Swami Narayana Followers go where?

[Guest guest]

Well if you state that Lord Swaminarayan asked his followers to worship God then so did Vyas. He was avtaar of God himself. Lord Parshuram worshipped Shiv and Bhagwan Ramchandra to worshipped Rameshwarm and asked his followrs to. Would you state the He was not Lord incarnate? Of course he was.

 

So was Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Lord Swaminarayan. As a vaishnav you shouldnt disregard without knowing. Lord Swaminarayan himself in front of thousands declared He was God. Do you think they would have accepted that at a time like that?

 

The follower of Ram would believe he is the source of all just like the follow of Lord Swaminarayan do. Just changing His name from Krishna to Swaminarayan doesnt change the fact that He is not Krishna himself.

 

If you say only the name of Krishna is to be worshipped in the Kaliyug then the people who recite Ram or Buddha will not attain moksh?

 

Of course its not true. Lord has many other names beside Krishna. Yet he is one.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

If you say only the name of Krishna is to be worshipped in the Kaliyug then the people who recite Ram or Buddha will not attain moksh?

 

 

Well following what your saying we can see your getting a tinge of Mayavadi by following Baps. Everything is not one. Your very deluded.

[vijay]

"Lord has many other names beside Krishna"

 

Those names are in scripture.

 

Ram, vyas etc are mentioned in scripture and their purposes.

 

MY POINT - Swaminarayan mantra is not mentioned in scripture nor swaminarayan - he instruicted you to chant krishnas name in shikshapatri so do the vedas (Krsnas athorised names).

 

SECOND POINT - He is not avatari (I dont believe even an avtar but we can talk about that later)

As he states in shikashapatri verse 108 that krishna is the source of all incarnations.

 

So do you admit these things if not then may i ask why. Please address these points as we seem to be dodging the point. If you word jugglry the shikshapatri to mean swaminarayan = krsna in some instances then please also demonstarte how you come to that conclusion.

[Guest guest]

Lord Swaminarayan himself stated taht He was Krishna and he came down for the upliftment of mankind. Were All these thousands of people before him unaware? Did they not know? All these vedanti's converted and many Muslims too. Is converting a muslim so easy? He gave many Samadhi by the click of his fingers and showed them vaikunts, brahmmpur etc. Many saw Shiva in him many saw krishna or ram even ganesh. were such samadhi's nonesense? He had 500 paramhanses (saints). Where they following a blind faith?

 

Of course not. He was the lord himself.

Padma Puran:

II Datatrayam krutyuge,

tretayaam raghunandana,

dvapare vasudevaha,

kalou swami vrushatmaja II

 

Vishnu Dharmottar:

II Pakhandbahuleloke swami namna hari swayam,

papank nimagnam tajuddhaaryishyati II

 

II Mahadharmanvye punye,

naamna paapvinashke,

hariprasad vivrasya,

swami namna hari svayam II

 

 

 

Explain them verses then!

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Vijay,

You keep going round and round in circles over the same thing. Either you forget or refuse to acknowledge when you have been answered.

Swaminarayan's other name is Krshna.

During that part of the 18th century in Western India there were numerous faiths, followings, cults and movements each with different and contradicting philosophies, teachings and practices. At times there were more ‘incarnations’ of God than followers themselves. A further reason for Sahajanand Swami accepting Lord Shree Krshna into the Swaminarayan Sampraday as istadeva was because

a) Lord Shree Krshna was a true incarnation of God

b) Shree Sahajanand Swami preferred the Bhakti marga that Lord Shree Krshna propagated

c) Lord Shree Krshna was a universally accepted form of God

In fact Shree Sahajanand Swami was a great admirer of the Vaishnav bhakti tradition and adopted many of its practices for the Swaminarayan Sampraday

 

In the Shikshapatri Shlok 108 Sahajanand Swami writes

“sa sri krshnaha param brahma bhagvaan purushotamaha

upasya ishtadevo naha sarvaavirbhaav kaaranam”

"That isvara is Shree Krshna who is PraBrahma Bhagwan Purushottam and our most cherished deity (istadeva). He is worthy of being worshipped by us all (upasya). He is the cause of all manifestations and incarnations"

 

As an elaboration to this shloka, Sadguru Shree Shatanand Muni writes in Artha Dipika (Shikshapatri Bhashya):

"yaha saakshaat bhagvaan ksharakhara paraha krshnaha

sa eva svayam bhaktau dharmat aas, bhoori krupaya sri svaminarayanaha

maanushyam bhuvi naatayannijjan acharyatvadharme sthitaha

krshnam praha parokshavann tu tatonyaha sosti yatsa svayam”

 

“That live (saakshat) God (bhagvan) Krshna who is above kshar and akshar, appeared from Bhakti through Dharma as Swaminarayan; assumed a human body on the earth like a dramatist (natta). That Krshna whilst observing the (human’s) dharmas of an Acharya speaks in third person (parokshavann) but that Krshna is none other than Himself”

 

i.e. that Krshna that Swaminarayan Bhagwan speaks of is none other than Himself, however Krshna is referred to by Swaminarayan Bhagwan in third person form (parokshavann) because Swaminarayan Bhagwan is writing the Shikshapatri in the capacity of an Acharya or Guru (acharyatvadharme).

 

Swaminarayan Bhagwan was indeed a Guru, Sadhu, Acharya, Teacher and even a devotee of Krshna. But this does not contradict His status as God.

For if this were the case then Lord Rama was a King and fulfilled His role as the ruler of Ayodhya. Lord Krshna was a cowherd and later the King of Dwarika. Also, Lord Nar Narayana were brahmchari-rishis performing tappascharya in Badrik Ashram. Does this imply that they were not God just because they were kings, a cowherd or rishis?

 

Also note:

“nanvastan sri krshnasya parabrahmatvam moolpurushsya bhagavatastu krshnashabda vachyatvam na ghatate. Dvaaparante devaki vasudevabhyam avirbhavantaram krshnam prvrtti siddheriti chettann. Vasudev gruh aavirbhaavatpragev bhagavataha krshnakhyatve sakalam brahmvaivarta puran mev pramanam”.

Shatananda Muni as a commentary to Shikshapatri Shlok 29.

 

THE ETERNAL KRSHNA THOUGH IS THE PARABRAHMA BUT THE NAME DOES NOT SUIT MOOLPURUSH (ORIGINAL CAUSAL PERSONALITY) BECAUSE THE GOD (AS MOOL PURUSH) MANIFESTED AT THE END OF DWAPARA TO DEVAKI AND VASUDEV AND THEN GARGACHARYA NAMED HIM ‘KRSHNA’.

NOTE, THAT AFTER THE BIRTH OF GOD TO DHARMADEV AND BHAKTIDEVI, MARKANDEY RUSHI NAMED HIM KRSHNA (AS WELL AS HARI AND HARIKRSHNA). THEREFORE WHOEVER SAYS THAT THE NAME ‘KRSHNA’ BECAME PREVALENT AFTER HIS ARRIVAL (IN MATHURA AT THE END OF DWAPARA TO VASUDEV AND DEVAKI) IS NOT RIGHT IN DOING SO, BECAUSE GOD'S ETERNAL NAME IS KRSHNA (ALL ATTRACTIVE) AND EVEN BEFORE MANIFESTING TO VASUDEV AND DEVAKI

BRAHMVAIVARTA PURAN USES THE TERM KRSHNA MANY TIMES OVER.

 

The Srimad Bhagavatam in 1st Skandha, 3rd Adhyay, 28th Shloka therefore declares after listing 24 avatars including Vasudev Krishna that

“ete chamsh kalaha pumsaha, krshnastu bhagavan svayam”

 

i.e. all these (i.e.24 listed including Vasudev Krshna) are various portions of the Supreme. Bhagavat refers to this same ‘eternal’ Krshna, that Artha Dipika speaks of, as Bhagwan Himself.

 

 

You seem hell bent on writing off the Swaminarayan faith as a cult or non-vedic.

Now let's see if you actually read the above, then comprehend and THEN debate...

 

 

[vijay]

QUOTE

Lord Swaminarayan himself stated taht He was Krishna and he came down for the upliftment of mankind.

 

REPLY

The point of the discussion is that im asserting that the followers have become mixed up this also includes the vachanamrita written by the followers, therefore to use the vachanamrta to prove something is not logical.

 

QUOTE

"Were All these thousands of people before him unaware? Did they not know? All these vedanti's converted and many Muslims too. Is converting a muslim so easy? He gave many Samadhi by the click of his fingers and showed them vaikunts, brahmmpur etc. Many saw Shiva in him many saw krishna or ram even ganesh. were such samadhi's nonesense? He had 500 paramhanses (saints). Where they following a blind faith?"

 

REPLY

Please understand that thousands of people thinking someone is god is no proof of someone being god. Sathya sai aswell as many aother so-called gods have millions of people who says he is god they even says they have vissions of him and I have personally seen dust come out of a picture, this is no proof of god.

 

Converting muslim is no proof of god either an empowered preacher can also do this, srila prabhupada converted many and the preaching is still going along in islamic countries.

 

As for the samadhis again these are stories from followers just like his childhood pastimes which are in question mearely asserting it to be so doesnt make it so.

 

QUOTE

"Of course not. He was the lord himself.

Padma Puran:

II Datatrayam krutyuge,

tretayaam raghunandana,

dvapare vasudevaha,

kalou swami vrushatmaja II

 

Vishnu Dharmottar:

II Pakhandbahuleloke swami namna hari swayam,

papank nimagnam tajuddhaaryishyati II

 

II Mahadharmanvye punye,

naamna paapvinashke,

hariprasad vivrasya,

swami namna hari svayam II

 

REPLY

First you will have to give me references of the exact verse/chapter numbers, preferbly with your word for word transliteration as ive seen other verses given by you guys from the bhagvatam which have been stretched beyond imagination.

 

From my limiteed knowledge of sanksrit and the fact that i cant find words like "vivrasyavrushatmaja" in the english-sanskrit dictionaries it would be better to give the sanskrit with diacritic marks and your transliteration of it. And also to claim someone avtari you have to do better than 2 vague verses, as well as the fact you are chanting a name whcih is not athorised or even exist in sastra as the mahamantra, instead it says chant the names of krishna.

 

Here are the predictions of mahaprabhu, sure some fo them are vague howvere there are many very direct ones that exist in the puranas theres at least 40-50 verses http://www.acbspn.com/godhead/gaura_1predictions.htm

 

So for your claims you will need to give exact evidence like the link above, as you are not making a small claim the claim is extermely huge.

 

QUOTE

"Vijay,

You keep going round and round in circles over the same thing. Either you forget or refuse to acknowledge when you have been answered.

Swaminarayan's other name is Krshna. "

 

REPLY

Sai baba and others like him also say their other name is krishna this isnt good enough.

 

 

QUOTE

That live (saakshat) God (bhagvan) Krshna who is above kshar and akshar, appeared from Bhakti through Dharma as Swaminarayan; assumed a human body on the earth like a dramatist (natta). That Krshna whilst observing the (human’s) dharmas of an Acharya speaks in third person (parokshavann) but that Krshna is none other than Himself”

 

REPLY

So here you'r swami basically word juggles verse 108 that clearly says krishna is avtari to mean that swaminaran is avatari. Where does this swami figure out "(parokshavann) but that Krshna is none other than Himself”

 

On what basis does he translate this verse to suit his philosophy, at what points in the shikshapatri do you randomly translate krishna in vrindavan with radh on his left to mean swaminarayan. This is nonsense. Ive asked you to provide an explanation of how you swap swaminarayan with krishna at certain points in the shikshapatri by someone just doing it on a whim is not good enough.

 

QUOTE

Swaminarayan Bhagwan was indeed a Guru, Sadhu, Acharya, Teacher and even a devotee of Krshna. But this does not contradict His status as God.

For if this were the case then Lord Rama was a King and fulfilled His role as the ruler of Ayodhya. Lord Krshna was a cowherd and later the King of Dwarika. Also, Lord Nar Narayana were brahmchari-rishis performing tappascharya in Badrik Ashram. Does this imply that they were not God just because they were kings, a cowherd or rishis?

 

REPLY

Are you not listening, they were god because sastra says they are god. Sastra predicts incarnations of god just so foolish residents of kaliyuga dont get confused. Sastra says what names should be chanted in kaliyuga so we dont get confused by foolish people.

Clear?

 

 

QUOTE

The Srimad Bhagavatam in 1st Skandha, 3rd Adhyay, 28th Shloka therefore declares after listing 24 avatars including Vasudev Krishna that

“ete chamsh kalaha pumsaha, krshnastu bhagavan svayam”

 

i.e. all these (i.e.24 listed including Vasudev Krshna) are various portions of the Supreme. Bhagavat refers to this same ‘eternal’ Krshna, that Artha Dipika speaks of, as Bhagwan Himself.

 

REPLY

 

Yes krishna and his name is eternal and he existed before his arrival in the relm of golok vrindavan.

 

The reason for your confusion is that vasudeva krsna is mentioned in the list of 24 avtarthis as prabhupada explains this clearly below in the purort to this verse.

 

"In this particular stanza Lord Sri Krishna, the Personality of Godhead, is distinguished from other incarnations. He is counted amongst the avataras (incarnations) because out of His causeless mercy the Lord descends from His transcendental abode. Avatara means "one who descends." All the incarnations of the Lord, including the Lord Himself, descend on the different planets of the material world as also in different species of life to fulfill particular missions. Sometimes He comes Himself, and sometimes His different plenary portions or parts of the plenary portions, or His differentiated portions directly or indirectly empowered by Him, descend on this material world to execute certain specific functions. "

 

 

If you still are not happy with this then please read this link as a full analysis of this argument is given.

 

http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/bhagavan-svayam.html

 

Also in the 10th canto of srimad bhagvatam the story of bramha stealing the gopas and cows for a year is told.

At the end of this year (bramhas moment) brmah comes and sees that all the cows and gopas are narayans then he sees them going back in to krsna where in he speaks this verse

 

SB. 10.14.14

SYNONYMS

 

narayanah -- the Supreme Lord Narayana; tvam -- You; na -- not; hi -- whether; sarva -- of all; dehinam -- embodied living beings; atma -- the Supersoul; asi -- You are; adhisa -- O supreme controller; akhila -- of all; loka -- planets; sakshi -- the witness; narayanah -- Lord Sri Narayana; angam -- the expanded plenary portion; nara -- from the Supreme Personality; bhu -- originating; jala -- of the water; ayanat -- because of being the manifesting source; tat -- that (expansion); ca -- and; api -- indeed; satyam -- true; na -- not; tava -- Your; eva -- at all; maya -- illusory energy.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Are You not the original Narayana, O supreme controller, since You are the Soul of every embodied being and the eternal witness of all created realms? Indeed, Lord Narayana is Your expansion, and He is called Narayana because He is the generating source of the primeval water of the universe. He is real, not a product of Your illusory Maya.

 

 

This is bramha saying krsna the little boy that appeared in vrindavan is the cause of all expansions as he offers his prayers.

 

QUOTE

You seem hell bent on writing off the Swaminarayan faith as a cult or non-vedic.

Now let's see if you actually read the above, then comprehend and THEN debate...

 

REPLY

Ive given my point by point arguments to what you have written, now lets see if you have comprehnded what has been written.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Now people are saying we need more than a few quotes from theShastras to proclaim that Lord Swaminarayan Was God. Many say there is no such thing as Akshardham. Well here is the Quote from Shri Vasudev Mahatmya- whivh in theSkand Puran that quotes that Akshardham is there, it is in adhyay 18 where Lord Vasudev speaks to Narad (shloka 6 and 7):

 

Asavhamhi Brahmansminakshardhamani

Radhalakshmiyuto nityam vasami svasriteyha sah

vasudevSvarupoham sarvakarmfalpradah

antaryamitaya varte svatantraha sarvadehinaam

 

Shri Narad uvaach (adhyay 19 shloka 11):

 

Bhagvanstvatprasaden tamham parmeshvaram

vasudevam samaloke stithmakshardhamni

 

Lord Swaminarayan himself has been predicted clearly here as Krishna to be born in Kaliyug in a Samvedi brahmin family, father being dharmdev and mother Murti. Both Nar and narayan born because of muni's curse(18th adhyay shloka 42, 43, 44 Shri Vasudev Mahatymyam :

 

 

Shri Vasudev uvaach:

mayaa krushnen nihataha sarjunen raneshu yeh

pravartishyantyasuraste tvadharm yada kshito

dharmdevatda murto narnarayanatmana

pravurtepi kalo brhman! bhutvaham saamgo dvijaha

munishapannrutam praptam sarshi jankamatmanaha

tattovitta gurubhyoham sadharm sthapayannaj

 

Clearly explains that I as Nar and Narayan will be born to dharm and Moorti who after a curse from muni (Dhurvasa in Badrikashram) will all be born on the earth. i as a saam vedi dvija will be born to rid of evil and prevail rightousness (sadharm).

 

if people oppose that Shloka in any way then that is there own buddhi allowing them. I believe that Lord swaminarayan Born from Dharmdev and Bhaktimata was Nar Narayan Incarnate. He promised these incarnations to take place to Brahma as he says to Narad as well as saying that:

 

after explaining many of his avtaars to Narad including Lord Swaminarayan but note No Chaitanya Mahaprabhu here!!: Shloka 46:

 

Shri Vasudev Uvaach:

yada yada cha vedokto dharmo nashishyate sureiyha

pradurbhavo bhavishyo me tadrakshaye tada tada

 

hey brahmin narad. i have not described ALL of the avtaars which i will take. there are many more which when evil prevails on Earth i take. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT JUST BECUASE CHAITANYA MAHAPRABHU WAS NOT MENTIONED in the vasudev mahatmya THAT HE WAS NOT KRISHNA!! SEE WHAT I MEAN? HE WAS KRISHNA TOO AND AS A VAISHNAVI LORD SWAMINARAYAN FOLLOWER I TOO ACCEPT THAT. I ALSO KNOW FOR A FACT LORD SWAMINARAYAN WAS INCARNATE OF SHRI NAR NARAYAN. THERE CAN BE NO OTHER.

 

after narating all this to Narad lord vasudev asked Narad to go Meet Nar Narayan in Badrikashram which he does so.

 

Other sampradays will totally say "this is all fake and that it doesnt explain Lord Swaminarayan". You people are entitled to your own decision.

 

Lord Swaminarayan himself declared that he was Lord Nar Narayan and because of a shraap of Dhurvasa he was born. He used Dhurvasa as a nimmitt as he wanted to be born to rid of evil. Durvasa didnt get repect in teh assembly at Badrikashram where many were theri to meet him like: Marich, Uddhav, dharmdev, vashisht, etc. These were all cursed to be born on Earth and suffer at the hands of evil. Yet Dharmdev asked for forgivness and Dhurvasa couldnt take his curse back but explained that Lord Nar Naraayn himself will be born in Kaushal desh as his Son once again and rid of evil. Thus Dhurvasa fled and so Lord Swaminarayan was born in a village in Chapaiya i think 32 km away from Ayodhya. Markandya muni named him hari, krishna, harikrishna and Nyalkaran. he was later named as Ghanshyam by his mother as he was like the clouds in colour. Then he was given names like saryu das, Nilkanth, given diksha bu Ramanand Swami who was uddhav incarnate and named him Sahajanand Swami. Then The lord gave the Mantra Swaminarayan to all. It gave the sakshatkaar of narayan who is the Swami for all (himself). He was then referred to Lord Swaminarayan. 108 names were composed for him like bhaktvatsal, adroyhay, rujve, mahapurushay, bhaktidhamatmajay, marutsutpriyay etc. He constructed temples of Lord Nar narayan (himself) and Laxmi narayan, gopinath, siddeshwar mahadev, hanumaji Maharaj. He made to gadi's and established gurus on them who were decendents of Dharmdev. The original sampraday lives on as Amdavad gadi guru(kaoushalendra prasad) and vadtal diocese: rakesh prasad.Baps and maninagar etc are not original sects. They have broken away recently within last 60-80 years. This happens in many sects.

[Guest guest]

Perhaps conveniently missed out a response to this??:

 

Also note:

“nanvastan sri krshnasya parabrahmatvam moolpurushsya bhagavatastu krshnashabda vachyatvam na ghatate. Dvaaparante devaki vasudevabhyam avirbhavantaram krshnam prvrtti siddheriti chettann. Vasudev gruh aavirbhaavatpragev bhagavataha krshnakhyatve sakalam brahmvaivarta puran mev pramanam”.

Shatananda Muni as a commentary to Shikshapatri Shlok 29.

 

THE ETERNAL KRSHNA THOUGH IS THE PARABRAHMA BUT THE NAME DOES NOT SUIT MOOLPURUSH (ORIGINAL CAUSAL PERSONALITY) BECAUSE THE GOD (AS MOOL PURUSH) MANIFESTED AT THE END OF DWAPARA TO DEVAKI AND VASUDEV AND THEN GARGACHARYA NAMED HIM ‘KRSHNA’.

NOTE, THAT AFTER THE BIRTH OF GOD TO DHARMADEV AND BHAKTIDEVI, MARKANDEY RUSHI NAMED HIM KRSHNA (AS WELL AS HARI AND HARIKRSHNA). THEREFORE WHOEVER SAYS THAT THE NAME ‘KRSHNA’ BECAME PREVALENT AFTER HIS ARRIVAL (IN MATHURA AT THE END OF DWAPARA TO VASUDEV AND DEVAKI) IS NOT RIGHT IN DOING SO, BECAUSE GOD'S ETERNAL NAME IS KRSHNA (ALL ATTRACTIVE) AND EVEN BEFORE MANIFESTING TO VASUDEV AND DEVAKI

BRAHMVAIVARTA PURAN USES THE TERM KRSHNA MANY TIMES OVER.

 

 

'Krishna' of Gokul/Vrndavan/Mathura/Dwarika alone does not have monopoly over Gods eternal names which include Krshna, Narayan, Brahm, Par-Brahm etc.

[Guest guest]

The beauty of the Shikshapatri is that it can equally be acceptable to Vaishnavas with Radha-Krishna as their istadeva.

 

1) It seems Swaminarayan intention was to preach (Radha) Krishna as the istadeva for his followers.

2) But He has carefully written the Shikshapatri so that it the alternative interpretation does indeed lead to the fact that that Krishna is none other than Him Himself.

 

Whether you choose 1 or 2 you will not be wrong.

 

 

 

[vijay]

Can you give the transliteration of the verse you gave me with diacritc marks or the original sanskrit, as I've had problems getting the skand purana as its one of the biggest puranas in terms of size. And if i get the transliteration i can show it to someone who knows sanskrit properly to find out if its you have valid translation.

 

Also i guess as Vasudev-mahatmya,Vishnukhand of Skand Puran is one of the 6 books recomended in the shikshapatri to read could you advise me of where to purchase a copy english-sanskrit if possible.

 

I would like to get to the bottom of this.

[vijay]

QUOTE

Perhaps conveniently missed out a response to this??:

 

Also note:

“nanvastan sri krshnasya parabrahmatvam moolpurushsya bhagavatastu krshnashabda vachyatvam na ghatate. Dvaaparante devaki vasudevabhyam avirbhavantaram krshnam prvrtti siddheriti chettann. Vasudev gruh aavirbhaavatpragev bhagavataha krshnakhyatve sakalam brahmvaivarta puran mev pramanam”.

Shatananda Muni as a commentary to Shikshapatri Shlok 29.

 

THE ETERNAL KRSHNA THOUGH IS THE PARABRAHMA BUT THE NAME DOES NOT SUIT MOOLPURUSH (ORIGINAL CAUSAL PERSONALITY) BECAUSE THE GOD (AS MOOL PURUSH) MANIFESTED AT THE END OF DWAPARA TO DEVAKI AND VASUDEV AND THEN GARGACHARYA NAMED HIM ‘KRSHNA’.

NOTE, THAT AFTER THE BIRTH OF GOD TO DHARMADEV AND BHAKTIDEVI, MARKANDEY RUSHI NAMED HIM KRSHNA (AS WELL AS HARI AND HARIKRSHNA). THEREFORE WHOEVER SAYS THAT THE NAME ‘KRSHNA’ BECAME PREVALENT AFTER HIS ARRIVAL (IN MATHURA AT THE END OF DWAPARA TO VASUDEV AND DEVAKI) IS NOT RIGHT IN DOING SO, BECAUSE GOD'S ETERNAL NAME IS KRSHNA (ALL ATTRACTIVE) AND EVEN BEFORE MANIFESTING TO VASUDEV AND DEVAKI

BRAHMVAIVARTA PURAN USES THE TERM KRSHNA MANY TIMES OVER.

 

 

'Krishna' of Gokul/Vrndavan/Mathura/Dwarika alone does not have monopoly over Gods eternal names which include Krshna, Narayan, Brahm, Par-Brahm etc.

 

REPLY

Ive already explained krishnas name exist eternally as he is eternal, avtars are eternal, BUT THE NAMES HAVE TO BE ATHORISED IN SASTRA IN WHICH THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE SWAMINARAYAN MAHA MANTRA.

 

Is that clear enough?

 

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

 

I don't have a clue what those verses mean. All I see in those is the name of Sri Radhe. I am discontining this thread. I feel contaminated by your presence.

[Guest guest]

"REPLY

Ive already explained krishnas name exist eternally as he is eternal, avtars are eternal, BUT THE NAMES HAVE TO BE ATHORISED IN SASTRA IN WHICH THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE SWAMINARAYAN MAHA MANTRA.

 

Is that clear enough?"

 

So now you're arguing that you cannot accept the Swaminarayan mantra. What happened to the Swaminarayan as Krshna point?

Its becoming impossible to sustain a wortwhile debate with you continuing to move the goal posts.

 

Crows and Swans

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna!

 

The world has changed drastically in the past five hundred years. What were once little pockets of Vaishnavas dispersed throughout the Indian sub continent and parts of Southeast Asia are now part of an international community that is linked by efficient means of travel like jets, trains and cars and more importantly the internet. Also, you now have so many Western followers of diverse sampradayas. Now that our community is more of a melting pot of diversity, there is this marvelous opportunity for dialogue between groups that were heretofore relatively isolated from one another. We should take advantage of that in any way we can.

 

Isolationism may have certain benefits like preserving purity of siddhAnta, but it can have negative repercussions as well, such as religious bigotry. We need to be more like swans and less like crows.

 

- Minaketan Ramdas Thakur

[Guest guest]

The most important Purana is Srimad Bhagavatam (see closing chapter of final Canto of Srimad Bhagavatam)...

 

The Science of Self Realization is explicitly explained in graphic detail to Sri Udhhav by the Lord in Canto no.11.

 

What need of any other literature on such matters?

 

[Guest guest]

Swaminarayan tells you to worship Krsna, instead you worship guru (pramukh swami maharaj, etc.) and demigods.

 

At least the followers of Swaminarayan will be born again as humans in their next lives, since they are not following 100%.

 

 

[Guest guest]

And that Krshna IS Swaminarayan dont u see?

Do ppl on this board have a fundamental difficulty in comprehending the most simplest of ideas....defeats the objective of this forum doesn't it?

 

And yes it is WRONG to worship Pramukh Swami, whom might I add is NOTHING compared to His Divine Grace Prabhupada.

[vijay]

QUOTE

And that Krshna IS Swaminarayan dont u see?

Do ppl on this board have a fundamental difficulty in comprehending the most simplest of ideas....defeats the objective of this forum doesn't it?

 

REPLY

Unfortunately the point you keep asserting needs to be proved by sastra all the quotes predicting swaminaryan from bhagvatam proved to be untrue given by the swaminaryan guys, The quotes given from the skand purana I need the sanskrit or the verses with diacritcs as its impossible to translate without it, or better still I assume the swaminaryanas have a copy of the vasudeva mahatmaya as its one of the 6 recomended books to read according to the shikshapatri so please advise me where to buy it from if possible.

 

Until this is not sorted out merely saying swaminarayan is krishna bears no fruit in a discussion.

 

Hare Krishna

[Guest guest]

Vasudev Mahatmay is available in Sanskrit-Gujarati in most temples. I am sure Oxford University may hold an original copy from the Skandh Puran..

 

I know where this is going though...u obtain a copy of Vasudev Mahatmay; it proves the advent of Swaminarayan - so u then resort to condemning it as adulterated!

 

[vijay]

Im sure there must be a copy of the skand puran more than 200 years old so dont see how all copies of it can be adulterated. If only one out of 10 skand puran have the prediction then may be but if all then i wouldnt say its adulterated. Just need to make sure the translation is as definate as you say it is. If so I will get off you case (-:

 

Hare Krsna

 

 

[Guest guest]

No the Baps worship Pramuks swami we do not. we are the originality.

[Guest guest]

Yeah please do, Makes ure you get that copy!!!

 

maybe then you will find that you shouldnt as a follower of the sanatan dharm, go round procliaming that "he cant be God".

 

i know where you are coming from because BAPS go round proclaiming pramuks swami is God. But Lord Swaminarayan did not want this. So i know what you mean. If someone said that RAm was not God as a Swaminarayan follower i would be really angry and confront him/her to say where it states this! Or if they said that someone was God i would be wanting to get to the bottom of this.

But we as Swaminarayan followers know that The Shrimad Bhagwat is a Major Puran does that make the Skand Puran wrong? And that its not worthy no be read?od course not, well the Vasudev Mahatmya proves that Lord Swaminarayan was God. Im not just making this up. I have no intention of doing such a thing. I want a place at Gods feet to you know?

 

Lord Krishna is supreme and Lord Swaminararayan is HE to. As a vaishanv i dont go round saying he isnt God etc by just looking at some of the scriptures as Vasudev himself said to Narad taht i have not named all as i cannot. But i have promised Brahma once and narated all my avtaars to him. And he went on naming tsome of the ones in kaliyug. In the kaliyug Lord Buddha, Swminarayan and Kalki were named in the Skand puran.

 

This does not mean lord chaitanya is not Krishna. He sure is. And i know he is. I wouldnt disclaim the fact like that. Nor would i disclaim the fact that Lord Swaminarayan isnt even if i wasnt his follower because we have no right to do so. We shouldnt question like this straightaway. Why do people think themselves to be Vyas and go rounnd questioning God and his work? They clearly have not read all. Just like Vijay hasnt. Clearly he hasnt even read the Skand Puran yet. So why should he have the right to say Lord Swaminarayan isnt God? Im angry. I have a right to be. Why question a belief just liek that from a few quotes that someone knows? clearly they havent read all the scriptures. If they had they would relaise that even sages like Narad do not fully know how many avtaars the Lord will take on the earth.

 

My point is that in the Sanatan dharm, one shouldnt straight away judge. They should have faith as to say "yes" its possible. As God works in more that a few ways. we cannot possibly know all as sages like Narad did not even know all.

 

The other thing is that Lord Swaminarayan didnt create havoc and evil. So why proclaim that HE CANNOT BE GOD? i would understand if their was somthing he did which went against the Vedas, vidhi and nishedh. but in fact His sampraday went in accordance with the vedas. It can be seen that the sampraday in fact does not go over any boundaries what so ever and in fact lays down and re establishes the rules of the Vedas hence why is it called a sampraday.

 

It is a bhakti marg just like Lord Chaitanya mahaprabhu laid down. Lord Swaminarayan established the dharms of Saints. This sampraday brings about the very core of the teachings of the vedas. For the women the 3 days of impurities, non touching of widows, serving husbands like God etc were reinstalled for the Kaliyug. Samanya dharm such as waking up before sunrise, initiation, non eating of onions galic tamoguni products etc were once again re established within western Gujrat. Lord Swaminarayan also said that this sampraday will touch every place of the Nav Khand too! Which can be seen today.

 

Even if you still believe He wasnt the Lord so be it but, Dont go hurting His followers, As causing pain to people who follow such faith derived from the Vedas im sure would be a sin. Would Lord Chaitanya want such a thing? Of course He wouldnt.

 

So think about it as a Vaishnav Follower.

[Guest guest]

I agree with the Guest above.

 

I am not a Swaminarayan follower but on ething i have noticed amongst some devotees, not just of ISKCON but also other organisations, is that religion has made them narrow-minded. There has been no progression from ABCD to EFGH. We are left as a bunch of spiritual babies. We see things so bivalently and skew things with logic, which is itself perverted by this material world. Let us realise that all God has to offer is not only encapsulated within a handful of books, though you need those books for ABCD. There is SO MUCH MORE left to discover! Let us be more open minded and not jump to conclusions and hurt the feelings of other devotees. We should strive for understanding first and NEVER judgement because as yet we are imperfect.

 

G.

[vijay]

Guests,

 

"The other thing is that Lord Swaminarayan didnt create havoc and evil. So why proclaim that HE CANNOT BE GOD? "

 

As you know many people make claims that they are god, and they do good social work etc. I have throughtout my discussion with you said why your claims and evidence holds no water if they dont, apart from sastra which you have given me evidence of and I will need to check out.

 

Im sorry if you feel offended by such questioning however it is important to question as then the other person will realise he may be following blindly if he hasnt got reasons of why he follows, and if he does find out the answers to questions then his faith will become stronger as well as the other person gaining some insight.

 

Unfortunately bhudhi and sastra is all we have and intelligence has to be based on sastra, if someone feels offended by their faith being questioned then they shouldnt declare their faith on a discussion board.

 

Religion based on sentiment is cheap and worst it becomes fanatisism. Over the past thousands of years doctrines have been debated, ramunuja with sankarcharya, madhvas vs nimbarkas etc, this has allowed greater understanding of philosophical concepts of god tested with intelligence and logic. This is why today india has very sophisticated philosophy system, it wasnt that you believe what you want and i believe what i want and lets not question each other as its offencive. With attudes like that vedic concepts would never of been expanded as they are today.

 

Emotional outbursts and name calling in a debate reveals the actual conciousness of a person.

 

Narrow mindedness is both blind faith and blind doubting.

 

[Guest guest]

Yes but what YOU are doing is condemning and writing off Swaminarayan immediately. Almost as if you yourself are the very sastra you talk of...now thats narrow minded and bigotted. I think even if you had all the evidence you ask for you would still refuse it as it would require you to be humble and accept you were..something you cannot possibly do.

 

Padma Puran, Brahmand Puran, Visvaksen Samhita and Skanda Puran declare the advent of Swaminarayan.

Bhagwatam and Geeta proclaim that God is not restricted to finite number of avatars e.g. 24