The Hindufication of ISKCON

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna

 

Guestji, if members of iskcon or some other vaishnavas do not prefer to be identified by the term hindu then why do you object.

 

What does shastra say? It says follow Dharma. The Gita begins with Dharma shestre.

 

 

 

Therefore one should prefer to be identified as followers of sanatana-dharma or bhagavat-dharma.

 

Hindu Dharma by inference means one who follows Dharma as laid down in Vedic shastra.

 

 

 

Different people interpret the Vedic scriptures in different ways ranging from vaishnavas, advaitists, shaivas, shaktas etc. and the differences between them are not small. In the bhagavata dharma, vaishnavism is understood as the nature of soul and thus that is preferred over other designations.

 

It does not matter if the word Hindu gets dropped, nothing will change; we still would be bickering whose path is better.

 

 

 

The culture of shastrArtha is ancient, very healthy and infinitely superior to blind believing in something which is pleasing. You call it bickering; the alternatives are much worse.

 

haribol

[Guest guest]

Jai Ganesh

Re

(Guestji, if members of iskcon or some other vaishnavas do not prefer to be identified by the term hindu then why do you object.)

 

I have no problem what so ever, have a look at the title of the thread, problem is not mine.

 

 

Re

(Therefore one should prefer to be identified as followers of sanatana-dharma or bhagavat-dharma.)

 

Preference is nothing to do with the reality as it present it self.

Dharma is the operative word, which is what I prefer to follow, every thing else pales in to insignificance.

Hindu Dharma by inference means one who follows Dharma as laid down in Vedic shastra.

Now you may not want to identify for what ever reason with the word Hindu that is not a problem, some one here is suggesting that it is a Body or it is not a religion, that is what I object to.

 

 

 

Re

(Different people interpret the Vedic scriptures in different ways ranging from vaishnavas, advaitists, shaivas, shaktas etc. and the differences between them are not small. In the bhagavata dharma, vaishnavism is understood as the nature of soul and thus that is preferred over other designations.)

 

Differences are well understood by the vedic people it is nothing new, The nature of the soul does not change the names.

 

Re

(The culture of shastrArtha is ancient, very healthy and infinitely superior to blind believing in something which is pleasing. You call it bickering; the alternatives are much worse.)

 

I have no idea what you are trying to say here therefore I shell pretend I did not see this.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna

 

 

Preference is nothing to do with the reality as it present it self.

Dharma is the operative word, which is what I prefer to follow, every thing else pales in to insignificance.

Hindu Dharma by inference means one who follows Dharma as laid down in Vedic shastra.

 

 

 

You seem to think that advaitists or shaivas or shaktas etc. are all valid paths following vedic teachings. However, none of the accepted acharyas agrees with you; vaishnava acharyas including Sripad Ramanuja, Sripad Madhva, or Vallabhacharya etc. all said that without devotion to Sri Hari there is no possibility of reaching the ultimate goal and that advaitism or shaivism etc. are opposed to vedic conclusions. Similarly advaitins claim that Sri Hari is subject to Maya and devotion works only to a point, beyond which only jnana (in the way they explain Truth) works. Acharyas in both philosophies have engaged in extensive philosophical debates to establish their conclusions, and both sides do not agree with you that both philosophies are (simultaneously) correct vedic dharma. The question here is of what is the vedic dharma in the first place. As you say the reality that presents itself is that all those who follow any interpretation of the vedas call themselves hindu (and even some of those who do not accept vedic scriptures); vaishnavas accept bhagavata dharma as the true vedic dharma and that is what they would identify themselves as. You interpret hindu dharma as synonymous to vedic dharma; others see it differently and the reality is that the word hindu is applied to all whether or not their philosophy actually is vedic -- as i said the opinion of vaishnava acharyas is that advaita/shaiva/... are not vedic and same is the case with others following other philosophical lines.

 

 

The nature of the soul does not change the names.

 

 

 

I do not see what you try to say here. The opinion of vaishnava acharyas is that the eternal nature of anu-chit jiva soul is to render devotional service to the vibhu-chit Sri Hari, and that this is the conclusion of Vedic scriptures. Advaitins do not agree with this position, neither do shaivas/shaktas etc. Either vaishnava acharyas are right or else they are not; it is not logical to say that all are right simultaneously. The names of Sri Hari or Shiva are those of distinct personalities; to say that all are Supreme is opposed to logic and vedic scriptures. Consequently if someone claims that all these different groups are following the vedic dharma then it is opposed to the teachings of the respective groups themselves for they hold that the other groups are misrepresenting the vedic scriptures.

[Guest guest]

Jai Ganesh

 

Hare Krishna

 

I am not here to discuss the sidhanta or defend them; I entered the discussion because of the slur on the Hindus. Every time I have entered my post the discussion has changed and now you further change to sidhanta of each group. Who am I to judge? You do not seem to have any problem if I were to advocate Christianity or Islam because that would be politically correct, it seems that you have god given right to judge other Vedic sidhanta as non Vedic.How Vedic is Semitic religion?

 

Re

( as i said the opinion of vaishnava acharyas is that advaita/shaiva/... are not vedic and same is the case with others following other philosophical lines.)

 

Opinion turns in to conclusion. Where does veda conclude, it says neti, neti.

 

He is not knowable by perception, turned inward or outward, nor by both combined.

He is neither that which is known, nor that which is not known, nor is he the sum of all that might be known.

He can not be seen, grasped, bargained with.

He is undefineable, unthinkable, indescribable.

The only proof of his existence is union with him.

He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.

This is the fourth condition of the self- the most worthy of all. (Mandukya Upanishad)

 

Whose standard do you apply as accepted acharya? Was Shankracharya not an accepted Archya?

Is Shiva and Shakti worship some thing new ? My dear friend oldest known temples are of Lord Shiva. Lord krishna Asked Pandavas to worship Lord Shiva to atone for sins commited in the war, was that unvedic?

 

 

 

((The nature of the soul does not change the names.))

I meant to say the nature does not change by the names we give.

 

Re

(The names of Sri Hari or Shiva are those of distinct personalities; to say that all are Supreme is opposed to logic and vedic scriptures. Consequently if someone claims that all these different groups are following the vedic dharma then it is opposed to the teachings of the respective groups themselves for they hold that the other groups are misrepresenting the vedic scriptures.)

 

We use the logic to understand that which is beyond logic. We bind him in our little enviroment and declare everyone else as wrong how logical is that?

 

Vedas proclaim

Indram mitram varuNam agnim ãhuh,

atho divyah sa suparNo garutmãn,

ekam sad viprãh bahudhã vadanti,

agnim yamam mãtarišvãnam ãhuh.

(They hail Him as Indra, as Mitra, as VaruNa, as Agni, also as that divine and noble-winged Garutmãn. It is of One Existence that the wise ones speak in diverse ways, whether as Agni, or as Yama, or as Mãtarišvãn.)

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Konstantin]

Ha!

Folks, it seems to be typically western problem.

We reject mysticism, we fight against Ayurveda...

And what's about sanskrit? - Oh, no, prabhu... that leads you to nama-aparadhas.

There's nothing bad about hinduisation. Our problem is phylosofic weakness and ignorance.

Are we able to preach to the Christians? - I guess we are.

But why can't we preach to the Hindus?

 

Is Ganesh Krishna's enemy?

 

Take their rupees with your sweet smile and give them a lot of books.

 

Regards from sunny Siberia.

God bless you all.

[krsna]

 

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[vijay]

In Srila Prabhupada's purports, a few times he has commented upon the Mayavadi, or Impersonalists, in a way that to me sometimes seems very disparaging.

 

It¹s important to understand this within the context of Indian religious history, and not within the context of Western religious history. Here¹s the difference.

 

In India, we don¹t find a long history of bloody wars fought over religion. Indian religion has always tended to be inclusivistic, rather than exclusivistic. Thus the different ³religions² in Hindu culture tended to accept each other as valid but to view other schools as subordinate or preliminary to their own view.

 

Following this tradition, Srila Prabhupada often states that the impersonalists are ³bona fide transcendentalists² but that their impersonal understanding is subordinate or preliminary to Vaishnavism.

 

This is quite distinct from, say, declaring that impersonalism is simply false and evil. Robust theological debate flourished in India within a safe, multi-religious environment in which debate was not a precursor to war.

 

All this stands in marked contrast to the bloody fanaticism which often typified the European and Middle Eastern approach to religion. The early Chrisitian church developed the notion of ³true² and ³false² religions, ³living² and ³dead² gods etc. In time, this strident, fanatical view led to crusades, inquisitions, religious wars etc. This type of thinking, and the violence it fostered, never became prominent in India.

 

Today, much of the liberal, eclectic, ³all paths are the same² ethos in the West is a direct reaction to centuries of European and Middle Eastern fanaticism. Thus as in Newtonian physics, we have here an equal and opposite reaction which is far more tolerant, but equally fanatical in its own way.

 

In general, liberal thinkers in the West do not reason their way to the conclusion that all paths are equally valid. Rather they tend to hold their view more as an ethical principle than a philosophical conclusion, more as an antidote to fanaticism than a serious, logical description of ultimate reality. Coming from a tolerant, inclusivistic culture, Prabhupada does not feel the need to emphasize the relativity of spiritual views, but rather rigorously seeks the logical truth about God.

 

 

I understand the basics of the Impersonalist beliefs, and I know how Vaishnavism and Krishna consciousness are different from them. I, personally, prefer Vaishnava beliefs and bhakti yoga to worshiping a formless God. But I'm unsettled by anything that seems to be a value judgment against another religion.

 

A preference IS a value judgment. The problem here, apparently, is not making a value judgment but rather making it publicly. It is fair to say that both the personal and the impersonal aspects of God exist simultaneously. However it is not fair, or logical, to say that both the personal and the impersonal aspects of God are supreme simultaneously.

 

A soul who sincerely, earnestly seeks the highest truth has a ³right² to know what that ultimate truth is. If I actually know that God is ultimately a person, and I don¹t publicly say it, then I am consciously misleading or deceiving those persons who sincerely and unconditionally seek the highest truth.

 

 

If I prefer bhakti yoga and being lovingly devoted to Krishna but an Impersonalist prefers something different, then what's wrong with that?

 

It is not ³wrong², in a mundane moral sense to prefer the impersonal. In a sense every soul prefers whatever seems best to that soul. Prabhupada never teaches that impersonalists are evil souls, however he does give deep insights into metaphysical psychology.

 

If there is a personal God, and I am duly informed of this fact, and I choose to reject that personal God, it is not then ³wrong² for an enlightened spiritual teacher to analyze my motives in making that decision. After all, if there is a unique value in knowing

God¹s ultimate nature, then there must, logically, be a loss of value in not knowing that fact.

 

To avoid that monumental loss, Prabhupada, who actually has the ultimate good of all souls at heart, speaks the truth. We cannot a priori reject his words simply because he does not relativize all spiritual claims. After all, to relativize all spiritual claims is to negate all of them. Consider the following:

 

The personalists claim God is ultimately a person. The impersonalists claim the opposite. Now if you claim that personalism and impersonalism are the same, you are actually disagreeing with, and rejecting, the claims of both personalists and impersonalists.

 

So metaphysical egalitarianism is only apparently liberal and tolerant. Actually it resembles fanatical Christianity in that it ultimately rejects the claims of virtually all

historical religions through the act of relativizing and equating them.

 

 

I consider all these other approaches as very valid ways to understand God. I am attracted to Krishna very much now, and I am a very enthusiastic student of Krishna consciousness, and I think that approach is best for me, as it is for all the other Vaishnavas I know. But I don't think I can say what's best for anyone else. My nonjudgmental approach, I believe, helps me to be more skilled and compassionate in the psychotherapy I do with others. I hope to maintain that perspective.

 

As explained above, different paths make different claims. Many of these claims are valid, however validity and equality are very different concepts and should not be confused.

 

Krishna states in the Gita that He is the source of everything. This claim, logically, is either true or false. If it is true, then other valid views must be understood within the context of Krishna¹s statement. If Krishna¹s claim is not true, then even if we politely say that Krishna¹s claim is valid, it is still not true.

 

Similarly some Buddhists deny the existence of God. If their claim is true, Krishna¹s claim is false. If Krishna¹s claim is true, their claim is false. If we say both claims are true, we deny both paths, since both traditions reject the notion that both claims are true.

 

Buddhism certainly teaches much that is true in regard to human psychology and the temporary nature of the world. However the validity of this teaching does not validate the claim made by some historical forms of Buddhism that God and the soul do not exist.

 

The simple point here is that we should avoid both fanatical exclusivism as well as fanatical inclusivism. We should recognize the wisdom and validity present in many of the world¹s traditions, but at the same time we should have the courage and wisdom to seek, and speak, the highest truth without compromise.

 

With best wishes,

Hridayananda das Goswami

[Konstantin]

like if Siberia really was sunny ;-)

 

[vijay]

"We use the logic to understand that which is beyond logic. We bind him in our little enviroment and declare everyone else as wrong how logical is that?"

 

We follow an athority, which is gita we take it as it is, it says only through bhakti can we know krishna, and thus we accept it as true.

 

 

"Opinion turns in to conclusion. Where does veda conclude, it says neti, neti.

 

He is not knowable by perception, turned inward or outward, nor by both combined.

He is neither that which is known, nor that which is not known, nor is he the sum of all that might be known.

He can not be seen, grasped, bargained with.

He is undefineable, unthinkable, indescribable.

The only proof of his existence is union with him.

He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.

This is the fourth condition of the self- the most worthy of all. (Mandukya Upanishad)"

 

well actually krishna concludes on how to know himself. You can accept it or take it as a lie, its up to you.

 

krishna spoke the gita with the intention to get a particular "interpretation" across to arjuna, and arjuna understood it in that way.

 

Krishna in the gita also explains how the gita and krishna can be understood he doent not leave it for all to invent their own conclusions.

 

 

Chapter 18, Shloks (verses) 65-66 He says, "Let your mind be constantly directed towards me; be devoted to me; dedicate all your actions to me; prostrate yourself before me; over and above the claims of all Dharmas (duties) is complete surrender to me and me alone".

 

Chapter 11, Verse 53.

The form which you are seeing with your transcendental eyes cannot be understood simply by studying the Vedas, nor by undergoing serious penances, nor by charity, nor by worship. It is not by these means that one can see Me as I am.

 

 

Chapter 11, Verse 54.

My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding.

 

Chapter 11, Verse 55.

My dear Arjuna, one who is engaged in My pure devotional service, free from the contaminations of previous activities and from mental speculation, who is friendly to every living entity, certainly comes to Me.

 

He categorically states only by bhakti that one can come to know him in truth. He says he has to be free of "mental speculation", he is god and he has told us how to attain him.

 

He also gives the qualifications of reading gita and whom one should aquire this knowledge from.

 

People may want to give the gita a relative interpretation but the slokas krishna speaks is certainly not relative. krishna says in the gita foolish people devoid of knowledge do not want to surrender so go on speculating.

 

In Chapter 18, Shlok 67 Krishna says, "This confidential knowledge may not be explained to those who are not austere, or devoted, or engaged in devotional service, nor to one who is envious of Me. "

 

Those with out bhakti to krishna can never understand the gita with all their debating if as krishna says you dont have bhakti. He is the reciteir of the gita he knows best how one should recieve it.

 

In chapter 12 he talks about the qualities of a devotee so as to be sure what a devotee is and not word juggle krishnas words to mean something else.

 

There are many more clear verses of how the gita should be understood and from whom it should be understood.

 

Now either krishna is a liar or you know better what he ment than the clear statements he has made. The gita does not make relative debatable statements he says one should approach a guru in parampara and do devotional service unto him, he should have bhakti the diciple should be a devotee and surrendered without being engaged in mental speculation nor fruitive works and only in this way one can know krishna in truth. He then gives many ways for someone in the mental specualtion stage or fruitive work stage yogas to attain bhakti. However krishna makes it clear that the preliminary qualification to understand gita is devotion, he says to arjuna because your are my friend and devotee i am revealing this knowledge to you.

 

"Whose standard do you apply as accepted acharya? Was Shankracharya not an accepted Archya?

Is Shiva and Shakti worship some thing new ? My dear friend oldest known temples are of Lord Shiva. Lord krishna Asked Pandavas to worship Lord Shiva to atone for sins commited in the war, was that unvedic?"

 

No none of these things are new and have existed since creation, however the different followers of the vedic religion were philosophically opposed to each other, the matsya puran states that those in the different modes of material nature worship according to thier nature and thus the puranas are divided in to 3 catergories.

 

The So according to the vaishnava school of thought differnt paths are given for different types of people, we choose to describe ourselves by the path we follow which is devotion to krishna not an imposition of what we are by another.

 

Krishna himself makes distinctions according to the gita those that worship demigods are bereft of intelligence.

 

ch 7 TEXT 20

 

Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures.

 

So we choose not to be lumped together by an ever changing hodge podge definition of hindu which denotes so mant types of worship we nor krishna are in favour for.

 

"I am not here to discuss the sidhanta or defend them; I entered the discussion because of the slur on the Hindus."

 

You are attached to hindu dharma whatever that means to you, dharma to us is service to krishna, dharma to a hindu may mean be a good person worship many gods, follow the impersonal path or the athiestic part of hinduism, which we are diametrically apposed to aswell as krishna in the gita so you may call it a slur when we disagree with whatever your conception of hindu dharma is but we are repeating what our athority krishna has said in the gita.

 

Our dharma is to repeat what krishna has said like he has advised in the gita which may mean disturbing your idea of dharma - so be it.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jai Ganesh

 

 

Re

(We follow an athority, which is gita we take it as it is, it says only through bhakti can we know krishna, and thus we accept it as true.)

 

Good for you now just don’t talk about it, realize it.

 

 

Re

(well actually krishna concludes on how to know himself. You can accept it or take it as a lie, its up to you.)

 

Some thing I found all along in this thread, subtly change the question or the answer.

I asked where does Veda conclude about the absolute nature of the supreme but the answer I get is; o Krishna concludes how to know him. I did not ask about a particular path.

One thing for sure is yes it is up to me, I do not need your permission Krishna is clear about this also.

If I were to follow what Krishna says in other parts of Gita I can assure you that want be a lie either.

 

 

 

Re

(You are attached to hindu dharma whatever that means to you, dharma to us is service to krishna, dharma to a hindu may mean be a good person worship many gods, follow the impersonal path or the athiestic part of hinduism, which we are diametrically apposed to aswell as krishna in the gita so you may call it a slur when we disagree with whatever your conception of hindu dharma is but we are repeating what our athority krishna has said in the gita.

Our dharma is to repeat what krishna has said like he has advised in the gita which may mean disturbing your idea of dharma - so be it.)

 

As I said before I am not discussing various sidhnta nor do I despise your service to Krishna but I pity you if you think parroting what Krishna says is enough, Dharma is to follow and not just talk about it.

You are right I am attached to Hindu dharma, by default Hindu means Vedic Dharma, I really don’t care what you say or think, nothing disturb me what Krishna says in the Gita.And he says many things.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

[vijay]

"by default Hindu means Vedic Dharma"

 

To some any tom dick or harry claiming to be god like swaminaryana sai etc may be hindu dharma, not neccesarily vedic, like swaminarayans will say their vachanamrita is more athoritive than the vedas, so some wouldnt consider that vedic dharma, others believe that they can do whatever and call them selves hindu as "in hinduism theres no right or wrong". Therefore we dont encourage such a vague term.

 

"Good for you now just don’t talk about it, realize it."

 

This is a forum its meant for talking, with the same logic y do you talk y dont you just realise it?

 

Anyway good luck following your dharma,

 

Hare Krishna.

 

[Guest guest]

Hey guest , jai ganesh to you too.

 

read what krishna has to say:-

 

Bhagavad Gita. Chapter 2. Contents of the Gita Summarized

TEXT 45

 

trai-gunya-visaya veda

nistraigunyo bhavarjuna

nirdvandvo nitya-sattva-stho

niryoga-ksema atmavan

 

SYNONYMS

 

trai-gunya--pertaining to the three modes of material nature; visayah--on the subject matter; vedah--Vedic literatures; nistraigunyah--in a pure state of spiritual existence; bhava--be; arjuna--O Arjuna; nirdvandvah--free from the pains of opposites; nitya-sattva-sthah--ever remaining in sattva (goodness); niryoga-ksemah--free from (the thought of) acquisition and preservation; atma-van--established in the self.

TRANSLATION

 

The Vedas mainly deal with the subject of the three modes of material nature. Rise above these modes, O Arjuna. Be transcendental to all of them. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the Self.

PURPORT

 

All material activities involve actions and reactions in the three modes of material nature. They are meant for fruitive results, which cause bondage in the material world. The Vedas deal mostly with fruitive activities to gradually elevate the general public from the field of sense gratification to a position on the transcendental plane. Arjuna, as a student and friend of Lord Krsna, is advised to raise himself to the transcendental position of Vedanta philosophy where, in the beginning, there is brahma-jijnasa, or questions on the supreme transcendence. All the living entities who are in the material world are struggling very hard for existence. For them the Lord, after creation of the material world, gave the Vedic wisdom advising how to live and get rid of the material entanglement. When the activities for sense gratification, namely the karma-kanda chapter, are finished, then the chance for spiritual realization is offered in the form of the Upanisads, which are part of different Vedas, as the Bhagavad-gita is a part of the fifth Veda, namely the Mahabharata. The Upanisads mark the beginning of transcendental life.

As long as the material body exists, there are actions and reactions in the material modes. One has to learn tolerance in the face of dualities such as happiness and distress, or cold and warmth, and by tolerating such dualities become free from anxieties regarding gain and loss. This transcendental position is achieved in full Krsna consciousness when one is fully dependent on the good will of Krsna.

[Guest guest]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(To some any tom dick or harry claiming to be god like swaminaryana sai etc may be hindu dharma, not neccesarily vedic, like swaminarayans will say their vachanamrita is more athoritive than the vedas, so some wouldnt consider that vedic dharma, others believe that they can do whatever and call them selves hindu as "in hinduism theres no right or wrong". Therefore we dont encourage such a vague term.)

 

We can apply your blanket statement to all sects that springs up, they all have their doe’s and don’t .

Any one on a spiritual path should be encouraged, for that there is no loss, anyone on a path of goodness will eventually lead to truth.

Although I am not a swaminarayana, I do hold their sadhus in high esteem, they set a very high standard.

Concepts aside Hindu dharma is very clear on Dharma based on Karma. There is no quick fix.

Nothing happens without the will of the Lord, if the Hindu (Vedic) Dharma seems muddy that is also his plan, those who are sincere will find the way.

 

Re

(This is a forum its meant for talking, with the same logic y do you talk y dont you just realise it?)

 

I made that statement based on this statement of yours and I quote

Our dharma is to repeat what krishna has said. Unquote.

 

Re

(Anyway good luck following your dharma,)

 

Thanks, and you in yours, although luck has very little to do with it.

May the lord have mercy on you and me and all. No offence was meant or taken

 

Hare Krishna.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

Jai Ganesh

 

Hey guest , jai ganesh to you too.

 

Well thank you.

 

Re

(read what krishna has to say:-

 

Bhagavad Gita. Chapter 2. Contents of the Gita Summarized

TEXT 45

 

trai-gunya-visaya veda

nistraigunyo bhavarjuna

nirdvandvo nitya-sattva-stho

niryoga-ksema atmavan

 

 

The Vedas mainly deal with the subject of the three modes of material nature. Rise above these modes, O Arjuna. Be transcendental to all of them. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the Self. )

 

Yes I read loud and clear, to realize the self is our goal, but we must appreciate not everyone in that position. As long we are in this mortal body we are bound by this gunas, to transcend them Vedas guide us.

Krishna also says

 

Perform your obligatory duty, because action is indeed better than inaction. Even the maintenance of your body would not be possible by inaction. (3.08)

Human beings are bound by Karma (or works) other than those done as Yajna. Therefore, O Arjuna, do your duty efficiently as a service or Seva to Me, free from attachment to the fruits of work. (3.09) (Yajna means sacrifice, selfless service, unselfish work, Seva, meritorious deeds, giving away something to others, and a religious rite in which oblation is offered to gods through the mouth of fire.)

Brahmaa, the creator, in the beginning created human beings together with Yajna and said: By Yajna you shall prosper and Yajna shall fulfill all your desires. (3.10)

Nourish the Devas with Yajna, and the Devas will nourish you. Thus nourishing one another you shall attain the Supreme goal. (3.11)

 

Therefore, let the scripture be your authority in determining what should be done and what should not be done. You should perform your duty following the scriptural injunction. (16.24)

 

O Arjuna, the faith of each is in accordance with one's own nature or Sanskaara. A person is known by the faith. One can become whatever one wants to be (if one constantly contemplates on the object of desire with faith). (17.03)

The Saattvika persons worship Devas, the Raajasika people worship demigods and demons, and the Taamasika persons worship ghosts and spirits. (17.04)

 

I hope I have provided enough evidence in defense of Hindu for what they seem to do although it may not be perfect for some never the less valid observation. In an education system you have kindergarten to high master’s degree, it is still education.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

[Guest guest]

"Any one on a spiritual path should be encouraged"

 

if it is a spiritual path

 

"Although I am not a swaminarayana, I do hold their sadhus in high esteem, they set a very high standard."

 

wich parameters are you considering for judging that they're high standard? They're following a fake god, what's the use if they have some nice lifestyle?

 

" if the Hindu (Vedic) Dharma seems muddy that is also his plan, those who are sincere will find the way. "

 

the way out from the mud. Maya too is Krsna, but we prefere to follow Krsna in the role of Krsna.

 

"I hope I have provided enough evidence in defense of Hindu for what they seem to do"

 

there's not a well defined hindu practitioneer, there's no actually a real definition of hinduism, so who have you defended?

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>Jai Ganesh

>Hey guest , jai ganesh to you too.

>Well thank you.

 

Jai Ganesh Guest i agree with what you are saying.

 

I can see that you are sincere and a loving person. This is not falttery but from what you write i can see you are sincere in the study of vedas and krishna. And also that you love the Sanatan dhrama(Hindu) community unconditionally.

 

yes indeed we are all in a school.

 

The only reason i even wrote is Sri Ganesh Ji is the direct reason i am a devotee in ISKCON.

 

I will not say the complete story as i think i would reveal my bhajan which is not good as per the Six Goswami's of braja.

 

I have just one advice for you, just one.

 

Please Please start reading the Srimad Bhagavatam. It is so much full of such rasa, that will not be found anywere. It will fill you with such joy !!

 

You need not buy it if you do not have the means.

 

It is online here:

http://www.vedabase.net/sb/en

 

Lastly Chant at least one round(108 beads) of The Hare Krishna MahaMantra each day.

 

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare

Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare

 

If you read the bhagavatama and chant the mahamantra You will live in a conciousness that is Vaikuntha or Krishna conciousness far above any argument or logic or reason, pnly in pure transcendental bliss. That is what you want anyways. You will overcome death in this lifetime.

 

[Guest guest]

 

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

 

(if it is a spiritual path)

 

We can argue but the proof is in the puding.

 

Re

(wich parameters are you considering for judging that they're high standard? They're following a fake god, what's the use if they have some nice lifestyle?)

 

It is never a loss to be pious, judge them for their code of conduct using shastra compare them if you wish to other organization.

Have you seen god?

Christian and Islam would say you are following a fake god what value do you attach to such statements?

 

 

Re

(the way out from the mud. Maya too is Krsna, but we prefere to follow Krsna in the role of Krsna.)

 

Who is stopping you? You have no exclusive rights to Krishna, the whole purpose of my entering this debate was when some one claim that Krishna is not Hindu, neither is he any one else but Krishna confirms who ever worship me is mine and I his.

 

 

Re

 

(there's not a well defined hindu practitioneer, there's no actually a real definition of hinduism, so who have you defended?)

 

You can never define practitioneer, we are all individuals and such at a different levals in our journey, you can define an institute or a path or set of rules. Vedic dharma is volentary. You are born with certain nature, you pick up from where you left off. Based on your desires you will act

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(Jai Ganesh Guest i agree with what you are saying.)

 

Than you for your kind words.

 

Re

( And also that you love the Sanatan dhrama(Hindu) community unconditionally.)

 

 

I would not go as far as that; some of the non followers who claim to be Hindu can be a pain but that is no reason to knock the Dharma.

And yes one must learn to love and respect all in spite of who they are.

 

RE

I have just one advice for you, just one.

Please Please start reading the Srimad Bhagavatam. It is so much full of such rasa, that will not be found anywere. It will fill you with such joy !!

Lastly Chant at least one round(108 beads) of The Hare Krishna MahaMantra each day.)

 

Thank you again your advise is sound.

 

 

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare

Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

(if it is a spiritual path)

We can argue but the proof is in the puding.

--you must be discriminative... worshiping everything is like worshiping nothing

 

judge them for their code of conduct using shastra

--shastra says that they're not following god

 

Christian and Islam would say you are following a fake god what value do you attach to such statements?

--zero..

 

You have no exclusive rights to Krishna, the whole purpose of my entering this debate was when some one claim that Krishna is not Hindu

--krsna is nirguna, he has no material designations.. why he have to be hindu who is a bodily definition and it's simultaneously used by mayavadis, impersonalists, nichilists, sai baba. What krsna has to do with it? Are krsna and his devotees mayavadis? are they sai baba followers?

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(--you must be discriminative... worshiping everything is like worshiping nothing)

 

Yes choose wisely no one is asking you to worship every thing although Krishna does say some try see me in all the manifestation

Restraining all the senses, even minded under all circumstances, engaged in the welfare of all creatures, they also attain Me. (12.04)

 

Re.

(--shastra says that they're not following god)

 

which shastra?

 

 

Re

(--krsna is nirguna, he has no material designations.. why he have to be hindu who is a bodily definition and it's simultaneously used by mayavadis, impersonalists, nichilists, sai baba. What krsna has to do with it? Are krsna and his devotees mayavadis? are they sai baba followers?)

 

Let me clerify again Hindu is not a body, it is Vedic Dharma by default it is known as Hindu.

Krishna can not deny anyone of the above for it is all his creation so he has every thing to do with it.

Yes Krishna is nirguna yet he is not devoid of gunas.

No one has exclusive right on Krishna

Some worship Me by knowledge sacrifice. Others worship the infinite as the one in all (or non-dual), as the master of all (or dual), and in various other ways. (9.15)

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

Yes choose wisely no one is asking you to worship every thing

--everyone chooses his worship.. there's no problem. We are only discussing if it is logic and useful to be called with the name "hindu" who reunites a lot of cults with often opposite practices and goals. It is right to be open minded and consider everyone a brother, but if my brother has a female body i call her sister not considering such difference an impediment. So i, as a gaudya vaishnava, i feel myself brother with christians and muslims.. but i am not interested to be defined with the name christian and muslim because definitions are based on common principles. And i do not think that there's enough common principles to chhose only one name for all three experiences. The same thing for some hindus... if hindus were like to say "vaishnava".. there was no problem, but because hindu means also sai baba, chinmayananda, ramakrsna, vivekananda, aurobindo, osho, swaminarayan and sai baba i do not have anything in common with them. I feel myself more close to christians and muslims... so being not muslim, i am neither hindu

 

Let me clerify again Hindu is not a body, it is Vedic Dharma

••no.. i am sorry... demonstrate that every path included in hinduism is vedic and i will accept the definition.. It is you who are interested, not mine. I do my worship, i accept definition if i feel that they fit with precision. Otherwise what's the use?

 

you are only able to cite bhagavad gita with verses that demonstrate that who is following a dharmic path is dear to krsna.. do not be fixed on this .. we agree. Now it is up to you to demonstrate that all so called hindu paths are dharmic.. then you will be able to state that every dharmi is to be called hindu

 

until now you have said only "why not?" and "by default" (default stated by who?)

 

[Guest guest]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(--everyone chooses his worship.. there's no problem. We are only discussing if it is logic and useful to be called with the name "hindu" who reunites a lot of cults with often opposite practices and goals. It is right to be open minded and consider everyone a brother, but if my brother has a female body i call her sister not considering such difference an impediment. So i, as a gaudya vaishnava, i feel myself brother with christians and muslims.. but i am not interested to be defined with the name christian and muslim because definitions are based on common principles. And i do not think that there's enough common principles to chhose only one name for all three experiences. The same thing for some hindus... if hindus were like to say "vaishnava".. there was no problem, but because hindu means also sai baba, chinmayananda, ramakrsna, vivekananda, aurobindo, osho, swaminarayan and sai baba i do not have anything in common with them. I feel myself more close to christians and muslims... so being not muslim, i am neither hindu)

 

Ok fine drop the word Hindu subtitute it with vedic,then see if you find all the paths that is mentioned init are your defination of gaudya Vaishnava, if not drop the word vedic also. Your closeness with Christains and Muslim is appreciated.

 

Re

(••no.. i am sorry... demonstrate that every path included in hinduism is vedic and i will accept the definition.. It is you who are interested, not mine. I do my worship, i accept definition if i feel that they fit with precision. Otherwise what's the use?)

 

First the discussion was that Hindu is not a Dharma because there is so many different paths, having provided evidence from Gita let alone any other literature that there are different paths now the discussion swifts to prove all the paths are Vedic. No sir I can not do that, nor can you. It is suffice to say that even within Gaudya Vaishnava let alone Vaishnava in general there are differences or else there would be no need for different groups to spring up.

Are you able to prove to me that everyone who call himself a Vaishnava is dharmic?

 

Re

(you are only able to cite bhagavad gita with verses that demonstrate that who is following a dharmic path is dear to krsna.. do not be fixed on this .. we agree.)

 

Do you have a problem with this?

 

Re

(Now it is up to you to demonstrate that all so called hindu paths are dharmic.. then you will be able to state that every dharmi is to be called hindu)

 

Anyone who is on a path spiritual realization is dharmic so I want limit this to only Vedic Shastra, but who ever makes Vedic shastra as bases is in Vedic school is a Vedic student. Atato Brahm jigyasa. Asato ma sat gamaya, tamso ma joytirGamaya, Sat vada, purity, merciful, be responsible for you’re on action (Karma) these are some basic principles all students understands. Vedic school is by default known to be Hindu drop this word still nothing will change the contents remains the same

 

Not every one who goes to school passes with flying colour.

 

You are asking impossible for me to demonstrate nor is it my wish to do so.

You have made your stand quite clear, I have no wish to call you a Hindu, such is the way of Hindu there is no imposition.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

[Guest guest]

My parents are Indian, they were from India. Anyways, they came to America as Ram Bhaktas. Hoping to preserve their beliefs they joined ISKCON. They are not initiated but are pretty prevalent in the community. I think that even though I do not agree with a lot of their Indian beliefs, prejudices and mistaken bodily conception (which it is, whether or not you accept it) I am glad that ISKCON is bringing them to Bhagwan Sri Krishna even if they have to "accomodate" for their otherwise hindu background.

 

As much as ISKCON makes Gaudiya Vaishnavism appear Hindu, it makes it seem just as westernized.

 

I believe at a certain point, we have to move past this conception of Hinduism, Westernization, etc. Because these labels have a very intimate tie with our ego. How are we to surrender Sri Guru and Gouranga if we still think we are Hindus and Westerners and not the lowest souls in need of help?

 

It is the above statement with which ISKCON does not help, at least in San Diego from where I also hail. ISKCON is so attatched to money that they in reality do not have faith in Sri Bhagwan or Srimati Radhika to provide for them so that they may engage in Bhakti. Instead, they believe they will harness the Indian community to take care of them. This is not full surrender, and this is not at all good for Bhakti. This should be very clear and obvious. Unfortunately people care about maintaining their prestigious image and ego which is the source of compromising the integrity of the ISKCON San Diego temple. We are just fallen souls struggling to serve Sri Guru, Sacinandana, and Srimati Radhika.

 

The Indian community must stop giving blind financial support to ISKCON temples and take an active role to do some service. They should specifically inquire where their money goes and ISKCON San Diego should be more upfront with this instead of taking money from these sweet Indian people to pay off their lawsuits and continually falling down Sannyasis. The message of Gaudiya Vaishnavism must maintain prime importance and function in ISKCON temples disregarding anything else. If Indians are going to have a problem with this, then they are not engaging in Sri Krishna Bhakti, but instead ruining ourselves by causing the temples to perpetuate this false appearance of Gaudiya Vaishnavism with cheap Hindu mimicry.

 

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

Ok fine drop the word Hindu subtitute it with vedic,then see if you find all the paths that is mentioned init are your defination of gaudya Vaishnava, if not drop the word vedic also

--chinmayananda, ramakrsna, vivekananda, aurobindo, osho, swaminarayan and sai baba in my opinion aren't vedic.. otherwise i i'd have considered myself in the same religion and you could have called it as you want,hinduism,vedism, dharma,brahmanism etc. Name is not so important

 

First the discussion was that Hindu is not a Dharma because there is so many different paths, having provided evidence from Gita let alone any other literature that there are different paths now the discussion swifts to prove all the paths are Vedic.

--all your explanations are based on exchanging freely the terms "all" and "many". Many paths are vedic, not only one, no discussion.. now demonstrate that all hindu paths are vedic.. in this way the word "vedic" and the word "hindu" will be seen by everyone as synonym and quarrels will stop

 

It is suffice to say that even within Gaudya Vaishnava let alone Vaishnava in general there are differences or else there would be no need for different groups to spring up.

--for this reason there's discrimination.. It's not that i put a t-shirt with written "gaudya vaishnava" and i am automatically gaudya vaishnava.

Gaudya Vaishnava means "worshipper of krsna/vishnu in the path of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu".. differences are there, it is natural, but if one does not fit in that basic requirement he's not gaudya vaishnava even if he claims to be. So it is possible that someone who is classified as gaudya he's not really gaudya... For example janava devi, wife of sri nityananda prabhu and srila bhaktivinoda thakura,in their times,made a great effort in separating the groups who were really gaudya and who were not. It is necessary, to unite without common principles is a disadvantage for everyone. Now we clearly see that to be identified in hinduism means to be identified with impersonalism and mayavadism...and that's not good

 

(you are only able to cite bhagavad gita with verses that demonstrate that who is following a dharmic path is dear to krsna.. do not be fixed on this .. we agree.)

Do you have a problem with this?

--no problem.. i only say to you that this is accepted by everyone. The discussion is if "hinduism", considered who is called hindu now, can be used at the place of "dharmic"

 

Anyone who is on a path spiritual realization is dharmic

--so demonstrate that all groups called "hindu" are all on a vedic path of spiritual realization and everyone will be happy to be hindu.

 

Again the problem is not that dharmic path aren't various.. of course they are.

 

You are bringing a new definition and you want to put me in such definition, i do not object, but do not ask to me to accept it blindly, so it is up to you to demonstrate that all hindu groups are dharmic, why you lose your time? demonstrate it and everyone will be happy and hindu

 

You are asking impossible for me to demonstrate nor is it my wish to do so

--so why you partecipate in discussions if you can't or if you don't want to demonstrate your views?

[Guest guest]

Jai Ganesh

 

 

Re

(--all your explanations are based on exchanging freely the terms "all" and "many". Many paths are vedic, not only one, no discussion.. now demonstrate that all hindu paths are vedic.. in this way the word "vedic" and the word "hindu" will be seen by everyone as synonym and quarrels will stop)

 

What do you think I am ? a police man of vedic Hindu(Vedic )Dharma, no.

I am not interested in groups or sub groups weather they pass or fail the Dharma.

Does everyone who go to school pass?

 

Dharma is independent of any group

 

Re

(--for this reason there's discrimination.. It's not that i put a t-shirt with written "gaudya vaishnava" and i am automatically gaudya vaishnava.)

 

Well said, now go and judge every one of them because there are many groups let alone many different Vaisnava and within them they are all individuals.

 

 

Re

(. Now we clearly see that to be identified in hinduism means to be identified with impersonalism and mayavadism...and that's not good )

 

If such concepts were not in the Vedic literatures then I can understand your objections.

Dharma is about following, an individual chooses a particular course according to its nature, who is to say one path is better then other

 

Re

(--so demonstrate that all groups called "hindu" are all on a vedic path of spiritual realization and everyone will be happy to be hindu. )

 

all I can tell you is Vedic(Hindu) Dharma is not different groups.

Different groups follow it, I am not here to judge them.

 

 

Re

(You are bringing a new definition and you want to put me in such definition, i do not object, but do not ask to me to accept it blindly, so it is up to you to demonstrate that all hindu groups are dharmic, why you lose your time? demonstrate it and everyone will be happy and hindu)

 

I am not bringing anything new, as to when the term Hinduism was coined for Vedic Dharma, History has no clear idea. I have no desire to put you in any defination

I am sure you are happy to be Vedic that is enough.

 

Re

(--so why you partecipate in discussions if you can't or if you don't want to demonstrate your views?)

 

Only reason I got involved is when some one said the Hinduism is a body not Dharma.

Any one with ounce of knowledge about Hindu Dharma however presented or misrepresented by its followers; it is not based on bodily concept.

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna