. Also not true. Only you are rubbish. Everything else is worthy of discussion. Academic research is blind. I have no idea what it is you are trying to say here. No doubt you are experiencing such a fit of rage that it is interefering with your ability to communicate clearly. When you are done wiping the spittle off your monitor, would you like to repost what it is exactly that you are trying to say? In fact I was amused by your attacking the ISCKON people of anti-Hinduism. You are more anti-Hindu than any of them. Intolerant. Ridculing entire Hinduism. With Hindus like you we do not need any enemies. Why should I try to convince a person who thinks the only correct interpretation of Hindu scriptures is that of the Goudiya Vaishanvite Acharyas and all others are rubbish. And who has started threads just to ridicule all Hindu thoughts. If clear thinking and intellectual honesty make me anti-Hindu, then I guess I'm guilty as charged. I have subjected Gaudiya Vaishnava ideas to the same sword with which I have subjected Neo-Hinduism ideas. But being a Neo-Hindu, I suppose you only saw what you wanted to see. Truth hurts. And the truth is that Neo-Hinduism is a real entity which has aggressively usurped the position of Hinduism in the minds of many. Your temper tantrum is an example of why one cannot argue with Neo-Hinduism at all - because Neo-Hindus can only rely on hearsay and disjointed thinking to articulate their views, much like the Hare Krishnas! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 why do you persistently hold the opinion that it is only you who knows, barring anyone else , whether it be a hare krishna or neo hindu ?!! this is a excellent example of egoism !! No, sambya. Punctuating your sentences with more than one exclamation mark is an excellent example of egoism. I don't need special ascii characters to make my points. I prefer clear thinking and referencing facts. you dont like iskcon , you dont like swaminarayan , ramakrishna , any of the modern hindu movements . in other words you bash up everyone holding different opinions and live in your own little well . When one has a well-informed basis for disagreeing with a religion or religious movement, the Neo-Hindu is apt to liken it to intolerance. Nothing new here. and when i ask you some important questions you remain silent thereby showing your complete and willfull ignorance about the matter !! What important questions, Sambya? There is about as much intelligent content in your postings as there is in a doorknob. If you insist on going round and round in circles, don't expect me to rescue you from your self-imposed myopia. You're upset because you are a neo-Hindu and you cannot tolerate anyone pointing out the endless differences between Neo-Hinduism and traditional Hinduism. But they are different. Neo-Hinduism is the product of Westernized thinkers with a penchant for secularism and atheism. Would you like me to quote from Swami Vivekananda himself to show this? Abusing me is not going to change anything. Neo-Hinduism is what it is - an illegitimate successor to a grand and dignified tradition. Deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 ha ha , i knew that you would eventually come to the same point - neo hinduism . there was this little boy who was obssesed with cows( the herbivourous animal) . whenever his teachers gave him any work to do he would relate it to cows . on maths paper he used to draw a cow , on english sheets he used to write about cow and so on . finally the sir decided to give him an essay which would be of such a different topic that he couldnt possibly come back to cows . so the teacher decided an elocution speech on aeroplane . the child started his speech -- "aeroplanes are wonder to mankind .....wright brothers invented it..........it flies high up in the sky ............once i was travelling with my family in a plane . ........ the food was good ......... airhostesses were pretty ...........then the plane preparing to land ..........i could see the silvery river and green earth below ...............there were small huts dotted along ..........there were lots of big trees .........and then oh sir , would you believe what i saw ? there was a beautifull white COW !! that is your condition now .... ha ha you dislike anything that has been added new to hinduism . it is for the same reason that you disrespect gaudiya vaishnavism and deride chaitanya . it is also for the same reason that you do not want to accept almost any other modern gurus and scholars . but at the same time you have failed to show me what is your definition of classical hinduism and its period in history . and what you are doing here in this forum is not mere disagreement( i wouldnt have had any problems with that) , but constant attacks and sarcasms towards virtually every sect and even of personal nature . What important questions, Sambya? There is about as much intelligent content in your postings as there is in a doorknob. see the sarcasms and personal attacks here ? anyways , since you are the most intelligent among all here and i am totally ignorant , it is your duty to dissipate my ignorance with your shining intelligence by anwering the humble questions that i had asked long ago . You're upset because you are a neo-Hindu and you cannot tolerate anyone pointing out the endless differences between Neo-Hinduism and traditional Hinduism. But they are different. Neo-Hinduism is the product of Westernized thinkers with a penchant for secularism and atheism. not at all . i am a proud neo-hindu . i love what i follow and i know what exactly i follow . whatever opinion you hold about neo-hinduism is your own and i respect it as freedom of thought . but for gods sake dont drag in the same thing every time you are cornered and try to escape with such silly topics and excuses as neo hinduism is atheistic etc . i know what your veiws on neo-hinduism are and you need not drag in the issue once more . if you have words for continuing the discussion do that without forcing in this topic , because we all know that the moment this thing comes in other discussions will stop . i hope you will take someone else's(me) opinion about you into consideration even if it is for a moment and plan your next posts accordingly .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kali_Upasaka Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Not true. I offered a very clear and concise definition on "Hinduism" based on its historical usage in the Neo-Hinduism thread and elsewhere. It's not my fault that you can't read. That's strange. gHari and theist say that I've been ridiculing the Gaudiyas all along and that I am a smartha caste brahmin. Whereas you say that I am ridiculing Neo-Hindus and favoring Gaudiyas. Would you guys like to get together and decide what your story is going to be? Not true. Frankly I think many Hare Krishnas are Neo-Hindus. Also not true. Only you are rubbish. Everything else is worthy of discussion. I have no idea what it is you are trying to say here. No doubt you are experiencing such a fit of rage that it is interefering with your ability to communicate clearly. When you are done wiping the spittle off your monitor, would you like to repost what it is exactly that you are trying to say? If clear thinking and intellectual honesty make me anti-Hindu, then I guess I'm guilty as charged. I have subjected Gaudiya Vaishnava ideas to the same sword with which I have subjected Neo-Hinduism ideas. But being a Neo-Hindu, I suppose you only saw what you wanted to see. Truth hurts. And the truth is that Neo-Hinduism is a real entity which has aggressively usurped the position of Hinduism in the minds of many. Your temper tantrum is an example of why one cannot argue with Neo-Hinduism at all - because Neo-Hindus can only rely on hearsay and disjointed thinking to articulate their views, much like the Hare Krishnas! When I saw this post I was reminded of the Pandas (or Pundits as their Yajamanas call them) who I meet daily in the temple. To these people the only way to get GOD's blessings is through them. Everything else is non-Hindu and atheist. The Brahmin Priests and Purohits have turned Hinduism over thousands of years into a lucrative profession. The Priests insist that the only way to salvation is through their good offices. And the amount of Dakshina given to them determines your benefit. The Purohits again are more insistent on the Dakshina and feeding of the Brahmins than the actual ritual. Anything done against their wishes, GOD will curse you. Your ancestors will curse you. I do not have to add more because every Hindu has suffered at the hand of these people sometime or the other. This class of people form only a very small segment even among the Brahmins. But they are very vocal and they do have the support of the organized religion, though it is waning now. Most of the reform movements in Hinduism were motivated to get Hinduism out of the clutches of this class of people. They have opposed every reformation in the Hindu religion because it will weaken their hold. They have opposed all the Saints, Acharyas and Bhakthas. You, Sir, belong to this class. Malice towards one and all is the motto of this class. Intolerance is the ideal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 The Brahmin Priests and Purohits have turned Hinduism over thousands of years into a lucrative profession.... I do not have to add more because every Hindu has suffered at the hand of these people sometime or the other. Most of the reform movements in Hinduism were motivated to get Hinduism out of the clutches of this class of people. Despite the fact that you are spewing anti-Brahmin hate speech, i actually feel sorry for you. It is obvious that you have bought into the Marxist class-conflict paradigm and cannot help but see Hinduism through this lens. Small wonder then that you want a religion without brahmins which makes you feel empowered and obviates the need to accept any authority. Obviously, blaming brahmins for all the problems of the world is yet another way by which Neo-Hinduism is rationalized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Despite the fact that you are spewing anti-Brahmin hate speech, i actually feel sorry for you. It is obvious that you have bought into the Marxist class-conflict paradigm and cannot help but see Hinduism through this lens. Small wonder then that you want a religion without brahmins which makes you feel empowered and obviates the need to accept any authority. Obviously, blaming brahmins for all the problems of the world is yet another way by which Neo-Hinduism is rationalized. see the last line ? " oh sir , would you believe what i saw ........ a beautiful white COW !! " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 When I saw this post I was reminded of the Pandas (or Pundits as their Yajamanas call them) who I meet daily in the temple. To these people the only way to get GOD's blessings is through them. Everything else is non-Hindu and atheist.....This class of people form only a very small segment even among the Brahmins. Reject those people, by all means.Who is stopping you?. Surely people who have authority tend to abuse them and if those abusers are SMALL in number(By your own admission) it should be easy to reject them. Most of the reform movements in Hinduism were motivated to get Hinduism out of the clutches of this class of people. Are you sure? They have opposed every reformation in the Hindu religion because it will weaken their hold. They have opposed all the Saints, Acharyas and Bhakthas. Quite natural.Those who enjoy unfettered authority will try to preserve it. Does Reformation mean people who are uneducated and miserable failures in life can become gurus and claim Avtar hood?.Is this the reform you are talking about?.It is like throwing the baby with bath water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 RAghu as always remain dumb.I asked him do you beleive in madhwacharya as an avtar of vayu.? No answer. can you prove it.? No answer. What happens to dvaita in samadhi? no answer. The second part i get excuse. Your english is bad. You dont use punctuation marks. The gaudiyas attack hinduism. But only i am a true hindu ,rest are neo hindus. I am a helpless being. Gaudiyas torture me . Neo hindus give me death threats. I am the only one right. MY aims are pure. First i ask questions. Whatever someone answers its wrong. I have already decided that. MY opinion is the law. Of course it will apply to me not to neo hindus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.