livingentity Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 Well it may indeed sound like that at first since some <font color="red">impersonalists choose to mimic the phraseology and sentiments of realized vaisnava's</font color> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_love_krishna_ Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 What sort of danger please explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingentity Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 believing that the personalist and the impersonalist philosophies come to the same conclusion, of course! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_love_krishna_ Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 Chinmayananda who also quotes vivekananda explains : "By this famous verse-- which is daily repeated as grace before meals in cultured Indian homes--Krishna wants to divinise all our activies, all through the day, with this constant invocation of the Lord and by the continuous reconition of Lord's play in all happenings with in and with out us. Thus, prayer to the Hindu is not a special day of rest once a week, nor even a few minutes of devoted engagements every day. Religion to the Hindu is not merely in the house of gods, but it is constant daylong inner attitude of dedication to his(or her) lord, who is none other than the Lord of the Universe-- whose every manifestation is the cosmos. In such an all-embracing atmosphere of the divine awareness when one lives, all his/her actions , even the most insignificant and mundane , must become an unconscious but powerful invocation of the supreme and the total dedication of his/her ego at the Supreme (krishna)." Isn't this familiar to Prabhupada's teaching? Srila Prabhupada says give all you got to krishna because you are krishna's property (L.E. mam, I am not speculating now am I) . And these guys say " Give all you got to the supreme self. Krishna lives in our heart, he is our controller. The supreme self that they refer to is the true controller and they think that that self alone exists not them. In other words, they are kind of things controlled by the supreme self... very familiar... you are controlled by krishna, you belong to krishna and krishna makes up everything... thats what they say too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_love_krishna_ Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 In my view, there is no danger in believing the truth... The truth is my krishna, the truth is only him. He alone exists in the bible, Quran and Geeta. He is Yaweh he is everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krishna_s Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 A guest wrote: Why I write what I have written above can best be understood if any reader takes the trouble to read on Sri Ramakrishna. There are a number of books available. I would suggest the first time reader to take up "The life of Ramakrishna" by Romain Rolland. There are indeed a number of books available. Consider for example, the well known publication of "Ramakrishna's Foot" by Jeffrey Kripal, based as it is on the Ramakrishna Kathamrita authored by Ramakrishna's own disciple Mahendranath Gupta. Kripal very elegantly deconstructs the entire Ramakrishna myth, revealing a man who was motivated more by homoerotic sensuality in the guise of Tantra and Kali bhakti rather than anything genuinely spiritual in the Vedic sense. And I just wish to mention this for those not aware about the life of Sri Ramakrishna that though He was known as a devotee of Kali, He was a great devotee of Sri Krishna too(you might wonder how he got the name Ramakrishna). There are numerous instances where He got lost in samadhi through the mention of Krishna or any of his lilas or visiting a place associated with the memory of Sri Krishna. People who are ignorant of shaastra take bhakti very cheaply. That he had popular appeal does not make him a devotee. Ananya-bhakti is defined in shaastras, not in the imaginations of the uneducated, lay population. - K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_love_krishna_ Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 believe what you want, the truth remains the same. Also, stick with the philosophy here.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 the best thing is to use the "prabhupada system"... one put a sentence of ramakrsna or vivekananda and the others judge according their views ....... more simple than discuss on nothing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 Here is a qoute attributed to him So long as there is the "I" there is duality. The Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute is an ocean, within which is the pitcher 'I'. So long as there is the pitcher, the water seems to be separate - one portion is inside the pitcher and the other outside. When the pitcher breaks, there is one mass of water; and that cannot be expressed in words. Who will do so? So his idea is to break the sense of "I" or individual existence, then you will be enlightened. Vaisnava's want to keep the I and to have the consciousness of that I fixed on the the Supreme I. So Ramakrishna is teaching no I and the Vaisnavas are teaching that the I's are expanded without number with one I predominating over the small I's simultaneously. Ramakrishna wants to ride his so-called bhakti into liberation and to the vaisnava's, liberation is the platform to stand on as their bhakti moves into full stride for eternity. Very very different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 You are right... I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2003 Report Share Posted July 16, 2003 I_love_krishna_ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 its unbelivable that you try to discredit gurus like vivekananda on the basis that they ate non-veg! first of all .. read vyasa ramayan: the original ramayan written by vyasadev, lord Rama ate non veg food! so did Mother Sita. this was because the Lord had incarnated in the warrior caste. Swami vivekananda was trying to remove supersistion and the defeatist feeling prevalent in India at that time. His lectures and practises are to be taken in that context. the essence is the same since we are talking of this, i want to mention something else. recently there was a hue-and-cry in India because some idiot (an indian christian apparently) had written a book called 'Kalis child' that potrayed Ramakrishna as a homosexual pervert. I have read snippets and its enough to make you cry in rage. He has translated the Bengali literature on the life of the swami into english in his own perverted way and its pretty horrible.. i remeber one particular snippet. The swami used to go in a trance at anything that reminded him of the Lord. Once he saw an English boy standing in the astanga position, which is how Krishna is often potrayed, with one hip slightly croked. see any standing picture of krishna playing his flute thats how He will be. seeing this the Swami was immediately reminded of the Lord and went into samadhi, which was accompanied by much sweating and other symptoms that are mentioned by swami prabhupada. so this man translates this incident as the Swami sees the crooked hips of an english boy and starts sweating and goes out of control and a lot of other perverted trash. then he concludes that the Swami was fond of young boys!! In the name of free speech this thrash has been recommended as a reference in the encyclopedia Britannica on swami ramakrishna!! i mean come on!! Amol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subala Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 Regarding Swami vivekananda attracting to boys sounds pretty redicules, and i would agree on that. Regarding Vyasa ramayana and Rama and Sita eating meat.... boy! where from you getting this information??? One thing for sure the point which you are missing 1. Vivekananda does not belong to any Paramapara = this negates any statements he makes be they from veda or from vyasa or from his beard.... he is are not part of parampara! Broke people cannot help poor people to get unbroke! Only rich person can help someone how to become rich. Same way with a spiritual values. 2. Rama and Sita eating meat?! The Ramayana you were reading is translated by meateater - go and check it, it is a best way to prove. Even if suppose Rama eat meat - it does mean you have to eat it too or listen to people who eat meat because Ramaaaa! aaate meat toooo! He can do that, He is Bhagavan - He can eat whole earth - we not imitating Bhagavan we are His servants. he can do whatever He likes and How He likes we may not understand why God is God. In my opinion people who qoute about Lord Rama eating something are misled and using it as excuse to eat filth. Eating meat is worse that eating your own stool, and you saying "even Lord Rama" was eating this.... common no masala in somebodies head?! PS. sorry for too harsh language, I can stand people being ignorant - but I cannot stand people who is stupid and trying to spread it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2004 Report Share Posted August 6, 2004 You stated: "1. Vivekananda does not belong to any Paramapara = this negates any statements he makes be they from veda or from vyasa or from his beard.... he is are not part of parampara!" Can you prove to me that he was not from a Parampara? To remove your apt ignorance, Vivekananda claimed to be a disciple of Ramakrishna. Ramakrishna had a number of Gurus, all of whom were from paramparas of honorary traditions. One such guru was Totapuri, a dasanami monk from the Shankara lineage. Also, just because one is not from a parampara does not imply that one cannot read and present direct, obvious facts from literature, be they Veda or otherwise. In otherwords, if someone not from any parampara picks up the Ramayana, reads it, and later states that Rama had a brother named Lakshmana, you can't shout out that such a claim cannot be accepted because the person was not from a parampara. You can verify such a statement by reading the Ramayana yourself. Also, regarding parampara, you are obviously aware that the Madhvas don't agree to the Madhva-Chaitanya lineage issue. The Madhvas claim that Prabhupada's parampara as he claims it to be is completely bogus. The same goes for Chaitanya, he does not belong to the Madhva Parampara. That being the case, you might want to find a "rich" person to help you get "unbroke" instead of relying upon a "broke" person. You can get more details about the Madhva-Chaitanya lineage issue from these links: http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/gita/prabhupada_review.shtml http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/critics.shtml Now, more about paramparas and "rich/broke people". Can you tell me to which parampara KanakaDasa belonged to? If you can, you are either a liar, or you have supernatural powers that allow you to see into the distant past. Not much is known about Kanaka Dasa's origins and how or when he became a saint other than the fact that he was low-caste person who wasn't even allowed to enter temples. Now, if Kanaka Dasa were to make claims about the Ramayana, would you disregard him because practically, he did not belong to any Parampara? My point is, that there have been many saints, especially low-caste ones, who never received initiation or study from any Guru belonging to a parampara and were yet heralded as saints by followers who did belong to paramparas. I just named one who is heralded by the Madhva tradition, there are others from both the Ramanuja and Shankara traditions aswell. A few last points, you state: "Eating meat is worse that eating your own stool". Hmmm....So I assume if given the choice between the two, you would choose to eat your own stool. Regarding eating meat, the idea that eating meat is a sin, etc., is a bogus idea that is spread around by these new modern religious organizations like ISKCON. Food in India depends on many factors, especially caste and region. The caste system has been in India since time immemorial. Among the many castes is the Fisherman caste, a caste which has been talked about in almost all of the Hindu story literature including the Mahabharata(For example, Vyasa's mother was a Fisherwoman.) Now, what do you think these Fishermen ate? They certainly weren't vegetarians. So what do you think Vyasa's mother ate? The Butcher caste is also a caste mentioned in the Mahabharata. The Mahabharata tells the story of the Enlightened Butcher. There are regions in India such as Bengal where Brahmanas eat fish. You also state: "I can stand people being ignorant - but I cannot stand people who is stupid and trying to spread it". You obviously cannot stand yourself I presume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2004 Report Share Posted August 6, 2004 Also, regarding parampara, you are obviously aware that the Madhvas don't agree to the Madhva-Chaitanya lineage issue. The Madhvas claim that Prabhupada's parampara as he claims it to be is completely bogus. The same goes for Chaitanya, he does not belong to the Madhva Parampara. That being the case, you might want to find a "rich" person to help you get "unbroke" instead of relying upon a "broke" person. You can get more details about the Madhva-Chaitanya lineage issue from these links: http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/gita/prabhupada_review.shtml http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/critics.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2004 Report Share Posted August 6, 2004 Pardon me a moment, but I wanted to stop by and mention a little old something.... it's called the truth. Also, regarding parampara, you are obviously aware that the Madhvas don't agree to the Madhva-Chaitanya lineage issue. The Madhvas claim that Prabhupada's parampara as he claims it to be is completely bogus. The same goes for Chaitanya, he does not belong to the Madhva Parampara. That being the case, you might want to find a "rich" person to help you get "unbroke" instead of relying upon a "broke" person. You can get more details about the Madhva-Chaitanya lineage issue from these links: http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/gita/prabhupada_review.shtml http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/critics.shtml The website you referenced does not speak for all mAdhvas or even a significant number of them. The people who authored these documents are IT professionals who have emigrated to the United States, several of whom are simply disgruntled ex-ISKCON contributors. The PoornapragyAna VidyapIta has explicitly disavowed any official connection with them. For explicit evidence, 1st hand from the mAdhva swamis, please see their original hand-written letters to this effect, at http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/udupi/index.html For what it is worth, most mAdhva leaders have no problems accepting a formal connection with the gauDiya sampradAya, though they would not necessarily admit to complete philosphical agreement. As for what certain IT professionals whose only claim to being mAdhvas is some money-for-initiation diksha they received by a family priest, and who are single, socially frustrated, and offended by ISKCON, I cannot vouch for them, no matter how many websites they put up. Regarding eating meat, the idea that eating meat is a sin, etc., is a bogus idea that is spread around by these new modern religious organizations like ISKCON. That is incorrect. It would not hurt you to get your facts straight before posting some knee-jerk mental conjecture with no factual basis whatsoever. Meat-eating is explicitly declared to be sinful in many mainstream Hindu scriptures, including the bhAgavata purANa, manu-dharma-shAstra, and others. These texts are not the creations of ISKCON or any other new religious movement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2004 Report Share Posted August 6, 2004 You state: "Consider for example, the well known publication of "Ramakrishna's Foot" by Jeffrey Kripal, based as it is on the Ramakrishna Kathamrita authored by Ramakrishna's own disciple Mahendranath Gupta. Kripal very elegantly deconstructs the entire Ramakrishna myth, revealing a man who was motivated more by homoerotic sensuality" Jeffrey Kripal was not a disciple of Ramakrishna or any of his followers. Given that the Ramakrishna Kathamritha was translated into English and a number of other languages by followers of the Ramakrishna tradition(One translation was even made by a diciple of Mahendranath Gupta under his tutelage) and yet none of them contain any reference to homoerotic sensuality, don't you find it odd that a person who has no connection to the Ramakrishna Order or who has not even lived in the same timeframe as Ramakrishna seems to find homoerotic tendencies in him? Every single religious figure in the world has had bunk written about thems, and Sri Krishna is no exception. Have you read christian articles on Krishna claiming that he was an eunuch because of his "feminine gait"? That he liked the Pandavas because he was attracted to big strong men? If you can believe Kripal, why not these articles? Have you seen the movie, "Christ's last temptation"? Have you read the "Satanic Verses"? I've read the entire Ramakrishna Kathamritha, and I challenge you to show me where and how "Kripal very elegantly deconstructs the entire Ramakrishna myth, revealing a man who was motivated more by homoerotic sensuality". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2004 Report Share Posted August 6, 2004 You stated: "Pardon me a moment, but I wanted to stop by and mention a little old something.... it's called the truth." You mean, your version of the truth. You stated: "The website you referenced does not speak for all mAdhvas or even a significant number of them." Is that so? And how did you come to that conclusion? Did you run a survey for all Mahdvas? You stated: "The people who authored these documents are IT professionals who have emigrated to the United States, several of whom are simply disgruntled ex-ISKCON contributors." Is that so? Even if it were, what does being an IT professional and emigration to the US have to do with anything? I can also assure you that the owner of the website is certainly not an ex-ISKCON contributor. You stated: "The PoornapragyAna VidyapIta has explicitly disavowed any official connection with them." Is that why he wrote the following: http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml You stated: "For explicit evidence, 1st hand from the mAdhva swamis, please see their original hand-written letters to this effect, at http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/udupi/index.html" It was to this explicit evidence that the following was obtained from the Madhva swami: http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/iskcon.pdf You state: "As for what certain IT professionals whose only claim to being mAdhvas is some money-for-initiation diksha they received by a family priest, and who are single, socially frustrated, and offended by ISKCON, I cannot vouch for them, no matter how many websites they put up." Again, what does being IT professional have to do with anything? Also, can you show me where you got the information that they are "single and socially frustrated"? Was that a "knee-jerk reaction"? Perhaps you should heed your own advice and stick to the "little old something". Also, who the hell are you to vouch for them? Are you a Madhva swami or a Madhva scholar? If not, your vouching for them is as good as toilet paper. Several reputable Madhva scholars including B.N.K. Sharma share the views that the Madhva-Gaudiya link is bogus. Perhaps you think that he is single, an IT Professional and emigrated to the US? Sorry, he isn't. Instead of closing your eyes and parroting bunk, it would be best that you look at the actual links I have referenced instead of spouting out rubbish in knee-jerk fashion. You stated: "That is incorrect. It would not hurt you to get your facts straight before posting some knee-jerk mental conjecture with no factual basis whatsoever." Perhaps you should stick to your own advice. You stated: "Meat-eating is explicitly declared to be sinful in many mainstream Hindu scriptures, including the bhAgavata purANa, manu-dharma-shAstra, and others." You state "many mainstream Hindu scriptures", and then name only 2. BTW, the bhagavata is not a mainstream Hindu scripture. It maybe a mainstream Vaishnava scripture, not Hindu mainstream. The only scriptures that can be considered "mainstream Hindu" are the Vedas. There are many other branches other than Vaishnavism within the the umbrella of Hinduism. Even so, given that you claim that meat-eating is declared to be sinful, perhaps you can explain why meat-eating can be found in the Mahabharata to be performed by those the Mahabharata deems as Enlightened, such as the Enlightened Butcher, etc. So Vyasa's mother was sinful being a fisherwoman? Regarding facts, etc., I am from India and am well aware of my country's history and traditions, which is why I gave a factual account of food practice. Istead of replying to my explicit points, you say that so-and-so shastra claims that meat-eating is sinful. My claim is that there are other shastra which says that it is *not* sinful. You can't just hold on to the statements of one piece of shastra and claim that *all* shastra claims that meating-eating is sinful. *This* is the specific bogus idea that is being spread around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2004 Report Share Posted August 6, 2004 You stated: "Pardon me a moment, but I wanted to stop by and mention a little old something.... it's called the truth." You mean, your version of the truth. No, I mean the Truth. Let me explain. The statement, "you are obviously aware that the Madhvas don't agree to the Madhva-Chaitanya lineage issue" is an example of something that is not the Truth. Why? Because it is a Lie. mAdhva leaders do acknowledge the connection, as I have shown by providing the relevant links. If you are still in doubt, feel free to write to any of the Ashta Matha swamis and ask yourself. You stated: "The website you referenced does not speak for all mAdhvas or even a significant number of them." Is that so? And how did you come to that conclusion? Did you run a survey for all Mahdvas? I merely read the letters of the Ashta-matha swamis, as well as spoke to several of them personally. "The people who authored these documents are IT professionals who have emigrated to the United States, several of whom are simply disgruntled ex-ISKCON contributors." Is that so? Even if it were, what does being an IT professional and emigration to the US have to do with anything? I can also assure you that the owner of the website is certainly not an ex-ISKCON contributor. Your original statement was that mAdhvas objected to the paramparA link, and in support of this, you quoted from a website created by people who are not full-time devotees in the paramparA of Ananda-tIrtha. If you want to know the general opinions of the sampradAya, you should go to the leaders. The people who created that website you referenced are not leaders. They are not in any position of power in the Ashta-matha hierarchy, and they themselves have acknowledged this. "The PoornapragyAna VidyapIta has explicitly disavowed any official connection with them." Is that why he wrote the following: http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml The PoornapragyAna VidyapIta did not author this document. Srisha Rao did, along with a few of his friends, claiming to have the support of the PPV. The link I sent you with the letters by the Ashta-matha swamis was their reaction to the article you posted above. Since you obviously did not take the time to read them, allow me to quote one for you: "We are rather perturbed to come across an article said to contain a statemant issued by Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha about Madhwa and Gaudiya Sampradayas. We have been emphasizing time and again that even though there are certain difference in a few aspects of the two Sampradayas, there are many more common grounds and Gaudiya Sampradaya is a part of Madhwa Sampradaya. We have great regard for Prabhupada who has spread Vaisnava Bhakti Siddhanta throughout the world." This is from the Pejavar Swami. In other words, as I said to you before, the mAdhva swamis have disavowed any connection to the aforementioned article and the vitriolic present within it. "For explicit evidence, 1st hand from the mAdhva swamis, please see their original hand-written letters to this effect, at http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/udupi/index.html" It was to this explicit evidence that the following was obtained from the Madhva swami: http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/iskcon.pdf I do not know, since I cannot access this URL. If memory serves Sri Vishvesha tIrtha wrote a letter saying that they did not accept ISKCON's view that madhva was taught by chaitanya or something like that. However, he did not decry the paramparA connection. Your original opinion was that mAdhvas do not accept the paramparA connection. I have already provided evidence showing that this is incorrect. You should admit when you are wrong rather than carrying on a dead argument simply because you want to save face. Again, what does being IT professional have to do with anything? I believe it was made clear to you that these individuals are only mAdhvas in a formal sense. Why you cannot seem to grasp that is beyond me. Also, can you show me where you got the information that they are "single and socially frustrated"? In some cases, their own admission. In others, my observations. Are they your friends? I doubt it. They seem to have a more refined taste in social contacts. Was that a "knee-jerk reaction"? No. Perhaps you should heed your own advice and stick to the "little old something". I have no idea what you are referring to. Also, who the hell are you to vouch for them? Are you a Madhva swami or a Madhva scholar? If not, your vouching for them is as good as toilet paper. Why do you accept their opinions on mAdhva doctrine and not those of others? Who are they to speak on behalf of mAdhvas? Who are you to determine who can and cannot speak on behalf of the mAdhva community? You seem like a really angry individual. I personally do not care, but I do think you should get your facts straight. The Ashta-matha swamis do accept the paramparA link to the Gaudiyas. This is a fact. They do not accept that gaudiya philosophy is the same as that taught by sri Ananda tIrtha. This is also a fact. Which part of this did you not understand? Several reputable Madhva scholars including B.N.K. Sharma share the views that the Madhva-Gaudiya link is bogus. You said "several reputable Madhva scholars" but then you only named one. It is incorrect to say that BNK Sharma believes the link to be "bogus." In his book _History and Literature of the Dvaita School of Vedanta_ he has explicitly written on this very point, and he suggested how the link may in fact be correct. Perhaps you think that he is single, an IT Professional and emigrated to the US? Sorry, he isn't. Instead of closing your eyes and parroting bunk, it would be best that you look at the actual links I have referenced instead of spouting out rubbish in knee-jerk fashion. We have already shown how the Ashta-matha swamis agree with the link, and we have pointed out how BNK Sharma has also not disagreed with the link. Like I said, you seem like one seriously angry individual. I am merely repeating the facts, which you did not bother to check in this hate-speech-ridden posting of yours. You state "many mainstream Hindu scriptures", and then name only 2. BTW, the bhagavata is not a mainstream Hindu scripture. It maybe a mainstream Vaishnava scripture, not Hindu mainstream. The only scriptures that can be considered "mainstream Hindu" are the Vedas. There are many other branches other than Vaishnavism within the the umbrella of Hinduism. Every Vaishnava tradition I have heard of to date has a commentary on the bhAgavata purAna. That makes it a mainstream scripture by any reasonable standard. I am not sure what basis you argue that something is mainstream or not, but it appears by your logic even vedAnta-sUtra is not mainstream. Your position that only vedas are mainstream is self-defeating. Even the shrutis endorse the purAna-s as the fifth of their number. Even so, given that you claim that meat-eating is declared to be sinful, I believe what I stated was that certain shAstras consider it to be sinful. As far as I can tell, you have not given any sort of convincing response to that. perhaps you can explain why meat-eating can be found in the Mahabharata I thought you only consider Vedas to be mainstream scriptures. Why, then, do you quote mahAbhArata? mahAbhArata contains an entire chapter discouraging the practice of eating meat. It is in the section describing BhIshma's instructions to Yudhishthira while he is on the bed of arrows. Although I will provide you the reference, I know you will ignore it. Still, if you are honest enough to reexamine your claims, it can be found in anushasana parva, chapter 115 in my edition (the one published by Parimal Publications and translated by M.N.Dutt). to be performed by those the Mahabharata deems as Enlightened, such as the Enlightened Butcher, etc. I cannot respond to fiction invented by you and attributed to mahAbhArata. Please provide specific verse numbers so I can cross examine your information. So Vyasa's mother was sinful being a fisherwoman? vyAsa's "mother" was the daughter of a fisherwoman. She made her living ferrying passengers across the river. What explicit evidence have you that she ate meat? Regarding facts, etc., I am from India and am well aware of my country's history and traditions, which is why I gave a factual account of food practice. No doubt many people in India eat meat. I was born there so I know. What does this have to do with whether or not it is sinful? Are you saying that because people do something, it must be ok? That is ludicrous to say the least. Istead of replying to my explicit points, you say that so-and-so shastra claims that meat-eating is sinful. I said that the bhAgavata and the manu-dharma-shAstra consider it sinful. If you are still not convinced, here are a few references: ye tvanevaMvido'santaH stabdhAH sadabhimAninaH | pashUn druhyanti vishrabdhAH pretya khAdanti te ca tAn || BP 11.5.14 || Those who are ignorant of this real Dharma and, though wicked and haughty, account themselves virtuous kill animals without any feeling of remorse or fear of punishment, and are devoured by those very animals in their next birth (bhAgavatam 11.5.14). yAvanti pashuromANi tAvatkRtvo ha mAraNam | vRthApashughnaH prApnoti pretya janmani janmani || MS 5.38 || As many hairs as the slain beast has, so often indeed will he who killed it without a (lawful) reason suffer a violent death in future births (manu smRti 5.38). My claim is that there are other shastra which says that it is *not* sinful. You have not quoted any to date. Were you planning to do so, or am I supposed to believe you simply because you are from India? You can't just hold on to the statements of one piece of shastra and claim that *all* shastra claims that meating-eating is sinful. *This* is the specific bogus idea that is being spread around. I have already shown that shAstra considers meat-eating to be sinful. If you continue to disagree, based on shAstra, then the burden of proof is on you to show the evidence. That the majority of Indians, even those consiering themselves Hindus, eat meat, is a given. But this is a feeble excuse to justify such a disgusting practice. - Raghu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2004 Report Share Posted August 7, 2004 You stated: "No, I mean the Truth. Let me explain. The statement, "you are obviously aware that the Madhvas don't agree to the Madhva-Chaitanya lineage issue" is an example of something that is not the Truth. Why? Because it is a Lie." Why is it a lie? Because you say so? You later state: "mAdhva leaders do acknowledge the connection, as I have shown by providing the relevant links." To which I gave the following link which you obviously do not wish to read, so I shall quote a few snippets: http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml "Sri Sri Pejavara Swamiji seems to mock the carefully crafted Position Paper that was created by the scholars of his own institution under the learned guidance of the late Sri Sri Vidyâmânya Tîrtha of the Palimar Matha, and promises another statement in its stead to restore ``harmonious relations.'' We fail to understand his concern -- was Tattvavâda propagated by Srîmad Ânanda Tîrtha to achieve ``harmonious relations'' with other schools, or was it simply the Truth? " Now, your claim is that all leaders and scholars of the Madhva tradition claim a connection. The above proves obviously not. The swami of the Palimar Matha and the scholars who helped with article obviously thought otherwise. You stated: "Your original statement was that mAdhvas objected to the paramparA link, and in support of this, you quoted from a website created by people who are not full-time devotees in the paramparA of Ananda-tIrtha." Define "full-time" devotee. If you mean to say that one is a "full-time" devotee if he is not an IT professional or that he does not do anything other than be a devotee, then obviously no website on any parampara can be built by "full-time" devotees. Correct? So all websites on ISKCON were also built by people who are not "full-time" devotees, because if they were "full-time" devotees, where did they get the time to build and maintain the websites? In any case, your argument is invalid, because the website references articles and works by "full-time" devotees such as the Position paper which contains the guidance of the Palimar swami. You State: "If you want to know the general opinions of the sampradAya, you should go to the leaders. The people who created that website you referenced are not leaders." But the website *references the works and articles of the leaders*. And it is those opinions that I am talking about, not the opinions of the creators of the website. You State: "They are not in any position of power in the Ashta-matha hierarchy, and they themselves have acknowledged this." But the Palimar Swami was in a position of power. You State: "In other words, as I said to you before, the mAdhva swamis have disavowed any connection to the aforementioned article and the vitriolic present within it." Rubbish. That's not what you claimed before. If you go back to your original post, you claimed that: "The PoornapragyAna VidyapIta has explicitly disavowed any official connection with them." You claimed that there was no connection with *them*, not the article at hand. My point is that there is indeed a connection, for otherwise, why would the letter by the Pejavara Swami be made available to them? I gave you the link to which you have conveniently avoided. I want you to show me a reference to where the Madhva leaders have "disavowed" as you claim, the website and its owners. Disagreeing with *certain, specific* contents of the website does not consititute disavowing them. If the leaders had "disavowed" this website, why did the Palimar Swami send facisimile images of his Ashirvachana to the them? (See link below) Stop fooling yourself into thinking that the owners of the website have no connection with the leaders of the Madhva tradition. http://www.dvaita.org/sources/mbtn/index.shtml You stated: "I do not know, since I cannot access this URL." How convenient. If you don't like it, you can't seem to access it eh? You State: "Your original opinion was that mAdhvas do not accept the paramparA connection. I have already provided evidence showing that this is incorrect." Your evidence is based on your own, new fabricated terminology such as "full-time" devotees, and "formal Madvas". Evidence not worth a grain of salt. "You should admit when you are wrong rather than carrying on a dead argument simply because you want to save face." Perhaps you should heed your own advice. You State: "I believe it was made clear to you that these individuals are only mAdhvas in a formal sense. Why you cannot seem to grasp that is beyond me." Because this is the first time I am hearing of Madhvas "in a formal sense". Define "Madhva in a formal sense". Also, if there are Madvas in a formal sense, there obviously must be Madhvas "in an informal sense" too. Can you define that too please. Your whole claim to put the Madhvas that do not claim a connection aside, is that they are not "full-time" devotees and that they are only "Madhvas in a formal sense". Both those classifications must have come from ISCKON, it being famous for pulling terms out of the hat. There are Madhva Brahmanas today in India who live as householders and have jobs, maybe even IT Professionals. That does not make them any less Madhva, except ofcourse in your mind. You State: "In some cases, their own admission." Is that so? And we are just supposed to believe your word on it I presume? I'm saying that you are lieing. If that is indeed so, ask one of them to make a posting on this forum with his name and the claim that he is socially frustrated. If he does so, I'll forward it to the website and ask for verification. Remember, he has to be an acknowledged contributor to the website. Lets see if you are telling the truth. If you fail to do so, I will send this post with your claim to the website and ask for verfication myself. You State: "In others, my observations. Are they your friends? I doubt it. They seem to have a more refined taste in social contacts." This is just to let you know that if you are going to stoop so low to such personal attacks that have no weight on the issues at hand, I will henceforth not be replying to them, so save your breath and finger muscles. Stick to the issues being discussed. BTW, are you from ISCKON? It doesn't take long before you guys resort to personal attacks does it? You stated: "I have no idea what you are referring to." I was referring to your first statement where you said: "Pardon me a moment, but I wanted to stop by and mention a little old something.... it's called the truth." You state: "Why do you accept their opinions on mAdhva doctrine and not those of others? Who are they to speak on behalf of mAdhvas?" Because they back their opinions with clear, sound arguments based on Madhvas own works. Because they are born Madhvas, many of whom have learnt the Madhva sastra very well. You state: "Who are you to determine who can and cannot speak on behalf of the mAdhva community?" Firstly, learn to properly read and comprehend what is being said. I did not say that I determine who can and cannot speak on behalf of the Madhva community. I stated that a Madhva scholar or a Madhva leader can speak on behalf of the Madhva community, I stated the following: "Are you a Madhva swami or a Madhva scholar? If not, your vouching for them is as good as toilet paper." Do you disagree? If you do, then you go against an earlier statement you made. If you don't, then what was the point of your remark above? You stated : "It is incorrect to say that BNK Sharma believes the link to be "bogus." In his book _History and Literature of the Dvaita School of Vedanta_ he has explicitly written on this very point, and he suggested how the link may in fact be correct." "May in fact" does not prove anything. Besides, can you give me the exact reference where he says that? You stated: "We have already shown how the Ashta-matha swamis agree with the link." And I've shown, not all of them agree. You state: "and we have pointed out how BNK Sharma has also not disagreed with the link" Neither have you shown that he agrees. You state: "Like I said, you seem like one seriously angry individual". Where did you deduce that from? Do you sense anger in my posts? It was you who have resorted to personal attacks, so if anything, I should think that you are angry, not me. You state: "Every Vaishnava tradition I have heard of to date has a commentary on the bhAgavata purAna. That makes it a mainstream scripture by any reasonable standard." Vaishava traditions are not the only traditions within Hinduism. You stated that the Bhagavatam was mainstream "Hindu", not Vaishnava. Go check your previous post. You state: "I am not sure what basis you argue that something is mainstream or not" "Mainstream Hindu" as you first stated it would have to mean scripture followed by most Hindus, not just Vaishnavas. Don't try changing your original statements. You stated, and I quote: "Meat-eating is explicitly declared to be sinful in many mainstream Hindu scriptures". Now you are arguing based on the word "mainstream" without the word "Hindu" in it. You state: "Your position that only vedas are mainstream is self-defeating. Even the shrutis endorse the purAna-s as the fifth of their number." Again, mainstream "Hindu". Stick to your original words. The Shaivas, the Tantrics, the Ganapathas, the Muruga and Ayya worshipers do not follow the Bhagavatham. Infact, they follow puranas not followed by the Vaishnavas. You stated: "I believe what I stated was that certain shAstras consider it to be sinful." No, you stated: "Meat-eating is explicitly declared to be sinful in many mainstream Hindu scriptures". There is a difference between "certain" and "mainstream". Stick to your words. You state: "I thought you only consider Vedas to be mainstream scriptures. Why, then, do you quote mahAbhArata?" Again, mainstream "Hindu" scriptures. The reason I quote the Mahabharata is because you are obviously Vaishnava, and my claim is that even within Vaishnava literature, meat-eating can be found to not be sinful. You state: "I cannot respond to fiction invented by you and attributed to mahAbhArata. Please provide specific verse numbers so I can cross examine your information. " How do you know that it is fiction before I could even provide a reference. Also, you gave me a reference with a Chapter number from the edition by M.N. Dutt and now you ask me for exact verse numbers? I'll tell you what, I too will give you references with Chapter numbers from the edition by Ganguly. You state: "vyAsa's "mother" was the daughter of a fisherwoman. She made her living ferrying passengers across the river. What explicit evidence have you that she ate meat? " Lets see..... Vyasa's mother was the daugther of a fisherman. One wonders what she would have ate and be fed since she was a child eh? Duh...One wonders....Are you that stupid? So, she is born to a fisherman and you actually doubt she ate fish? To your query of what "explicit" evidence we have that she ate fish, do you have any "explicit" evidence to the contrary? Do you have explicit evidence that the Pandavas, Krishna, and even Vyasa did not eat fish? When Vyasa penned the Mahabharata, he assumed that its readers had brains, so he did not want to "explicity" state what a fisherman, or fisherwoman would eat. You state: "No doubt many people in India eat meat. I was born there so I know. What does this have to do with whether or not it is sinful?" My point was that I gave a true factual account of the food practices in India, to which you replied with the following: "That is incorrect. It would not hurt you to get your facts straight " You state: "I have already shown that shAstra considers meat-eating to be sinful. If you continue to disagree, based on shAstra, then the burden of proof is on you" Fine. Lets go.... From the Manu Smriti, which can be found at: http://www.swaveda.com/Religion/Other/Manu%20Smriti/MSmriti.htm or http://members.ozemail.com.au/~mooncharts/manu/ This site has the Sanskrit original aswell. From Chapter 5: 26. Thus has the food, allowed and forbidden to twice-born men, been fully described; I will now propound the rules for eating and avoiding meat. 27. One may eat meat when it has been sprinkled with water, while Mantras were recited, when Brahmanas desire (one's doing it), when one is engaged (in the performance of a rite) according to the law, and when one's life is in danger. 28. The Lord of creatures (Pragapati) created this whole (world to be) the sustenance of the vital spirit; both the immovable and the movable (creation is) the food of the vital spirit. 29. What is destitute of motion is the food of those endowed with locomotion; (animals) without fangs (are the food) of those with fangs, those without hands of those who possess hands, and the timid of the bold. 30. The eater who daily even devours those destined to be his food, commits no sin; for the creator himself created both the eaters and those who are to be eaten (for those special purposes). 32. He who eats meat, when he honours the gods and manes, commits no sin, whether he has bought it, or himself has killed (the animal), or has received it as a present from others. 35. But a man who, being duly engaged (to officiate or to dine at a sacred rite), refuses to eat meat, becomes after death an animal during twenty-one existences. 56. There is no sin in eating meat, in (drinking) spirituous liquor, and in carnal intercourse, for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstention brings great rewards. Note, in the last verse, that even though abstention may bring rewards, eating meat is **not considered a sin**. There are many more references in other Chapters, but these will do for now. I shall post the references from the Mahabharata in due course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghavan Posted August 7, 2004 Report Share Posted August 7, 2004 A kite was flying skyward with a fish in its beak when a number of crows and kites pursued it, making a tremendous noise and annoying it dreadfully. It tried many ways to escape with its prey, now soaring up and then coming suddenly down, again darting swiftly in one direction next plunging round and making for the opposite, but all to no purpose. Its tormentors would not leave it alone. At last, exhausted it dropped the fish, which was instantly caught up by another kite, to its great relief for its tormentors now turned their attention to the talons of the second captor and left it alone. Once free, it alighted on a tree and perched to rest. An Avadhuta who was watching the birds, seeing the kite at last perch itself serenely on a tree, bowed to it and exclaimed "Oh what peace and happiness attend upon him who shakes off all attractions and burdens and becomes free! What danger otherwise !" * * * When shall I be free? When that "I" has vanished. "I and mine" is ignorance: "Thou and Thine" is knowledge. The saint would say, "Thou, O Lord, art the Doer (Karta)." * * * What is called the "mischievous I"? The "I" which says, "What! Don't they know me? I have so much money! Who is so wealthy as myself? Who dares to surpass me?" * * * By acquiring the conviction that all is done by the will of god, one becomes only a tool in His hand. Then one is free, even in this life. "Thou doest Thy work, men say, "I do it." * * * Even when we are blinded by the fulfillment of every worldly desire there may arise in us the question, "Who am I to enjoy all this?" This may be the moment in which begins a revelation of the secret. * * * Think always to yourself in this wise: "These family concerns are not mine, they are God's and I am His servant. I am here to obey His wishes." When this idea becomes firm, there remains nothing which a man may call his own. * * * As a vessel that has held garlic paste retains the odor, even after it is washed, so also lingers egotism even in the nature that has been purified by knowledge. * * * In making delicate weighing one has to shake the balance from time to time to see whether the oscillating needle will every time come back to the middle point; if it does not do so, the weightment is incorrect. Similarly, one must test oneself from time to time to see whether he has conquered his lower self. * * * When the idea has been perfectly assimilated, the man will retain only the appearance of having the feelings and impulses of his own. Even if the egotism of the servant or the worshipper should remain, he who has attained to God can hurt none. The who sting of personality has vanished. The sword has become gold by the touch of the philosopher's stone. It keeps its form but cannot wound again. SRI RAMAKRISHNA [1836-1886] Sri Ramakrishna, who was born in 1836 and passed away in 1886, represents the very core of the spiritual realizations of the seers and sages of India. His whole life was literally an uninterrupted contemplation of God. He reached a depth of God-consciousness that transcends all time and place and has a universal appeal. Seekers of God of all religions feel irresistibly drawn to his life and teachings. Sri Ramakrishna, as a silent force, influences the spiritual thought currents of our time. He is a figure of recent history and his life and teachings have not yet been obscured by loving legends and doubtful myths. Through his God-intoxicated life Sri Ramakrishna proved that the revelation of God takes place at all times and that God-realization is not the monopoly of any particular age, country, or people. In him, deepest spirituality and broadest catholicity stood side by side. The God-man of nineteenth-century India did not found any cult, nor did he show a new path to salvation. His message was his God-consciousness. When God-consciousness falls short, traditions become dogmatic and oppressive and religious teachings lose their transforming power. At a time when the very foundation of religion, faith in God, was crumbling under the relentless blows of materialism and skepticism, Sri Ramakrishna, through his burning spiritual realizations, demonstrated beyond doubt the reality of God and the validity of the time-honored teachings of all the prophets and saviors of the past, and thus restored the falling edifice of religion on a secure foundation. Drawn by the magnetism of Sri Ramakrishna's divine personality, people flocked to him from far and near -- men and women, young and old, philosophers and theologians, philanthropists and humanists, atheists and agnostics, Hindus and Brahmos, Christians and Muslims, seekers of truth of all races, creeds and castes. His small room in the Dakshineswar temple garden on the outskirts of the city of Calcutta became a veritable parliament of religions. Everyone who came to him felt uplifted by his profound God-consciousness, boundless love, and universal outlook. Each seeker saw in him the highest manifestation of his own ideal. By coming near him the impure became pure, the pure became purer, and the sinner was transformed into a saint. The greatest contribution of Sri Ramakrishna to the modern world is his message of the harmony of religions. To Sri Ramakrishna all religions are the revelation of God in His diverse aspects to satisfy the manifold demands of human minds. Like different photographs of a building taken from different angles, different religions give us the pictures of one truth from different standpoints. They are not contradictory but complementary. Sri Ramakrishna faithfully practiced the spiritual disciplines of different religions and came to the realization that all of them lead to the same goal. Thus he declared, "As many faiths, so many paths." The paths vary, but the goal remains the same. Harmony of religions is not uniformity; it is unity in diversity. It is not a fusion of religions, but a fellowship of religions based on their common goal -- communion with God. This harmony is to be realized by deepening our individual God-consciousness. In the present-day world, threatened by nuclear war and torn by religious intolerance, Sri Ramakrishna's message of harmony gives us hope and shows the way. May his life and teachings ever inspire us. Just because someone does not belong to our school of thoughts, that does not mean they are false saints. Just because someone ate non-vegetarian at some time point in their life again does not mean they are not pure in their minds. For that matter, rishis of the past were also eating meat at times. Viswamithra Rishi was a Kshathriya by birth and was eating meat and had sexual life before he meditated and became a brahma rishi and realsied the Supreme Brahman. Ramakrishna Paramahamsa although married was a total celebate out of his bakthi towards Durga Devi. He did inspire many people towards path of spirituality. I think it is not right to comment blatantly on a spiritual personality. I honestly did not expect this from administrator of this site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghavan Posted August 7, 2004 Report Share Posted August 7, 2004 The above content was from the following site which I forgot to mention. http://www.hssworld.org/homepage/html/boudhik/ekatmata_stotra/ramakrishna.html Regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2004 Report Share Posted August 7, 2004 Why is it a lie? Because you say so? Because the truth of the matter is in the letters written by the Ashta-matha swamis. This is the third time I have said this - are you always this Dense? mAdhva leaders do acknowledge the connection, as I have shown by providing the relevant links." To which I gave the following link which you obviously do not wish to read, As I mentioned before, I got an error message when I tried to open it. so I shall quote a few snippets: http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml "Sri Sri Pejavara Swamiji seems to mock the carefully crafted Position Paper that was created by the scholars of his own institution under the learned guidance of the late Sri Sri Vidyâmânya Tîrtha of the Palimar Matha, and promises another statement in its stead to restore ``harmonious relations.'' We fail to understand his concern -- was Tattvavâda propagated by Srîmad Ânanda Tîrtha to achieve ``harmonious relations'' with other schools, or was it simply the Truth? " Now, your claim is that all leaders and scholars of the Madhva tradition claim a connection. The above proves obviously not. The swami of the Palimar Matha and the scholars who helped with article obviously thought otherwise. What exactly are you trying to prove? Those are Srisha Rao's words, not the words of the Pejavar Swami. Srisha Rao is admitting his difference of opinion with the Pejavar Swami. The difference of opinion between the Astha-matha swamis and Srisha Rao et. al. could not be more obvious. Are you really this much of a moron? Where in the above paragraph is your proof the mAdhva leaders do not accept the gaudiiya connection with them? You have just shown the opposite - that Srisha Rao et. al. are in obvious disagreement with the Astha-matha swamis. Hence my position earlier - Srisha Rao and his gang do not speak for the mAdhva community. Srisha Rao's claims to have crafted his "position paper" with the assistance of certain unnamed "scholars" is just that - a claim. None of these "scholars" have stepped forward to identify themselves. On the other hand, the names on the position paper are all those of Cyber Madhva Sanga members, not leaders in the Mathas. As far as the late Vidyamanya TIrtha is concerned, it certainly is convenient to drag his name into the mud, since His Holiness is not around to deny anything. All very convenient. Define "full-time" devotee. Well, let's see now. Is a person who has taken to the sannyAsa ashrama, studied the shAstras according to the traditional system within the Mathas, and who is recognized as a leader in the mAdhva community a full time devotee? Or is a person who takes ritual initiation at the age of 12, then goes to private English-medium school so that he can can get into an IIT and find a money-making job in in Amerika, and who posts his matrimonial ads on sulekha.com a full-time devotee? Hmm, I think the answer there is obvious. But I cannot do your thinking for you. But the website *references the works and articles of the leaders*. But the article under specific contention does not refer to the opinions of any of the leaders of the mAdhva community, or for that matter any specific AcArya in the past who has addressed the issue of the paramparA connection. This is really getting quite tiresome. I have more than adequately addressed your "objections." You seem more interested in believing in a particular conclusion rather than troubling yourself with whether or not it is the truth. But the Palimar Swami was in a position of power. So far, there is no evidence that the Palimar Swami was consulted on that piece, other than Srisha Rao's claim that he was. Certainly I see no evidence that the Palimar Swami has stepped forward and said anything one way or another. Have you any evidence to the contrary? What about the other Ashta-matha swamis? Why have you not addressed their letters? Is it because they disagree with your conclusion that you deliberately ignore them? Your whole claim to put the Madhvas that do not claim a connection aside, is that they are not "full-time" devotees and that they are only "Madhvas in a formal sense". Both those classifications must have come from ISCKON, it being famous for pulling terms out of the hat. There are Madhva Brahmanas today in India who live as householders and have jobs, maybe even IT Professionals. That does not make them any less Madhva, except ofcourse in your mind. Ahh, now I am starting to understand. This is about your inferiority complex vis-a-vis ISKCON, is it not? Poor baby. Let me clarify for you - I am not an ISKCON member and will never be. My interest in this matter is purely based on the principle of maintaining truthful dialogue, which your hate speech is stunningly devoid of. Rubbish. That's not what you claimed before. If you go back to your original post, you claimed that: "The PoornapragyAna VidyapIta has explicitly disavowed any official connection with them." You claimed that there was no connection with *them*, not the article at hand. My point is that there is indeed a connection, for otherwise, why would the letter by the Pejavara Swami be made available to them? I gave you the link to which you have conveniently avoided. I want you to show me a reference to where the Madhva leaders have "disavowed" as you claim, the website and its owners. Disagreeing with *certain, specific* contents of the website does not consititute disavowing them. If the leaders had "disavowed" this website, why did the Palimar Swami send facisimile images of his Ashirvachana to the them? (See link below) Stop fooling yourself into thinking that the owners of the website have no connection with the leaders of the Madhva tradition. One cannot sing classical music to a donkey and expect him to applaud. I cannot prove to you what is obvious to everyone else, when you simply refuse to see the facts. But nevertheless, here is another quote, this time from the Shiroor Swami, also found at http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/udupi/index.html: Sri Shiroor Mutt, Udupi Jadadguru Sri Sri Madhwacharya Peethan Udupi, South Candra Friend of our Samsthanam Poojya Sri Narasingha Swamy Sri Narasingha Chaitanya Mutt, Sri Rangapatna, Mysore Ref: Re: Mispropoganda in www.Dvaita.org between "Sri Madhwacharya and Chaitanya Pantha." Sri Chaitanya Sampradaya is a branch of Madhwa philosophy. there are historic proofs to substantiate this fact. The sadhana achieved by Sri A. C. Prabhupada, Acharya of "Chaitanya Sampradaya" is to be welcomed by all Vaishnavites. It is due to him people all over the world have learned about Lord Krishna. This work should have been accomplished by Madhwa followers. But Prabhupada has served the world in propagating this cult. Even in the western world he has attracted a large number of devotees of Lord Krishna, through his discourse on "Bhagavat Geeta." The book on "Bhagavat Geeta" of Sri Prabhupada is allowed to be sold in front of Krishna Mandira at Udupi. This fact is known to all eight mutts of Udupi. As well as all devotees of Udupi Kshetra. Therefore, the blame cast on Sri Prabhupada is to be deemed as the blame on Sri Hari, Vayu and Guru. This type of behavior is not to be found in a brahmin. As such, it is a bad affair to note that a Vaishnava has exhibited such a behavior. Such contradictory statements do create split in the Vaishnava Society and do not promote any good on the Society. Therefore we oppose the points relayed through the website. Sri Laksmivara Tirtha Swami It really does not any clearer than this, nameless one. Because they back their opinions with clear, sound arguments based on Madhvas own works. Because they are born Madhvas, many of whom have learnt the Madhva sastra very well. You obviously have not really digested that paper. Here is an example (from section 4.2) of what constitutes an "argument" in that paper: There are other concepts based essentially on Brahma Vaivarta Purâna allegedly glorifying Râdhâ as superior even to Lakshmî (eternal consort of the Lord), the superior position of Goloka, etc. None of these find a place in Tattvavâda, and these quotes are all equally bogus. Note the problems: 1) It attributes a view to its opponent, but does not verify whether or not the opponent actually says this. This is known as creating a strawman. 2) It argues that certain purAnic pramAnas quoted by the opponent are "bogus," based solely on the fact that they are not quoted by tattvavAdi AcAryas. 3) It does not even give the specific pramAnas which are disputed. 4) It gives no objective reason why the pramAnas in question are "bogus." In other words, this paper makes no attempt to conceal its sectarian bias. In the world of vedAnta, one wins arguments by detached reasoning, not by ramming one's personal beliefs down one's throat. But by all means, if Srisha Rao is your personal hero, don't trouble yourself to worry about such concerns. Vaishava traditions are not the only traditions within Hinduism. You stated that the Bhagavatam was mainstream "Hindu", not Vaishnava. Go check your previous post. You just argued that there were other Vaishnava traditions in your feeble attempt to claim that the bhAgavata was not mainstream. Now that I have pointed out their acceptance of this text, you change your line - sure there are other Vaishnavas, but suddenly they don't count anymore. I really do not see the point of continuing this discussion, since you just keep changing the subject. From the Manu Smriti, which can be found at: So wait, I thought Manu Smriti was not a mainstream text. Is it acceptable pramAna or is it not? Make up your mind. Note, in the last verse, that even though abstention may bring rewards, eating meat is **not considered a sin**. When you ignore context, you can make anything look true. Those references you provided refer to the taking of flesh in sacrifice. This is obvious from context. But the conclusion in that chapter is clearly that meat-eating (outside of sacrifice) is sinful, and that one should abstain from all kinds of meat-eating. Or else how do you explain this: yAvanti pashuromANi tAvatkRtvo ha mAraNam | vRthApashughnaH prApnoti pretya janmani janmani || MS 5.38 || As many hairs as the slain beast has, so often indeed will he who killed it without a (lawful) reason suffer a violent death in future births (manu smRti 5.38). Or this: anumantA vishasitA nihantA krayavikrayI | saMskartA copahartA ca khAdakashceti ghAtakAH || MS 5.51 || He who permits (the slaughter of an animal), he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells (meat), he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, (must all be considered as) the slayers (of the animal) (manu smR^iti 5.51). or this: samutpattiM ca mAMsasya vadhabandhau ca dehinAm | prasamIkShya nivarteta sarvamAMsasya bhakShaNAt || MS 5.49 || Having well considered the (disgusting) origin of flesh and the (cruelty of) fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh (manu-smR^iti 5.49). What is your answer to these straightforward statements, oh angry one? They very clearly indicate that meat-eating is cruel, that killing an animal (whether it is the act of killing, of sellling the meat, of eating the meat, etc) leads to punishment in the next life. Manu says this in spite of his earlier endorsement of animal sacrifice. It does not get clearer than this. Angry Hindus like yourself do not object to vegetarianism because you want to setup big Vedic sacrifices by which you can sacrifice animals and take their flesh. You object because you want to be able to walk into a restaurant, have yourself a chicken, and not feel guilty about it. Well I am sorry to say that such casual consumption of meat is clearly condemned. Despite your attempts to misdirect this conversation, ignore contrary evidence, and in short, make a complete fool out of yourself, you have not shown anything contrary to this fact. For what it is worth, you can eat whatever dogs, squids, or whatever you want. I really do not care. I just ask that you stop misrepresenting the shAstric position just to conceal your petty weaknesses. As far as I am concerned, this "conversation" is pretty much over. I am not in the habit of carrying on a philosophical discussion with someone who is motivated by politics. Discussions must be carried out with individuals who are motivated to get at the truth, not people like you who only see what they want to see. Raghu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghavan Posted August 7, 2004 Report Share Posted August 7, 2004 Well..I am also from India and you can recognise from my name itself...I have few clarifications here. I do agree that meat eating is a practice in India, and many Hindus eat meat including brahmins of west bengal where fish eating is still common. While I dont have enough internet links as evidence to quote, but I have sufficently read that our puraanas were tampered enough. Moreover puraanas were told in the form of story tailored with regular life too in some aspect and hence characters appeared in puranaas as per their nature of profession were described to have their food habits. I am not sure if all these can be taken as an example of shastras since they were all written in sanskrit that was the spoken language of those times. So quoting these as example to justify meat eating does not seem to be right. While it is true that there are different modes of hinduism in India, all these were started much later probably in the kali yuga after the division of saivism and vaishnavism started. Bakthi is classified as three types primarily. Asura Bakthi, Rajo bakthi and saathvika bakthi. Asura Bakthi is form of worship where people torture themselves physically and hurt themselves towards satisfying the Supreme which is common in less spiritually evolved group of people (irrespective of their social background) This is spoken in Gita by Shree Krishna. This form of Bakthi is not inferior, since they worship still different form of shree Hari, but not highest form of bakthi in real sense as per Gita itself, because this form of bakthi involves asking God for material gains and existence finally culminating in reincarnation of the soul in material world again and again. People who fall under this category generously have their different life styles based on their economical background and yes they do eat meat on one side, offer it to God also and this is mentioned in our puranas in different areas when the respective story is told. Rajo Bakthi is moderate form or the intermediate level of Bakthi in which people do not torture themselves to such an extent, but idol worship or temple worship and following rituals and ceremonies are done again for the sake of spiritual gain coupled with material gains primarily. This form of bakthi is something common among almost all religious group of people since time immemorial to present where people pray to God for different things at different times. This bakthi is referred to as bakthi in mode of passion, and hence it is not considered highest form of spiritual renunciation as there is reincarnation again and again of the soul in material world due to the wants and desires the soul possess. Again people of different class follow this and have their life styles with both meat eating and non meating type. Sathvika Bakthi is highest form of Bakthi, where the individual meditates on The Supreme Brahman without any material gains and one who becomes neutral with everything. this form of Bakthi is considered highest form. while the puranas are told in story form to explain the essence in interesting way, we should not deviate our mind on the story aspect and start goofing around sayint that Skandha/Karthikeya has two wives, and so whats wrong in having more than one spouse, Agasthya rishi ate meat (vaathapi Jeeranobhava) and so there is nothing wrong if I eat meat etc etc., is not right. While it is not possible for everyone to be born as Shankara or Ramanuja, to be spiritually renounced from young age, spiritual development should come by age and as we realise, one has to to give up their habits of eating meat, sexual desires and material desires, for us to proceed towards the highest level of spiritual maturity. This is the ultimate essence of all the puranas told in story form. Unfortunately many hindus either dont read the Gita or take the raw matter of the puranas and leave the essence. I also would blame the movie makers who make movies out of every puranas from their level of understanding without giving much importance to the crux and so for the people who dont read or understand every purana what remains in mind is only the story part and not the essence of the story. Well..one this that is glad is, there is some way or other way of relgion mixed with day today life of Indians that keep them morally and socially disticnt from the rest of the world. It also keeps them distinct in their quarrel due to different level of understandings. Since the whole essence of Mahabaratha remain in Gita as its crux, in its clear and pure form, why not we try to follow as told by Baghwan in Gita rather than trying to follow the Kshatriya's personal life during which time whether they ate meat or not. Ultimately baghwan says dont eat meat. dont have illicit sex....Follow the mode of goodness to reach Baghwan....rather than mode of passion and ignorance.....So lets follow that giving up the rest of the story... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2004 Report Share Posted August 7, 2004 As I showed in my previous post, you very aptly say things and then change the words when replied to. One very obvious example is your change from "mainstream Hindu" to just "mainstream" in your previous post. You have again done the same thing in this post. **Stick to your words and mine** when you reply. I will show how you have changed your words and mine again in this post. You can't say one thing once and then claim you said another when replied to. Also, **read my posts carefully**. Your replies are obviously haughty and you are replying to your own imagined version of my remarks. Lets see.... You stated: "What exactly are you trying to prove? Those are Srisha Rao's words, not the words of the Pejavar Swami." What I was trying to prove was that the Position paper has the approval of the the swami of the Palimar Matha. You stated: "Are you really this much of a moron?" No, but I get the feeling I am replying to one right now. You stated: "As far as the late Vidyamanya TIrtha is concerned, it certainly is convenient to drag his name into the mud, since His Holiness is not around to deny anything. All very convenient. " That does not prove that he did not condone the paper. And that is my point, that he was a leader, and that he condoned it. And I am sure he had those around him such as his disciples who knew of his condoning. If not, would you not think that they would have raised concerns with his name being stated as such? You stated: "Well, let's see now. Is a person who has taken to the sannyAsa ashrama, studied the shAstras according to the traditional system within the Mathas, and who is recognized as a leader in the mAdhva community a full time devotee? Or is a person who takes ritual initiation at the age of 12, then goes to private English-medium school so that he can can get into an IIT and find a money-making job in in Amerika, and who posts his matrimonial ads on sulekha.com a full-time devotee? Hmm, I think the answer there is obvious." No its not. You were the one who came up with this "full-time" devotee designation, not me, so its not obvious. Also, if you are going to make personal references, you might as well name the person, because I have no idea who you are talking about. You stated: "So far, there is no evidence that the Palimar Swami was consulted on that piece, other than Srisha Rao's claim that he was. Certainly I see no evidence that the Palimar Swami has stepped forward and said anything one way or another. Have you any evidence to the contrary?" Have you any evidence that he did not come forward? You Stated: "What about the other Ashta-matha swamis? Why have you not addressed their letters? Is it because they disagree with your conclusion that you deliberately ignore them?" No, I have not ignored them. But I am going against your statement that *all* leaders and scholars of the Madhva tradition claim a connection. You stated: "Ahh, now I am starting to understand. This is about your inferiority complex vis-a-vis ISKCON, is it not?" Nope. How can anyone feel inferior vis-a-vis ISKCON? You stated: "Poor baby. Let me clarify for you - I am not an ISKCON member and will never be. My interest in this matter is purely based on the principle of maintaining truthful dialogue, which your hate speech is stunningly devoid of." Again, pray tell, where was my hate speech? Was it not you who just called me "moron", and "dense"? Also, for someone propounding truth, you do tell alot of lies and switch your words during arguments don't you? You state: "One cannot sing classical music to a donkey and expect him to applaud." I see, and you think that *my* speech is hate-filled do you? Anyways, since you mentioned the above, I promise not to sing classical music to you, since you yourself claim that you will not applaud. You state: " I cannot prove to you what is obvious to everyone else, when you simply refuse to see the facts......." Again, why don't you just reply to the issue at hand instead of going on your own fanciful tangent? Let' see, I replied with the following: "Rubbish. That's not what you claimed before. If you go back to your original post, you claimed that: "The PoornapragyAna VidyapIta has explicitly disavowed any official connection with them." You claimed that there was no connection with *them*, not the article at hand. My point is that there is indeed a connection, for otherwise, why would the letter by the Pejavara Swami be made available to them? I gave you the link to which you have conveniently avoided. I want you to show me a reference to where the Madhva leaders have "disavowed" as you claim, the website and its owners. Disagreeing with *certain, specific* contents of the website does not consititute disavowing them. If the leaders had "disavowed" this website, why did the Palimar Swami send facisimile images of his Ashirvachana to the them? (See link below) Stop fooling yourself into thinking that the owners of the website have no connection with the leaders of the Madhva tradition." None of my points in the above reply were addressed by you, instead, you start talking of donkeys and music. If you can't argue, don't say anything, no need for donkeys and music. You state: "You obviously have not really digested that paper. Here is an example (from section 4.2) of what constitutes an "argument" in that paper:" Thank you for your clarification, albeit it being a load of rubbish. You state: "You just argued that there were other Vaishnava traditions in your feeble attempt to claim that the bhAgavata was not mainstream." Now this is what I'm talking about. Are you dumb or deaf? This reply was to my statement: "Vaishava traditions are not the only traditions within Hinduism. You stated that the Bhagavatam was mainstream "Hindu", not Vaishnava. Go check your previous post." How in the world did you deduce that I argued that there are other Vaishnava traditions from that statement, and even so, what has that got to do with the statement I made? And again, even after repeated references to your posts where you were claiming "mainstream Hinduism", you still say "mainstream". Either you are stupid or you are trying to save face and wiggle around what you had previously said. Let me again quote what you had said: "Meat-eating is explicitly declared to be sinful in many mainstream Hindu scriptures, including the bhAgavata purANa, manu-dharma-shAstra, and others." Have you got it through your thick skull yet? You see the word "Hindu" there? I did not write it, YOU did. Let me repeat, the bhagavatham is not mainstream "Hindu" scripture as you claim. I am not disagreeing that it maybe mainstream "Vaishnava", but it is not mainstream "Hindu". Stick to your words, and stop twisting them around. You state: "Now that I have pointed out their acceptance of this text, you change your line - sure there are other Vaishnavas, but suddenly they don't count anymore." Where did I say that? Stop putting words in my mouth. Where have you pointed out the acceptance of bhagatham as a "hindu" scripture? Remember, you used the word "Hindu", not me, now when caught, you conveniently side step your earlier words. Who are you trying to kid? Anyone who goes through this thread can go and see exactly what you have said. You state: "I really do not see the point of continuing this discussion" A wise choice indeed. Since you are cornered by your own statements, its best you retire instead of making more a fool out of yourself. You state: "So wait, I thought Manu Smriti was not a mainstream text. Is it acceptable pramAna or is it not? Make up your mind." Alright, again, lets see, can you show me exactly in all the posts I have exchanged with you, where exactly I have stated that the Manu Smriti is not a mainstream text? The posts are there for all to see. So go look them up and tell me exactly where I state that the Manu Smriti is not a mainstream Hindu text. Like I said, stick to your words and mine. Don't put words in my mouth. You state: "When you ignore context, you can make anything look true. Those references you provided refer to the taking of flesh in sacrifice." Is that so? So you agree to the fact that flesh can be taken in sacrifice. Even so, Let's see.. "27. One may eat meat when it has been sprinkled with water, while Mantras were recited, when Brahmanas desire (one's doing it), when one is engaged (in the performance of a rite) according to the law, and when one's life is in danger." Now, if the context is only sacrifice, then the reference to when one's life is in danger has to be in sacrifice right? Now, explain to me how in a sacrifice that one's life may be in danger? Also: "56. There is no sin in eating meat, in (drinking) spirituous liquor, and in carnal intercourse, for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstention brings great rewards." If this is also a reference to eating meat in a sacrifice, then the reference to drinking liquor and carnal intercourse also has to be a reference to a sacrifice. Can you tell me which sacrifice includes drinking liquor and carnal intercourse? You state: "But the conclusion in that chapter is clearly that meat-eating (outside of sacrifice) is sinful, and that one should abstain from all kinds of meat-eating. Or else how do you explain this: yAvanti pashuromANi tAvatkRtvo ha mAraNam | vRthApashughnaH prApnoti pretya janmani janmani || MS 5.38 || As many hairs as the slain beast has, so often indeed will he who killed it without a (lawful) reason suffer a violent death in future births (manu smRti 5.38)." The words "lawful reason" include killing for food. You state: "Or this: He who permits (the slaughter of an animal), he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells (meat), he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, (must all be considered as) the slayers (of the animal) (manu smR^iti 5.51)." There is no objection here. Do you see the word "Sinful" used for the slayers of the animals above? You Stated: "Or this: Having well considered the (disgusting) origin of flesh and the (cruelty of) fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh (manu-smR^iti 5.49)." Again, no objection. Do you see the word "sinful" in the above verse? In fact, this verse goes perfectly with this one which although states that rewards may be inherited from abstinance from meat, *there is no sin in it*: 56. There is no sin in eating meat, in (drinking) spirituous liquor, and in carnal intercourse, for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstention brings great rewards. The above verse comes *after* your stated verses, so don't go claiming that your verses form the conclusion of the chapter. You state: "What is your answer to these straightforward statements, oh angry one?" Check them out above. Like I said, there is Shastra that condones meat-eating and there is Shastra that does not. People like you take the portions you like and try to paint a different picture of the Vedic lore. You state: "Angry Hindus like yourself do not object to vegetarianism because you want to...*****Much rubbish deleted***" It is quite amazing that you seem to think you know everything about me. Perhaps it is this stupid facet of yours that keeps working when you put words in my mouth and twist your own words. You state: "As far as I am concerned, this "conversation" is pretty much over." Again, a wise choice given your poor and lieing response to my statements. I don't think you can cover up what I exposed in your statements and lies above, so its best to runaway now. You state: "Discussions must be carried out with individuals who are motivated to get at the truth, not people like you who only see what they want to see." If only you could apply the above statemnent to yourself. You seem to see alot of just what you want to see. If you do decide to reply, reply to the specific points I have raised. You have conveniently avoided many questions and points from my previous post. Also, remember, stick to your own words and mine. Don't make a fool out of yourself. 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.