Hindus are a lost people

August 20, 2005

Dear friends,

I am gonna say something politically incorrect, so please don't be offended. This is something we should all consider. Even SP, I believe, gave it some thought. We should try and isolate ourselves from those calling themselves 'Hindus' for the following genuine reasons.

Hindus are confused people who believe in the following myths:

1) All paths are true:

THis is ridiculous. Truth is one and the path is one. There cannot be many paths to the one transcendental truth. Since Hindus always try to be politically correct, they tend to say such nonsense that all paths are true. Yeah, even the old pope who abused other religions (including Hinduism) is following the path to truth, according to the clueless Hindus. Needless to say, this diplomatic attitude is dangerous, because it encourages people to follow any barbaric non-vedic path such as Islam or Christianity. A true Vedantin will try to be brutally honest and declare that there's only one path to truth, and that's Vedanta. Every other 'religion' is fake.

2) All is God:

No, all is God's Shakti manifesting at different levels. That's why there is diversity.

3) Every soul is pure:

No, there are gradations. That's why the concept of swabhava is so important in Vedanta, it stresses uniqueness of the jiva and evolution based on that unique quality.

4) Krishha is Saguna Brahman:

Nonsense, Krishna is the source of both saguna and nirguna, he is the Purushottama beyond which there is no other.

5) God is the cause of this universe:

God is NOT the material but the efficient cause. Shakti is different from Shaktimaan.

6) Since effect merges into the cause, man merges into god.

Wrong, the effect merges into the material cause which is prakriti, and since God is the efficient cause, his nature never changes and there is eternal duality between God and man.

7) All names of God are valid:

Total nonsense, names are irrelevant in the temporal world. But in the transcendental world, name IS the form. So Krishna is the name as well as the form, and other Vedic names such as Visnu, Narayana are acceptable. But allah, Jesus have nothing to do with our God. Hence, hindus stop saying . like god is one but his names are many. Because then, a Muslim could worhip God as Bin Laden and a christian as Bush. After all, names are irrelevant, right?

8) Varnasrama doesn't work:

It works at all times, that's why Vedanta is called Sanatana Dharma or Eternal philosophy. Who are the rulers at the moment? They're not kshatriya material, they are Sudras and that's why there is chaos in politics. As one can see, Varnasrama would've solved this problem by electing Kshatriyas to perform that particular dharma, and not sudras in the name of equality and all. Hence, varna system is important now more than ever.

9) We must respect people from all faiths:

Another politically correct statement. Respect cannot be given away for free. People should earn it. If people from other 'faiths' want respect, they're not gonna get it by following non-vedic paths. If you want to respect everyone and project a nice guy image, join politics and leave Vedanta alone.

10) Peace is the highest ideal:

No wonder, hindus have been slaves forever! Peace is a relative idea and the relative should never be confused with the Absolute. So to reduce all our activies, ideas and aspirations to just ONE relative principle is absurd.

There are many more absurdities that the Hindus believe in, but this is all I could think of at the moment. Anyhow, the point is, Hindus are dull people who believe in these comforting myths to project the 'nice guy' image. They aren't interested in the truth, they are used car salesmen and nothing more. So I wonder why we should call ourselves Vaishnavas when the word is commonly associated with Hinduism. Wouldn't Vedanta be a better term to separate ourselves from Hinduism?

Hare Krishna!

August 20, 2005

.

theist · August 20, 2005

Chapter 5. Karma yoga--Action in Krsna Consciousness

Chapter 5, Verse 1.

Arjuna said: O Krsna, first of all You ask me to renounce work, and then again You recommend work with devotion. Now will You kindly tell me definitely which of the two is more beneficial?

Chapter 5, Verse 2.

The Blessed Lord said: The renunciation of work and work in devotion are both good for liberation. But, of the two, work in devotional service is better than renunciation of works.

Chapter 5, Verse 3.

One who neither hates nor desires the fruits of his activities is known to be always renounced. Such a person, liberated from all dualities, easily overcomes material bondage and is completely liberated, O mighty-armed Arjuna.

Chapter 5, Verse 4.

Only the ignorant speak of karma-yoga and devotional service as being different from the analytical study of the material world [sankhya]. Those who are actually learned say that he who applies himself well to one of these paths achieves the results of both.

Chapter 5, Verse 5.

One who knows that the position reached by means of renunciation can also be attained by works in devotional service and who therefore sees that the path of works and the path of renunciation are one, sees things as they are.

---------------------

Depends on what is conceived as the final goal. The differences I have noticed are due to different understandings in this regard.

I accept Bhakti as the goal and I accept all paths as leading to Bhakti. Some may be considered as more direct.

Your post reveals a lot of sectarian thinking. That is also being lost.

August 20, 2005

If one has the courage to speak the truth, it has nothing to do with sectarianism.

August 20, 2005

Depends on what is conceived as the final goal.***

It is not up to you to choose the final goal. The goal is one and it remains the same forever and for all people. You cannot wake up and say, "Today, peace is my final goal." Tomorrow, you can say, "Alright, love is the final goal" and so on. It cannot change according to your whims and fancies. The goal is Krishna and the means is surrender. Once the surrender is complete, you will be a bhakta or a sanyasin or karma yogi depending on your swabhava to engage in Krishna's service. Anyone who doesn't accept this is a non-vedantin. There are no two ways about this.

Bhakta Don Muntean · August 20, 2005

Quote:

We should try and isolate ourselves from those calling themselves 'Hindus'

Reply:

Oh my listen to that separatist tone?!

Please do not desire an here and now 'identity' so seperate from everything - especially hinduisim - that you'd thus isolate yourself - we're not going to save earth with that mood.

Your posting seems to 'general' - Prabhupada accepted hindus - he also says that they - like everyone - were prone to being luke warm - as far as real faith is concerned.

Another point - why can't you make up a name for this board - too many 'guests' here - and one may not know that they are not addressing the same 'guest'.

In any case - is it that you have to hide 'who' you are - behind the guest feature here?

YS,

BDM

August 20, 2005

I never said we should isolate ourselves from hindus because they're hindus or because we want a separate identity. It's because we are different from them. We don't call ourselves buddhists or taoists, do we? Why, is it because we're narrow-minded? No, it's because we dont believe what they believe. In the same way, since hindus believe in the things I mentioned, we should separate ourselves from them, if only to avoid confusion.

Please try to understand the difference between being narrow-minded and being brutally honest.

Bhakta Don Muntean · August 20, 2005

Oh I do understand... Still no fake name?

Mine is a real name - check here:

http://dental_spy_implants.blog.ca

Bhakta Don Muntean · August 20, 2005

So when you're asked if you're a hindu - say no - then explain the global nature of vedic culture that used to be - and explain how and why that dried up everywhere and thus created the fractured faiths - explain that India being a place of pastimes became a last refuge for this vedic culture - which later becomes hindu religion.

August 20, 2005

Well, if you gave it another moment you'd realize most of your peeves are wrong, as I did the moment I read them. Doesn't Paramatma reveal this stuff to you or is it all just the mental shuffling of the words you parrot?

August 20, 2005

Care to elaborate why i am wrong?

August 21, 2005

<blockquote>Hindus are a lost people

Dear friends,

I am gonna say something politically incorrect, so please don't be offended. This is something we should all consider. Even SP, I believe, gave it some thought. We should try and isolate ourselves from those calling themselves 'Hindus' for the following genuine reasons.

Hindus are confused people who believe in the following myths:

1) All paths are true:

</blockquote>

Almost all people who follow one of the many vedic traditions refer to themselves as Hindus. There is no single "Hindu" dogma or belief system. Just like the Roman Catholics, the Southern Baptists, the Mormons, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Christian Scientists, the Unitarians, the Jehovahs Witnesses, the Pentecostals, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and every thing in between; all call themselves Christian, even though they each believe a different theology and philosophy, also in the "Hindu" world there are numerous traditions and theologies and philosophies which people follow whom almost all refer to themselves as Hindu.

So your statement is false because "Hindus" have diverse beliefs, there is no official "Hindu" belief system just as there is no official Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist belief system. Each of these designations refers to a body of religions, not a specific religion or ideology.

<blockquote> 2) All is God:

No, all is God's Shakti manifesting at different levels. That's why there is diversity.</blockquote>

From S.B 11.13.24:

Within this world, whatever is perceived by the mind, speech, eyes or other senses is Me alone and nothing besides Me. All of you please understand this by a straightforward analysis of the facts.

S.B 11.28.18:

Real spiritual knowledge is based on the discrimination of spirit from matter, and it is cultivated by scriptural evidence, austerity, direct perception, reception of the Puranas' historical narrations, and logical inference. The Absolute Truth, which alone was present before the creation of the universe and which alone will remain after its destruction, is also the time factor and the ultimate cause. Even in the middle stage of this creation's existence, the Absolute Truth alone is the actual reality.

Here Krishna is telling us that everything is Him. The Shaktis of the Lord are not different from the Lord.

From Vaishnava Siddhanta Mala by Thakura Bhaktivinoda:

It is not that Bhagavan is one thing and the shakti is another; just as the burning power of the fire is inseparable from the fire, similarly Bhagavan’s shakti is inseparable from Bhagavan.

From Thakura Bhaktivinoda's Jaiva Dharma:

The commentary on Vedanta states, shakti-shaktimator abhedah: 'There is no difference between the potency and the possessor of potency.' This means that shakti is not a separate object. The Supreme Person who is the master of all potencies is the one truly abiding substance. Shakti is the quality, or inherent function, that is subordinate to His will.

And also from Jaiva Dharma:

In the Narada-pancaratra, Sri Durga Devi explains:

tava vaksasi radhaham rase vrindavane vane

In the forest known as Vrindavana, I am Your internal sakti, Sri Radhika, who adorns Your chest in the rasa dance.

From this statement of Durga Devi, it is clear that there is only one sakti, not two. That sakti is Radhika when She manifests as the internal potency, and she is Durga when she is manifested as the external potency. In the condition of freedom from contact with the material modes of nature, visnu-maya is the cit-sakti. That same visnu-maya is the jada-sakti when it is endowed with the modes of nature.

Purport from A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami C.C Madhya 22.7:

The Lord has many potencies, and He is nondifferent from all these potencies. Because the potencies and the potent cannot be separated, they are identical. Krsna is described as the source of all potencies, and He is also identified with the external potency, the material energy. Krsna also has internal potencies, or spiritual potencies, which are always engaged in His personal service. His internal potency is different from His external potency. Krsna's internal potency and Krsna Himself, who is the potent, are always identical.

So we are being told that everything is in fact God. The Acintya Bhedabheda philosophy of Sri Caintanya is telling us that God is one with or identical to everything. Yet simultaneously different from everything. The difference does not negate the oneness, it is in addition to the oneness. Just like the Sun is one with the heat it produces, yet at the same time the Sun is different then the heat because the Sun is the heat and much more then the heat. The Sun is also a giant sphere, the Sun is also light, the Sun is many things. Yet none of those characteristics of the Sun define the totality of the Sun. The Sun is identical to it's parts yet at the same time it is different from it's parts. So Sri Krishna is identical to everything in existence because everything is comprised of Krishna, yet at the same time Krishna is different from any specific aspect of Himself because Krishna is the totality of all existence.

From S.B. 4.17-19:

Gold and earth are originally existing as ingredients. From gold one may fashion golden ornaments such as bracelets and earrings, and from earth one may fashion clay pots and saucers. The original ingredients gold and earth exist before the products made from them, and when the products are eventually destroyed, the original ingredients, gold and earth, will remain. Thus, since the ingredients are present in the beginning and at the end, they must also be present in the middle phase, taking the form of a particular product to which we assign for convenience a particular name, such as bracelet, earring, pot or saucer. We can therefore understand that since the ingredient cause exists before the creation of a product and after the product's destruction, the same ingredient cause must be present during the manifest phase, supporting the product as the basis of its reality.

A material object, itself composed of an essential ingredient, creates another material object through transformation. Thus one created object becomes the cause and basis of another created object. A particular thing may thus be called real in that it possesses the basic nature of another object that constitutes its origin and final state.

The material universe may be considered real, having nature as its original ingredient and final state. Lord Maha-Vis?n?u is the resting place of nature, which becomes manifest by the power of time. Thus nature, the almighty Vis?n?u and time are not different from Me, the Supreme Absolute Truth

From S.B 11.2.41:

A devotee should not see anything as being separate from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kr?s?n?a. Ether, fire, air, water, earth, the sun and other luminaries, all living beings, the directions, trees and other plants, the rivers and oceans — whatever a devotee experiences he should consider to be an expansion of Kr?s?n?a. Thus seeing everything that exists within creation as the body of the Supreme Lord, Hari, the devotee should offer his sincere respects to the entire expansion of the Lord's body.

<blockquote>3) Every soul is pure:

No, there are gradations. That's why the concept of swabhava is so important in Vedanta, it stresses uniqueness of the jiva and evolution based on that unique quality.</blockquote>

The Vedas teach that every soul is pure yet covered over by the modes of materiaL nature.

From S.B. 3.7.5:

The pure soul is pure consciousness and is never out of consciousness, either due to circumstances, time, situations, dreams or other causes. How then does he become engaged in nescience?

PURPORT

The consciousness of the living being is always present and never changes under any circumstances, as above mentioned. When a living man moves from one place to another, he is conscious that he has changed his position. He is always present in the past, present and future, like electricity. One can remember incidents from his past and can conjecture about his future also on the basis of past experience. He never forgets his personal identity, even though he is placed in awkward circumstances. How then can the living entity become forgetful of his real identity as pure spirit soul and identify with matter unless influenced by something beyond himself? The conclusion is that the living entity is influenced by the avidya potency, as confirmed in both the Vishnu Purana and the beginning of Srimad-Bhagavatam.

So in fact every soul is pure. Yet when the pure soul becomes influenced by avidya, the pure soul then becomes covered over by the modes of nature; sattva guna, raja guna, and tamo guna. But the soul never changes, it always remains the same.

From Bhagavad Gita 14.5:

Material nature consists of three modes — goodness, passion and ignorance. When the eternal living entity comes in contact with nature, O mighty-armed Arjuna, he becomes conditioned by these modes.

PURPORT

The living entity, because he is transcendental, has nothing to do with this material nature. Still, because he has become conditioned by the material world, he is acting under the spell of the three modes of material nature. Because living entities have different kinds of bodies, in terms of the different aspects of nature, they are induced to act according to that nature. This is the cause of the varieties of happiness and distress.

Bhagavad Gita 13.30:

One who can see that all activities are performed by the body, which is created of material nature, and sees that the self does nothing, actually sees.

PURPORT

This body is made by material nature under the direction of the Supersoul, and whatever activities are going on in respect to one's body are not his doing. Whatever one is supposed to do, either for happiness or for distress, one is forced to do because of the bodily constitution. The self, however, is outside all these bodily activities. This body is given according to one's past desires. To fulfill desires, one is given the body, with which he acts accordingly. Practically speaking, the body is a machine, designed by the Supreme Lord, to fulfill desires. Because of desires, one is put into difficult circumstances to suffer or to enjoy. This transcendental vision of the living entity, when developed, makes one separate from bodily activities. One who has such a vision is an actual seer.

Bhagavad Gita 13.32:

Those with the vision of eternity can see that the imperishable soul is transcendental, eternal, and beyond the modes of nature. Despite contact with the material body, O Arjuna, the soul neither does anything nor is entangled.

PURPORT

A living entity appears to be born because of the birth of the material body, but actually the living entity is eternal; he is not born, and in spite of his being situated in a material body, he is transcendental and eternal. Thus he cannot be destroyed. By nature he is full of bliss. He does not engage himself in any material activities; therefore the activities performed due to his contact with material bodies do not entangle him.

<blockquote>4) Krishha is Saguna Brahman:

Nonsense, Krishna is the source of both saguna and nirguna, he is the Purushottama beyond which there is no other.</blockquote>

I take it that you meant to say Nirguna Brahman instead of Saguna Brahman. Very few "Hindus" believe that ultimately God is without attributes or Nirguna Brahman i.e belief in an impersonal God. According to the last census 85% of "Hindus" in India identify themselves as Vaisnavas. All Vaisnava traditions teach that ultimately God has attributes or Saguna Brahman i.e belief in a personal God. So your chastising of "Hindus" is really just singling out the monist schools, mainly the followers of Advaita Vedanta in some form or another. Krishna is Saguna Brahman i.e Brahman with attributes, Nirguna Brahman doesn't exist.

<blockquote>5) God is the cause of this universe:

God is NOT the material but the efficient cause. Shakti is different from Shaktimaan.

</blockquote>

God is in fact both the material and efficient cause of this universe. Shakti and Shaktiman are identical.

By Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur, from his foreword to Sree Krishna Chaitanya, Vol. 1, by his disciple Professor N.K. Sanyal.. In the forward Srila Sarasvati Thakura gives a list of 145 attributes of Sri Krishna. Here is number 23

23) Krishna is efficient and material cause.

CC Adi 6.4: Lord Advaita Acarya is the incarnation of Maha-Visnu, whose main function is to create the cosmic world through the actions of maya.

CC Adi 6.5: Because He is nondifferent from Hari, the Supreme Lord, He is called Advaita, and because He propagates the cult of devotion, He is called Acarya. He is the Lord and the incarnation of the Lord's devotee. Therefore I take shelter of Him.

CC Adi 6.6: Sri Advaita Acarya is indeed directly the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself. His glory is beyond the conception of ordinary living beings.

CC Adi 6.7: Maha-Visnu performs all the functions for the creation of the universes. Sri Advaita Acarya is His direct incarnation.

CC Adi 6.8: That purusa creates and maintains with His external energy. He creates innumerable universes in His pastimes.

CC Adi 6.9: By His will He manifests Himself in unlimited forms, in which He enters each and every universe.

CC Adi 6.10: Sri Advaita Acarya is a plenary part of that purusa and so is not different from Him. Indeed, Sri Advaita Acarya is not separate but is another form of that purusa.

CC Adi 6.11: He [Advaita Acarya] helps in the pastimes of the purusa, with whose material energy and by whose will He creates innumerable universes.

CC Adi 6.13: Maha-Visnu creates the entire material world with millions of His parts, energies and incarnations.

CC Adi 6.14-15: Just as the external energy consists of two parts -- the efficient cause [nimitta] and the material cause [upadana], maya being the efficient cause and pradhana the material cause -- so Lord Visnu, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, assumes two forms to create the material world with the efficient and material causes.

CC Adi 6.16: Lord Visnu Himself is the efficient [nimitta] cause of the material world, and Narayana in the form of Sri Advaita is the material cause [upadana].

CC Adi 6.17: Lord Visnu, in His efficient aspect, glances over the material energy, and Sri Advaita, as the material cause, creates the material world.

CC Adi 6.18: Although the Sankhya philosophy accepts that the material ingredients are the cause, the creation of the world never arises from dead matter.

CC Adi 6.19: The Lord infuses the material ingredients with His own creative potency. Then, by the power of the Lord, creation takes place.

CC Adi 6.20: In the form of Advaita He infuses the material ingredients with creative energy. Therefore, Advaita is the original cause of creation.

CC Adi 6.21: Sri Advaita Acarya is the creator of millions and millions of universes, and by His expansions [as Garbhodakasayi Visnu] He maintains each and every universe.

CC Adi 6.22: Sri Advaita is the principal limb [anga] of Narayana. Srimad-Bhagavatam speaks of "limb" [anga] as "a plenary portion" [amsa] of the Lord.

CC Adi 6.23: "O Lord of lords, You are the seer of all creation. You are indeed everyone's dearest life. Are You not, therefore, my father, Narayana? 'Narayana' refers to one whose abode is in the water born from Nara [Garbhodakasayi Visnu], and that Narayana is Your plenary portion. All Your plenary portions are transcendental. They are absolute and are not creations of maya."

CC Adi 6.24: This verse describes that the limbs and plenary portions of the Lord are all spiritual; They have no relationship with the material energy.

CC Adi 6.25: Why has Sri Advaita been called a limb and not a part? The reason is that "limb" implies greater intimacy.

CC Adi 6.26: Sri Advaita, who is a reservoir of virtues, is the main limb of Maha-Visnu. His full name is Advaita, for He is identical in all respects with that Lord.

C.C. Adi 2.28: Narayana and Sri Krsna are the same Personality of Godhead, but although They are identical, Their bodily features are different.

Purport C.C Adi 2.29: Narayana is identical to Sri Krsna. They are in fact the same person manifested differently, like a high court judge who is differently situated in his office and at home. As Narayana the Lord is manifested with four hands, but as Krsna He is manifested with two hands.

Purport S.B. 4.31.17:

bhumir apo nalo vayuh?

kham´ mano buddhir eva ca

ahankara itiyam´ me

bhinna prakr?tir as?t?adha

"Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego — all together these eight comprise My separated material energies."

Although the material, or physical, elements are the energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, they are separate. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is therefore not affected by material conditions. The Vedanta-sutra confirms, janmady asya yatah?: [sB 1.1.1] the creation, maintenance and dissolution of this cosmic manifestation are due to the existence of the Supreme Lord. Nonetheless, the Lord is unaffected by all these changes in the material elements. This is indicated by the word pravaha ("emanation"). The sun always shines brilliantly and is not affected by clouds or darkness. Similarly, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is always present in His spiritual energy and is not affected by the material emanations. Brahma-sam´hita (5.1) confirms:

isvarah paramahh krsnah

sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah?

anadir adir govindah?

sarva-karan?a-karan?am

"Krsna, who is known as Govinda, is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal, blissful, spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin, and He is the prime cause of all causes." Although He is the supreme cause, the cause of all causes, He is still parama, transcendental, and His form is sac-cid-ananda, eternal, spiritual bliss. Krsna is the shelter of everything, and this is the verdict of all scripture. Krsna is the remote cause, and material nature is the immediate cause of the cosmic manifestation. In the Caitanya-caritamrta it is said that understanding prakrti, or nature, to be the cause of everything is like understanding the nipples on the neck of a goat to be the cause of milk. Material nature is the immediate cause of the cosmic manifestation, but the original cause is Narayana, Krsna. Sometimes people think that the cause of an earthen pot is the earth. We see on a potter's wheel a sufficient amount of earth to produce many pots, and although unintelligent men will say that the earth on the wheel is the cause of the pot, those who are actually advanced will find that the original cause is the potter, who supplies the earth and moves the wheel. Material nature may be a helping factor in the creation of this cosmic manifestation, but it is not the ultimate cause. In Bhagavad-gita(9.10) the Lord therefore says:

mayadhyaksen?a prakrtih

suyate sa-caracaram

"This material nature is working under My direction, O son of Kunti, and producing all moving and unmoving beings."

The Supreme Lord casts His glance over material energy, and His glance agitates the three modes of nature. Creation then takes place. The conclusion is that nature is not the cause of the material manifestation. The Supreme Lord is the cause of all causes.

From a lecture on C.C Adi 4.96 bu A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami.:

"radha-purna-sakti, krsna-purna-saktiman

dui vastu bheda nai, sastra-paramana

radha-krsna aiche sadaeka-i svarupa

lila-rasa asvadite dhare dui-rupa

There is no difference between the energy and the energetic, sakti-saktiman abheda. Therefore there is no difference between Radha and Krsna. Radha is purna-sakti and Krsna is purna-saktiman, so there is no difference, but, lila-rasa asvadite dhare dui-rupa, to relish the mellow of pastimes two bodies are there, Radha and Krsna, otherwise they are one. So in Vraja-lila there are two bodies, Radha and Krsna, visaya and asraya. But in the form of Gauranga They are one. Radha and Krsna combined together. Krsna assuming the mood and complexion of Radharani appears and that is Gauranga. This is the tattva, and that is a very deep and confidential tattva"

Purport S.B. 6.19.6

The Lord has multifarious potencies (parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate). Since mother Laksmi, the goddess of fortune, is the Lord's very precious potency, she is addressed here as maha-maye. The word maya means sakti. Lord Visnu, the Supreme, cannot exhibit His power everywhere without His principal energy. It is said, sakti saktiman abheda: the power and the powerful are identical.

C.C. Madhya 22.7:

Krishna is the nondual Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Although He is one, He maintains different personal expansions and energies for His pastimes.

PURPORT

The Lord has many potencies, and He is nondifferent from all these potencies. Because the potencies and the potent cannot be separated, they are identical. Krishna is described as the source of all potencies, and He is also identified with the external potency, the material energy. Krishna also has internal potencies, or spiritual potencies, which are always engaged in His personal service. His internal potency is different from His external potency. Krishna's internal potency and Krishna Himself, who is the potent, are always identical.

From Bhaktivinoda Thakura from his Sri Tattva Sutra:

7. tacchaktitastatvadhikyamiticcenna tadabhedat

If someone claims, "The Lord is different from His potency", then I reply, "No. It is not so, for they are not different."

If someone claims that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the creator of the worlds, is different from His potency, then this sutra is spoken to refute him. Because the Supreme Personality of Godhead is not different from His many potencies, the potencies are not different from Him. This is described in the following words of the Nyaya-sastra:

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of all potencies, is not different from His potencies."

In the Svetasvatara Upanisad (6.8.) it is said:

"The Lord's potencies of knowledge, power and action share His own nature. They are not different from Him."

In Visnu Purana (1.22.53) it is said:

"Just as the illumination of a fire, which is situated in one place, is spread over, the energies of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Parabrahman, are spread all over the universe."*

In the Markandeya Purana, Devi-mahatmya, the sage explains:

"O king, now I will describe to you the glories of the goddess. By her power she sustains the entire world.

"She is the potency of Lord Visnu. From her comes transcendental knowledge. You and many others have attained transcendental knowledge by her grace."

In the Narada-pancaratra, Second Night, Third Chapter, Lord Siva explains:

"The Supreme Lord is one. Still, He is manifested in two forms. One form is female: the potency of Lord Visnu. The other form is male: Lord Visnu.

What is Shakti and what is Shaktiman? Ultimately we are told there is no difference, they are identical. Why? Because Krishna is everything. Krishna is energy and the controller of energy; Shakti and Shaktiman. Therefore the material energy is also identical to Krishna. Everything is both identical and different to Krishna. Krishna is all substance and the controller of all substance. Krishna's energy and Krishna are identical. But Krishna's energy is also different from Krishna in various ways.

Krishna's energy is divided into 3 main categories.

Internal energy or Cit or Antaranga Shakti

The indivdiual souls or Tatastha or Jiva Shakti

The Illusory energy or Bahiranga or Maya Shakti

C.C. Madhya 20.109,111:

suryamsu kirana yaiche agni-jalaya

svabhavika krsnera tina prakara sakti haya

krsnera svabhavika-tina-sakti-parinati

cic-chakti jiva-sakti ara maya-sakti

The living entitey is a manifestation simultaneously one and different from the Lord, like a molecular particle of sunshine or fire. Krsna has three varieties of energy.

Lord Krsna naturally has three energetic transformations, and these are known as the spiritual energy, the living entity energy, and the illusory energy

C.C. Madhya 8.150-152:

krsnera ananta-sakti, ta'te tina pradhana

cic-chakti, mayasakti, jiva-sakti-nama

antaranga,bahiranga, tatastha kahi yare

antaranga svarupa-sakti sabara upare

Krsna has unlimited potencies, which can be divided into three main parts. These are the spiritual energy, the material energy and the marginal energy, which is known as the living entities. In other words, these are all potencies of God - internal, external, and marginal. However, the internal energy is the Lord's personal energy and stands over the other two.

Why does the Internal or Cit or Antaranga Shakti stand over the other two?

From Bhaktivinoda's The Bhagavat:

Antaranga-shakti

Antaranga is that which pertains to the proper Entity of the Absolute Person. It is also called Swarupa-shakti for this reason. The literal meaning of the word antaranga is "that which belongs to the inner body." Shakti is rendered as "power."

From Bhaktivinoda's Jaiva Dharma:

Krsna is self-effulgent, like a blazing fire or the sun. Krsna is like a blazing fire. In the centre of the fire is the cit-sakti (svarupa sakti), it is present in fullness. In addition to the centre there is also a great expanse illuminated by the fire. The same way the Krsna-sun illumines a great area with sunlight. The rays of sunlight are particles of His internal potency (svarupa sakti). Those atomic particles that constitute those rays of sunlight are the individual spirit souls. The internal potency (svarupa sakti) manifests the Krsna-sun planet itself. The sunlight emanating from that planet is manifested by the cit-sakti (svarupa sakti) and the individual particles of light are manifested by the jiva-sakti. Therefore the individual spirit souls are manifested by the jiva-sakti.

Cit Shakti, the Internal energy, is Krishna proper.

If we take into account the totality of reality, the totality of God, we have Bhagavan, the Internal energy, External energy, and Jiva. The Internal energy is God proper.

Also from Jaiva Dharma:

Srila Jiva Gosvami describes the Supreme Person in these words:

"The Absolute Truth is one. Still, by His inconceivable potency He is manifested in four ways: 1. svarupa (His original form), 2. tad-rupa-vaibhava (His incarnations), 3. jiva (the individual spirit souls), and 4. pradhana (the material energy). These four features are like: 1. the interior of the sun planet, 2. the sun's surface, 3. the sunlight, and 4. the reflection of the sun."

This example of course, explains only a small part of the Lord's nature. His svarupa (original form) is His form of eternity, knowledge and bliss. His svarupa-vaibhava (manifestations of His form) are His spiritual abode, name, associates and paraphernalia. The jiva-sakti is the abode of the numberless eternally liberated and conditioned individual souls, who are tiny particles of spirit.

Jiva Goswami explains the personal incarnations and spiritual abode, name, associates (personal expansions) and paraphernalia of the Lord to be like the sun's surface and the Lord to be like the sun's interior. What this means is that when you look at the sun you only see the surface, but underneath is the sun. So when you look at a personal expansion of the Lord or the Lord's abode, etc, they may display a great variety of forms, personas, pastimes, etc. But underneath they are all the same Supreme Lord. That is the Antaranga or Cit Sakti which is always completely identical to the Lord.

<blockquote> 6) Since effect merges into the cause, man merges into god.

Wrong, the effect merges into the material cause which is prakriti, and since God is the efficient cause, his nature never changes and there is eternal duality between God and man.

</blockquote>

That is Tattvavada philosophy of Sri Madhvacarya. Gaudiya's reject the Dwaita or dualistic paradigm preached by Sri Madhava. We accept the teachings of the Bhagavat Purana which is explicit in it's teaching that Krishna is simultaneously one with the Jiva and different from the Jiva. Just like the molecule of oxygen is part of the singular atmosphere of the earth, yet at the same time you can see it is a distinct particle. In that way the Bhagavat teaches that since everything ultimately has it's existence within and part of Hari, yet retains a distinct identity from Hari, therefore we are all amsa's or limbs of the body of Hari. We are called Vibhinnamsa, whereas the various incarnations and personal expansions of the Supreme Lord are called Swamsa.

As Jiva Goswami has said in his Krsna Sandarbha where he quotes from the Varaha Purana:

The two kinds of expansions from the Supreme Personality of Godhead are : 1. svamsa (personal expansions) and 2. vibhinnamsa (separate persons). The svamsa expansions are unlimitedly powerful. Their form and personality are the same as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself. There is not the slightest difference between the svamsa expansions and the Original Personality of Godhead. The vibhinnamsa expansions are very weak in comparison to Them.

We are expansions of Krishna. That means that Krishna manifests Himself as a different type of living entity from His own infinite omniscient omnipresent being, giving a unique sense of self to each one of us. But we are not totally separate entities from Krishna, we are two persons in one. We are Krishna and a unique individual, together we make up "me". We exist as a part of Krishna's consciousness, like a limb or amsa of God's infinite body of consciousness. Our consciousness is part of a much larger conscious being.

From Bhagavad Gita 13.16:

The Supreme Truth exists outside and inside of all living beings, the moving and the nonmoving. Because He is subtle, He is beyond the power of the material senses to see or to know. Although far, far away, He is also near to all.

PURPORT

In Vedic literature we understand that Narayana, the Supreme Person, is residing both outside and inside of every living entity. He is present in both the spiritual and material worlds. Although He is far, far away, still He is near to us. These are the statements of Vedic literature. Asino duram vrajati sayano yati sarvatah (Katha Upanishad 1.2.21). And because He is always engaged in transcendental bliss, we cannot understand how He is enjoying His full opulence. We cannot see or understand with these material senses. Therefore in the Vedic language it is said that to understand Him our material mind and senses cannot act. But one who has purified his mind and senses by practicing Krishna consciousness in devotional service can see Him constantly. It is confirmed in Brahma-samhita that the devotee who has developed love for the Supreme God can see Him always, without cessation. And it is confirmed in Bhagavad-gita (11.54) that He can be seen and understood only by devotional service. Bhaktya tv ananyaya sakyah.

Bhagavad Gita 13.17:

Although the Supersoul appears to be divided among all beings, He is never divided. He is situated as one. Although He is the maintainer of every living entity, it is to be understood that He devours and develops all.

Bhagavad Gita 13.18:

One who sees the Supersoul equally present everywhere, in every living being, does not degrade himself by his mind. Thus he approaches the transcendental destination.

<blockquote> 7) All names of God are valid:

Total nonsense, names are irrelevant in the temporal world. But in the transcendental world, name IS the form. So Krishna is the name as well as the form, and other Vedic names such as Visnu, Narayana are acceptable. But allah, Jesus have nothing to do with our God. Hence, hindus stop saying . like god is one but his names are many. Because then, a Muslim could worhip God as Bin Laden and a christian as Bush. After all, names are irrelevant, right?</blockquote>

Why do "Hindus" say that? I know Srila Prabhupada A.C.Bhaktivedanta used to say that at various times, why? Because they seek to present an inviting openhearted non egotistic presentation to people of other faiths. It's called getting along with your neighbors. Make peace not war. Give respect; you get respect, give disrespect; get back disrespect.

<blockquote>8) Varnasrama doesn't work:

It works at all times, that's why Vedanta is called Sanatana Dharma or Eternal philosophy. Who are the rulers at the moment? They're not kshatriya material, they are Sudras and that's why there is chaos in politics. As one can see, Varnasrama would've solved this problem by electing Kshatriyas to perform that particular dharma, and not sudras in the name of equality and all. Hence, varna system is important now more than ever.

</blockquote>

Varnashrama was not a democracy, there was no voting, it was monarchical. Varnashrama was a society wide phenomena in the vedic age. It didn't just pop up one day in the middle of a totally different type of society and culture. Varnashrama was organic to the culture it operated within. In modern times varnashrama only has relevance as a sanctuary, as a way to live apart from the modern world wide culture. Varnashrama spiritual communities may be able to exist in pockets here and there, where like minded souls can come together to make an endeavor to advance spiritually in each other's association, but thinking that the Vedic varnashrama society can overtake or replace modern materialistic society? That is absurd. It is not going to happen or even come anywhere near happening. Forget about fantasizing about the changing of modern society into a vedic monarachy, or at least run on varnashrama and vedic principles, it's a waste of your time. A pipe dream. The best we can affect the world in a big way is if we can influence some of the very powerful to take to vaisnavism. Then they could in turn use their power to better society. But society as a whole will not turn to varnashrama or the vedic path, it's just not feasible.

<blockquote>9) We must respect people from all faiths:

Another politically correct statement. Respect cannot be given away for free. People should earn it. If people from other 'faiths' want respect, they're not gonna get it by following non-vedic paths. If you want to respect everyone and project a nice guy image, join politics and leave Vedanta alone.

</blockquote>

From Kapiladev S.B. 3.29.23-27:

One who offers Me respect but is envious of the bodies of others and is therefore a separatist never attains peace of mind, because of his inimical behaviour towards other living entities.

My dear mother, even if he worships with proper rituals and paraphernalia, a person who is ignorant of My presence in all living entities never pleases Me by the worship of My Deities in the temple.

Performing his prescribed duties, one should worship the Deity of the Supreme Personality of Godhead until one realises My presence in his own heart and in the hearts of all other living entities as well.

As the blazing fire of death, I cause great fear to whoever makes the least discrimination between himself and other living entities because of a differential outlook.

Therefore, through charitable gifts and attention, as well as through friendly behaviour and by viewing all to be alike, one should propitiate Me, who abide in all creatures as their very self.

<blockquote>10) Peace is the highest ideal:

No wonder, hindus have been slaves forever! Peace is a relative idea and the relative should never be confused with the Absolute. So to reduce all our activies, ideas and aspirations to just ONE relative principle is absurd.

There are many more absurdities that the Hindus believe in, but this is all I could think of at the moment. Anyhow, the point is, Hindus are dull people who believe in these comforting myths to project the 'nice guy' image. They aren't interested in the truth, they are used car salesmen and nothing more. So I wonder why we should call ourselves Vaishnavas when the word is commonly associated with Hinduism. Wouldn't Vedanta be a better term to separate ourselves from Hinduism?

</blockquote>

I've never heard "peace is the highest ideal" spoken or written anywhere by any "Hindu".

Krishna spoke this in the Gita chapter 16 though:

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Fearlessness; purification of one's existence; cultivation of spiritual knowledge; charity; self-control; performance of sacrifice; study of the Vedas; austerity; simplicity; nonviolence; truthfulness; freedom from anger; renunciation; tranquillity; aversion to faultfinding; compassion for all living entities; freedom from covetousness; gentleness; modesty; steady determination; vigor; forgiveness; fortitude; cleanliness; and freedom from envy and from the passion for honor — these transcendental qualities, O son of Bharata, belong to godly men endowed with divine nature.

Pride, arrogance, conceit, anger, harshness and ignorance —these qualities belong to those of demoniac nature, O son of Pr?tha.

The Supreme Lord is manifesting all and guding the path everyone is taking, after all Sri Krishna has said:

The Supersoul alone is the ultimate controller and creator of this world, and thus He alone is also the created. Similarly, the Soul of all existence Himself both maintains and is maintained, withdraws and is withdrawn. No other entity can be properly ascertained as separate from Him, the Supreme Soul, who nonetheless is distinct from everything and everyone else. The appearance of the threefold material nature, which is perceived within Him, has no actual basis. Rather, you should understand that this material nature, composed of the three modes, is simply the product of His illusory potency.

Within this world, whatever is perceived by the mind, speech, eyes or other senses is Me alone and nothing besides Me. All of you please understand this by a straightforward analysis of the facts.

According to My instructions, one should fix the mind on Me alone. If, however, one continues to see many different values and goals in life rather than seeing everything within Me, then although apparently awake, one is actually dreaming due to incomplete knowledge, just as one may dream that one has wakened from a dream.

Those states of existence that are conceived of as separate from the Supreme Personality of Godhead have no actual existence, although they create a sense of separation from the Absolute Truth. Just as the seer of a dream imagines many different activities and rewards, similarly, because of the sense of an existence separate from the Lord's existence, the living entity falsely performs fruitive activities, thinking them to be the cause of future rewards and destinations.

August 22, 2005

Sri Chaitanya himself used the word "hindu" as a label for the community of Krishna worshippers, or Vaishnavas.

CC A-di 17.158: As a learned scholar, the Kazi challenged Caitanya Mahaprabhu, "In Your Vedic scriptures there is an injunction for killing a cow. On the strength of this injunction, great sages performed sacrifices involving cow-killing."

CC A-di 17.159: Refuting the Kazi's statement, the Lord (Sri Chaitanya) immediately replied, "The Vedas clearly enjoin that cows should not be killed. Therefore every Hindu, whoever he may be, avoids indulging in cow-killing.

...

CC A-di 17.164: "'In this Age of Kali, five acts are forbidden: the offering of a horse in sacrifice, the offering of a cow in sacrifice, the acceptance of the order of sannya-sa, the offering of oblations of flesh to the forefathers, and a man's begetting children in his brother's wife.'

CC A-di 17.165: "Since you Muslims cannot bring killed cows back to life, you are responsible for killing them. Therefore you are going to hell; there is no way for your deliverance.

CC A-di 17.166: "Cow-killers are condemned to rot in hellish life for as many thousands of years as there are hairs on the body of the cow.

CC A-di 17.167: "There are many mistakes and illusions in your scriptures. Their compilers, not knowing the essence of knowledge, gave orders that were against reason and argument."

</font>

</blockquote>

ISKCON devotees often say that they are not Hindus. But other Vaishnava groups do not say that. If ISKCON devotees want to think of themselves as separate from Hinduism then that is fine but it cannot be said that the Hindus are separate from Vaishnava-dharma because in several places in Chaitanya Charitamrta we read that the devotees of Mahaprabhu are known by the label "Hindu."

-Muralidhar

August 22, 2005

Re-reading what I said above, I feel I wasn't clear in what I wrote. What I meant to say is:

Sri Chaitanya used the word "Hindu" to describe his own community, the community of Vaishnavas of devotees of Krishna.

-Muralidhar

August 22, 2005

quote:

10) Peace is the highest ideal:

No wonder, hindus have been slaves forever! Peace is a relative idea and the relative should never be confused with the Absolute. So to reduce all our activies, ideas and aspirations to just ONE relative principle is absurd.

There are many more absurdities that the Hindus believe in, but this is all I could think of at the moment. Anyhow, the point is, Hindus are dull people who believe in these comforting myths to project the 'nice guy' image. They aren't interested in the truth, they are used car salesmen and nothing more. So I wonder why we should call ourselves Vaishnavas when the word is commonly associated with Hinduism. Wouldn't Vedanta be a better term to separate ourselves from Hinduism?

------------

If you think this way then maybe it is better if you don't call yourself a Vaisnava. Yes please don't call yourself a Vaisnava. You follow your own ideas and become a Vedanta or a BhaktiVedanta

August 22, 2005

1)So your statement is false because "Hindus" have diverse beliefs, there is no official "Hindu" belief system just as there is no official Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist belief system. Each of these designations refers to a body of religions, not a specific religion or ideology.

So? Whether or not they have diverse beliefs, they come under one banner, don't they? That's all that matters. What matters is NOT the word 'Hindu' but what it represents.

2) So we are being told that everything is in fact God.

Then don't call yourself a Vaishnava. You are a Shudadvaitin. Everthing is not Krishna, it is krishna's energy. See the diff.? The cup in front of me is NOT krishna, but it wouldn't exist without Krishna's energy sustaining it.

3) The Vedas teach that every soul is pure yet covered over by the modes of materiaL nature.

If it were pure, it wouldn't be covered by the modes of nature. For instance, if a particular Jiva is rajasic, it doesn't mean the jiva in itself is pure and it's somehow trapped by one of the modes, rajas in this case. That particular jiva has an intrinsic tendency to be rajasic, and therefore it attracts the rajasic nature in the outside world as well.

SUppose a man becomes a terrorist, you wouldn't say he's a pure soul and the modes of nature made him a terrorist. OTOH, his soul has an intrinsic nature, which is Tamas, and when the opportunity to become a terrorist presented itself, the tamasic swabhava characterizing that jiva seized the opportunity.

As you can see, even for the modes to act, there must be something in the jiva to accept one mode and NOT the other. This explains why people are different from each other. If, as you say, each soul is fundamentally pure, then it should NEVER be caught in any mode. But that isn't happening. Jivas are trapped in one mode or the other, or in all of them. No jiva is free. Therefore, even if it's true that the modes of nature (say rajas) 'trap' the jiva, there must be something rajasic in that jiva for it to get trapped. If the jiva were pure, it would be eternally free. the modes cannot trap such a jiva.

4)I take it that you meant to say Nirguna Brahman instead of Saguna Brahman. Very few "Hindus" believe that ultimately God is without attributes or Nirguna Brahman i.e belief in an impersonal God. According to the last census 85% of "Hindus" in India identify themselves as Vaisnavas. All Vaisnava traditions teach that ultimately God has attributes or Saguna Brahman i.e belief in a personal God. So your chastising of "Hindus" is really just singling out the monist schools, mainly the followers of Advaita Vedanta in some form or another. Krishna is Saguna Brahman i.e Brahman with attributes, Nirguna Brahman doesn't exist.

Saguna brahman is the state of conditioned consciousness. For instance, you see a chair and start wondering what color it is and so on. So your consciousness of the chair is conditioned by its attributes. That's saguna. Then you look at the same chair and make sure no factor conditions your observation. In this case, your consciousness is pure, without attributes to condition it. It's nirguna. But Krishna is beyond niguna and saguna.

Of course, you'll argue that he has attributes, that's why the Bhagawat describes his beauty and so on. Yes, he has attributes but they are different from the attribues of finite objects like chair etc. But since we only understand human language with its limitations, unfortunately, we have to bring Krishna down to our plane and understand. Hence, we assume that Krishna is merely saguna brahman, as if any factor could condition him. Nothing, not even his attributes could condition him, therefore he is not saguna. But he's not attributelss, like space or ether, so he isn't nirguna. He has a from but not a form that could condition him. He has a color but not the color that could condition him, as in the case of the chair. In short, he is neither saguna or nirguna. he is purushottama.

5) God is in fact both the material and efficient cause of this universe. Shakti and Shaktiman are identical.

Take the case of identical twins, A and B. A is identical to B, but that doesn't mean A and B are one and the same person. If so, you wouldn't call them A and B. They would be either A or B. If they are identical, that implies separation because only then can you say A is identical to B. Therefore, Shakti is different from Shaktimaan. To say that Shakti is identical to Shaktimaan is ENTIRELY different from saying Shakti and Shaktimaan are one.

6) That is Tattvavada philosophy of Sri Madhvacarya. Gaudiya's reject the Dwaita or dualistic paradigm preached by Sri Madhava. We accept the teachings of the Bhagavat Purana which is explicit in it's teaching that Krishna is simultaneously one with the Jiva and different from the Jiva. Just like the molecule of oxygen is part of the singular atmosphere of the earth, yet at the same time you can see it is a distinct particle. In that way the Bhagavat teaches that since everything ultimately has it's existence within and part of Hari, yet retains a distinct identity from Hari, therefore we are all amsa's or limbs of the body of Hari. We are called Vibhinnamsa, whereas the various incarnations and personal expansions of the Supreme Lord are called Swamsa.

Again, you're mistaking similarity with oneness. A is similar to B, but A and B are not one. A and B are separate, and that's why you're able to recognize similarities in the firt place. In the same way, Jiva is similar to Krishna, but jiva and krishna are not one. they are separate. If they were one, there would be neither disntinction nor similarity. If jiva and krishna are separate, they are not one, despite being similar. If they are one, they cannot be separate.

So the jiva and krishna cannot be one and separate at the same time. However, they can be separate and similar at the same time, as in the case of identical twins. That was Chaintanya's view. Unfortunately, similarity has been misconstrued as oneness and the philosophy has been distorted. In other words, most Gaudiyas are disguised advaitins. They have no respect for Chaitanya.

7) Why do "Hindus" say that? I know Srila Prabhupada A.C.Bhaktivedanta used to say that at various times, why? Because they seek to present an inviting openhearted non egotistic presentation to people of other faiths. It's called getting along with your neighbors. Make peace not war. Give respect; you get respect, give disrespect; get back disrespect.

According to you, it's ok to lie and cheat, all in the name of 'getting along with neighbors', eh? Truth is important, even if it hurts, not getting along with neighbors or trying to be soooo open-minded that you admit all kinds of nonsense in the name of equality of faiths and all. Right is right, wrong is wrong. If you speak the truth and you're disrespected, then so be it. If you're a coward and value respect more than truth, don't call yourself Vaishnava.

8)

Varnashrama was not a democracy, there was no voting, it was monarchical. Varnashrama was a society wide phenomena in the vedic age. It didn't just pop up one day in the middle of a totally different type of society and culture. Varnashrama was organic to the culture it operated within. In modern times varnashrama only has relevance as a sanctuary, as a way to live apart from the modern world wide culture. Varnashrama spiritual communities may be able to exist in pockets here and there, where like minded souls can come together to make an endeavor to advance spiritually in each other's association, but thinking that the Vedic varnashrama society can overtake or replace modern materialistic society? That is absurd. It is not going to happen or even come anywhere near happening. Forget about fantasizing about the changing of modern society into a vedic monarachy, or at least run on varnashrama and vedic principles, it's a waste of your time. A pipe dream. The best we can affect the world in a big way is if we can influence some of the very powerful to take to vaisnavism. Then they could in turn use their power to better society. But society as a whole will not turn to varnashrama or the vedic path, it's just not feasible.

You have no idea what it is. So I suggest you read a few books every now and then, and then post on this subject. You are an ignorant man. varnasrana is applicable now more than ever. Instead of reacting to this statement with the usual 'this isn't vedic age', give half hour and understand why I made this assertion. That's much better than my telling you why it's not only important but easy to implement. Think for yourself and find out.

theist · August 22, 2005

If it were pure, it wouldn't be covered by the modes of nature. For instance, if a particular Jiva is rajasic, it doesn't mean the jiva in itself is pure and it's somehow trapped by one of the modes, rajas in this case. That particular jiva has an intrinsic tendency to be rajasic, and therefore it attracts the rajasic nature in the outside world as well.

SUppose a man becomes a terrorist, you wouldn't say he's a pure soul and the modes of nature made him a terrorist. OTOH, his soul has an intrinsic nature, which is Tamas, and when the opportunity to become a terrorist presented itself, the tamasic swabhava characterizing that jiva seized the opportunity.

And here I had been thinking the actual svabhava of the living entity had to do with it's pure loving service in connection with Krsna.

I think Bhaktivinode had something to say on this.

theist · August 22, 2005

Babaji: The soul's eternal nature gives rise to certain actions. These actions are called 'mudra'. For example, Nanda Maharaja has a certain eternal nature, and because of that nature he deals with Krishna in a specific way. One should following in the footsteps of those activities. However, one should not think, "I am Nanda", "I am Subala", or "I am Raktaka". One should only follow in the footsteps of their activities. In that way one will not commit an offense.

Now are you suggesting that that eternal nature when directed outwardly or materially only finds correspondence with a certain material mode of nature. And I guess from that you would conclude that you could read someone's eternal nature by noting the material mode that was most dominate. Is that what you mean?

How do you explain the changing of the dominace of modes in one's life? The modes are always changing. Afterall, the drunk of today may become a sattvic yogi later in life.

August 22, 2005

what is the difference Vedantist, hindu, Vaisnava, what about a designation of simply JIVA rather than these rediculous debates of ontology of WORDS describing the pastimes activities of God by mundane speculation....isn't the title of servant of the servant of the servant of the devotee sufficient to strive for.. We don;t care if you are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or JEW...simply follow the encouragement by Lord Caitanaya to chant the Lords Names

August 22, 2005

If we consider the history of the five distinctive mellow qualities (rasas), it is clearly perceived that the mellowness of the tranquil state (santa rasa), first appeared in this world in India.

When the soul was not satisfied by sacrificial rites by means of material objects those who professed the doctrine of the highest spiritual good, such as Sanaka, Sanatana, Sananda, Sanatkumara, Narada, Mahadeva, etc., renouncing all attachment for the material world, experienced the mellowness of tranquillity (santa rasa) by being thereby established in the Super-soul. Long after this the mellowness of servitorship (dasya rasa) appeared as in Hanuman, the ruler of the Kapis. The mellow quality of tranquil spiritual servitude (dasya rasa) spreading gradually, was most beautifully manifested in the south-western part of the continent of Asia in a great personage, viz., Moses.

Uddhaba and Arjuna, who followed the king of the Kapis by a long interval, attained to the privilege of the mellowness of tranquil serving spiritual friendship with Godhead (sakhya rasa) and preached it to the world. By slowly spreading to other countries this mellow quality of the love of a friend for Godhead touched the heart of a religious preacher of Arabia, Muhammad. The mellowness of parental affection (batsalya rasa) appeared in India at intervals in different forms. Of this the variety of love for Godhead, as of a son for his father, but regarded as the most High and Mighty Ruler of the world (aisvaryagata), spreading beyond India, fully manifested itself in Jesus, the saviour of the Jews.

The mellowness of amorous love (madhura rasa), on its first appearance, irradiated the region of Braja. The permeation of the heart of the individual soul under the thraldom of worldliness, by the mellowness of tranquil, serving, friendly, affectionate, amorous spiritual devotion to Godhead, is supremely difficult to attain, because it is confined only to specially elected and perfectly pure souls (jivas). The Moon of Nabadwip, Darling of Sachi, with His own associates, promulgated this most subtle of all mellownesses (rasas). The exquisite sweetness of this relationship with Godhead has not yet spread beyond India.

Not long ago a Western scholar, Newman, realizing this mellowness (rasa) to a slight extent, gave publicity to it in England by writing a book on the subject. The nations of Europe and America have not up till now been satiated with the sweetness of their filial love for Godhead characterized by reverence, promulgated by Jesus. It is hoped that by the grace of Godhead, and at no very distant date, they will begin to taste of the wine of the mellowness of spiritual amour (madhura rasa), with even greater ardour. It will have appeared that a particular state of the mellow quality (rasa) first of all makes its appearance in India and spreads from here to the Western countries, generally after the lapse of a long period. There is, therefore, according to precedent, still a short period to run before the mellowness of amorous devotion (madhura rasa) is fully preached to all parts of the world. Just as the Sun rising first of all in India gradually illuminates all the countries of the West, in like manner the incomparable rays of the highest good, at intervals making their first appearance in India, suffuse the West before many days have passed.

</blockquote>

- from the Introduction to "Sri Krishna Chaitanya", by Professor Nishikanta Sanyal, with a forward by Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati written at Gaudiya Math, Radha-kunda, in 1932.

August 23, 2005

1)So your statement is false because "Hindus" have diverse beliefs, there is no official "Hindu" belief system just as there is no official Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist belief system. Each of these designations refers to a body of religions, not a specific religion or ideology.

So? Whether or not they have diverse beliefs, they come under one banner, don't they? That's all that matters. What matters is NOT the word 'Hindu' but what it represents.

You said that "hindus" believe this and that. Since "hindus" have diverse beliefs therefore your point makes no sense. For every hindu that believes as you pointed out there are 1000 who believe something differently, that was my point.

2) So we are being told that everything is in fact God.

------

Then don't call yourself a Vaishnava. You are a Shudadvaitin. Everthing is not Krishna, it is krishna's energy. See the diff.? The cup in front of me is NOT krishna, but it wouldn't exist without Krishna's energy sustaining

A Suddhadvaitin is a vaisnava. The Suddhadvaita tradition is the tradition known as the Pusti Marg and it is propounded by the followers of Sri Vallabhacarya (in the line of Visnu Swami) who was a contemporary of Sri Caitanya. They teach that it's through Krishna's grace alone that a jiva can attain to Goloka. The Vallabha sampradaya emphasizes vatsalya rasa and gopi bhava following the gopi Candravali.

What about all the quotes from sastra that I presented saying that Krishna is in fact everything because he is identical to His energy? Maybe you can ignore the sastrra and still consider your opinion authoritative, real vaisnavas accept the conclusions of sastra over their own speculations.

3) The Vedas teach that every soul is pure yet covered over by the modes of materiaL nature.

-----------

If it were pure, it wouldn't be covered by the modes of nature. For instance, if a particular Jiva is rajasic, it doesn't mean the jiva in itself is pure and it's somehow trapped by one of the modes, rajas in this case. That particular jiva has an intrinsic tendency to be rajasic, and therefore it attracts the rajasic nature in the outside world as well.

The soul is pure but that pureness becomes covered over, not changed. Sometimes the description of this compared to the sun being covered over by clouds, the clouds don't change the nature of the sun yet they obscure the sun.

SB 11.7.43: Although the mighty wind blows clouds and storms across the sky, the sky is never implicated or affected by these activities. Similarly, the spirit soul is not actually changed or affected by contact with the material nature. Although the living entity enters within a body made of earth, water and fire, and although he is impelled by the three modes of nature created by eternal time, his eternal spiritual nature is never actually affected.

4)I take it that you meant to say Nirguna Brahman instead of Saguna Brahman. Very few "Hindus" believe that ultimately God is without attributes or Nirguna Brahman i.e belief in an impersonal God. According to the last census 85% of "Hindus" in India identify themselves as Vaisnavas. All Vaisnava traditions teach that ultimately God has attributes or Saguna Brahman i.e belief in a personal God. So your chastising of "Hindus" is really just singling out the monist schools, mainly the followers of Advaita Vedanta in some form or another. Krishna is Saguna Brahman i.e Brahman with attributes, Nirguna Brahman doesn't exist.

--------

Saguna brahman is the state of conditioned consciousness. For instance, you see a chair and start wondering what color it is and so on. So your consciousness of the chair is conditioned by its attributes. That's saguna. Then you look at the same chair and make sure no factor conditions your observation. In this case, your consciousness is pure, without attributes to condition it. It's nirguna. But Krishna is beyond niguna and saguna.

Of course, you'll argue that he has attributes, that's why the Bhagawat describes his beauty and so on. Yes, he has attributes but they are different from the attribues of finite objects like chair etc. But since we only understand human language with its limitations, unfortunately, we have to bring Krishna down to our plane and understand. Hence, we assume that Krishna is merely saguna brahman, as if any factor could condition him. Nothing, not even his attributes could condition him, therefore he is not saguna. But he's not attributelss, like space or ether, so he isn't nirguna. He has a from but not a form that could condition him. He has a color but not the color that could condition him, as in the case of the chair. In short, he is neither saguna or nirguna. he is purushottama.

Nirguna and Saguna Brahman are used in different ways and the meanings change depending on the context. Since you didn't make it clear which way you were using it I only gave one definition of it as a response.

In one context the Advaitain school say that God is ultimately Nirguna Brahman; without attributes. They teach that Nirguna Brahman displays attributes in the world of Maya, that is why Brahman can incarnate as the various avatars and as all the variety found in the world of maya i.e distinct souls and variety of manifestations of plants, animals, elements etc. They teach that all of that is an illusion caused by Maya. Ultimately when the jiva is enlightened he will see all variety of difference as an illusion, including the personality or Godhead. So in using Saguna Brahman in that context i.e Saguna Brahman meaning Brahman with material qualities, then Vaisnavas all disagree.

Some vaisnava personalist schools teach that ultimately God is Saguna Brahman i.e with attributes that are real, not simply an illusion of realness in the world of Maya.

Ramanuja and Madhvacarya taught that God is ultimately Saguna Brahman, with attributes. They rejected the usage of Saguna Brahman by the Advaitins who taught that Saguna meant material attributes which they viewed as illusory. Ramanuja and Madhvacarya taught that God is Saguna Brahman but that those attributes or qualities are not illusory, not material, they are eternal, spiritual, and transcendental.

So even though Gaudiya's don't usually speak of God as being Saguna Brahman, when they do it is in the context of God having attributes that are not material.

When using the Advaitian concept of Saguna and Nirguna Brahman, vaisnavas, including Gaudiya's teach that God is Nirguna Brahman, i.e without material attributes. They reject the Advaitin definition Saguna Brahman i.e God with material attributes.

But when the context of Nirguna and Saguna Brahman is used differently, then vaisnavas teach that God is with spiritual transcendental attributes. In that context Saguna Brahman means God with eternal non-material attributes i.e name, form, pastimes etc. In that context Nirguna Brahman has no meaning because God has attributes that are eternal.

5) God is in fact both the material and efficient cause of this universe. Shakti and Shaktiman are identical.

-------

Take the case of identical twins, A and B. A is identical to B, but that doesn't mean A and B are one and the same person. If so, you wouldn't call them A and B. They would be either A or B. If they are identical, that implies separation because only then can you say A is identical to B. Therefore, Shakti is different from Shaktimaan. To say that Shakti is identical to Shaktimaan is ENTIRELY different from saying Shakti and Shaktimaan are one.

Your point is valid if in fact God and his energy were like the difference between twins. Twins are two distinct people, in that context identical only refers to identical bodies. But when we speak of God and his energy we are speaking of one substance, not two susbtances that look the same. God is Shakti and Shaktiman, energy and the controller of energy.

From Vaishnava Siddhanta Mala by Thakura Bhaktivinoda:

It is not that Bhagavan is one thing and the shakti is another; just as the burning power of the fire is inseparable from the fire, similarly Bhagavan’s shakti is inseparable from Bhagavan.

From Thakura Bhaktivinoda's Jaiva Dharma:

The commentary on Vedanta states, shakti-shaktimator abhedah: 'There is no difference between the potency and the possessor of potency.' This means that shakti is not a separate object. The Supreme Person who is the master of all potencies is the one truly abiding substance. Shakti is the quality, or inherent function, that is subordinate to His will.

From Srila Prabhupada:

radha-purna-sakti, krsna-purna-saktiman

dui vastu bheda nai, sastra-paramana

radha-krsna aiche sadaeka-i svarupa

lila-rasa asvadite dhare dui-rupa

There is no difference between the energy and the energetic, sakti-saktiman abheda. Therefore there is no difference between Radha and Krsna. Radha is purna-sakti and Krsna is purna-saktiman, so there is no difference, but, lila-rasa asvadite dhare dui-rupa, to relish the mellow of pastimes two bodies are there, Radha and Krsna, otherwise they are one. So in Vraja-lila there are two bodies, Radha and Krsna, visaya and asraya. But in the form of Gauranga They are one. Radha and Krsna combined together. Krsna assuming the mood and complexion of Radharani appears and that is Gauranga. This is the tattva, and that is a very deep and confidential tattva.

From Bhaktivinoda Thakura from his Sri Tattva Sutra:

7. tacchaktitastatvadhikyamiticcenna tadabhedat

If someone claims, "The Lord is different from His potency", then I reply, "No. It is not so, for they are not different."

From S.B 11.2.41:

A devotee should not see anything as being separate from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna. Ether, fire, air, water, earth, the sun and other luminaries, all living beings, the directions, trees and other plants, the rivers and oceans — whatever a devotee experiences he should consider to be an expansion of Krsna. Thus seeing everything that exists within creation as the body of the Supreme Lord, Hari, the devotee should offer his sincere respects to the entire expansion of the Lord's body.

6) That is Tattvavada philosophy of Sri Madhvacarya. Gaudiya's reject the Dwaita or dualistic paradigm preached by Sri Madhava. We accept the teachings of the Bhagavat Purana which is explicit in it's teaching that Krishna is simultaneously one with the Jiva and different from the Jiva. Just like the molecule of oxygen is part of the singular atmosphere of the earth, yet at the same time you can see it is a distinct particle. In that way the Bhagavat teaches that since everything ultimately has it's existence within and part of Hari, yet retains a distinct identity from Hari, therefore we are all amsa's or limbs of the body of Hari. We are called Vibhinnamsa, whereas the various incarnations and personal expansions of the Supreme Lord are called Swamsa.

------------

Again, you're mistaking similarity with oneness. A is similar to B, but A and B are not one. A and B are separate, and that's why you're able to recognize similarities in the firt place. In the same way, Jiva is similar to Krishna, but jiva and krishna are not one. they are separate. If they were one, there would be neither disntinction nor similarity. If jiva and krishna are separate, they are not one, despite being similar. If they are one, they cannot be separate.

So the jiva and krishna cannot be one and separate at the same time. However, they can be separate and similar at the same time, as in the case of identical twins. That was Chaintanya's view. Unfortunately, similarity has been misconstrued as oneness and the philosophy has been distorted. In other words, most Gaudiyas are disguised advaitins. They have no respect for Chaitanya.

Sri Caitanya taught oneness and difference, not similarity and difference. Just like you are one with the totality of existence and different from the totality. You are not similar to the totality of existence. You exist as a part of the totality of existence, therefore you are one with the totality of existence. Just like a molecule of water in the ocean is one with the ocean. Yet at the same time you are distinct or different from the totality of existence because you do not possess all of the nature of the totality of existence.

The totality of existence includes you in it's existence, whereas you do not include the totality of existence in your existence. Krishna states:

maya tatam idam sarvam jagad avyakta-murtina

mat sthani sarva bhutani na caham tesvavasthitam

By Me, in my unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.

ye caiva sāttvikā bhāvā rājasās tāmasāś ca ye

matta eveti tān viddhi na tv ahaḿ teṣu te mayi

Know that all states of being — be they of goodness, passion or ignorance — are manifested by My energy. I am, in one sense, everything, but I am independent. I am not under the modes of material nature, for they, on the contrary, are within Me.

sarva-bhūta-stham ātmānaḿ sarva-bhūtāni cātmani

īkṣate yoga-yuktātmā sarvatra sama-darśanaḥ

A true yogī observes Me in all beings and also sees every being in Me. Indeed, the self-realized person sees Me, the same Supreme Lord, everywhere.

yo māḿ paśyati sarvatra sarvaḿ ca mayi paśyati

tasyāhaḿ na praṇaśyāmi sa ca me na praṇaśyati

For one who sees Me everywhere and sees everything in Me, I am never lost, nor is he ever lost to Me.

The drop of water is one with the ocean but it is different from the ocean because the ocean is much more then the drop of water.

Srila Prabhupada Letter to V.S.R. Chakravarti, 11-24-74

To the jiva brahma identification is one part of acintya-bheda bheda-tattva. As spirit soul or identical brahma, or jiva brahma is identical with the Supreme Brahma or the param brahma. In this sense jiva soul is abheda or non-different from the param brahma. But on account of the param brahma being the supreme, the biggest, the identical brahma or jiva brahma being very minute, it is different from the param brahma. The summary is that the simultaneous one and different jiva brahma is simultaneously one with and different from the param brahma. Because it is appreciated simultaneously which is very difficult to comprehend by the common man, this philosophy is called acintya-bheda bheda tattva, inconceivable. This is supported by the Katho Upanisad 2.5.13 nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam. eko bahunam yo vidadhati kaman. This is almost similar to the visista-dvaita vada.

So you need to understand what is meant by oneness. Oneness in this context means "one substance". Therefore Krishna states:

The Supersoul alone is the ultimate controller and creator of this world, and thus He alone is also the created. Similarly, the Soul of all existence Himself both maintains and is maintained, withdraws and is withdrawn. No other entity can be properly ascertained as separate from Him, the Supreme Soul, who nonetheless is distinct from everything and everyone else. The appearance of the threefold material nature, which is perceived within Him, has no actual basis. Rather, you should understand that this material nature, composed of the three modes, is simply the product of His illusory potency.

Srila Prabhupada would usually refer to acintya bhedabheda as the jiva being a "part and parcel" of Krishna.

Purport S.B 3.28.43

The small particles of soul are just like sparks of the larger soul. The greatest soul is the Supersoul, but the Supersoul is quantitatively different from the small soul. The Supersoul is described in the Vedic literature as the supplier of all necessities of the smaller soul (nityo nityanam). One who understands this distinction between the Supersoul and the individual soul is above lamentation and is in a peaceful position. When the smaller soul thinks himself quantitatively as big as the larger soul, he is under the spell of maya, for that is not his constitutional position. No one can become the greater soul simply by mental speculation.

The smallness or greatness of different souls is described in the Varaha Purana as svamsa-vibhinnamsa. The svamsa soul is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and the vibhinnamsa souls, or small particles, are eternally small particles, as confirmed in Bhagavad-gita (mamaivamso jiva-loke jiva-bhutah sanatanah [bg. 15.7]). The small living entities are eternally part and parcel, and therefore it is not possible for them to be quantitatively as great as the Supersoul.

Purport Bhagavad Gita 15.7

It is, however, understood here that the living entity, being the fragmental part and parcel of the Supreme Lord, is qualitatively one with the Lord, just as the parts and parcels of gold are also gold.

S.B 4.22.29

Only because of different causes does a person see a difference between himself and others, just as one sees the reflection of a body appearing differently manifested on water, on oil or in a mirror.

PURPORT

The spirit soul is one, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He is manifested in svamsa and vibhinnamsa expansions. The jivas are vibhinnamsa expansions. The different incarnations of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are svamsa expansions.

7) Why do "Hindus" say that? I know Srila Prabhupada A.C.Bhaktivedanta used to say that at various times, why? Because they seek to present an inviting openhearted non egotistic presentation to people of other faiths. It's called getting along with your neighbors. Make peace not war. Give respect; you get respect, give disrespect; get back disrespect.

According to you, it's ok to lie and cheat, all in the name of 'getting along with neighbors', eh? Truth is important, even if it hurts, not getting along with neighbors or trying to be soooo open-minded that you admit all kinds of nonsense in the name of equality of faiths and all. Right is right, wrong is wrong. If you speak the truth and you're disrespected, then so be it. If you're a coward and value respect more than truth, don't call yourself Vaishnava.

If you sugar coat a bitter pill the child will take it without complaint. If you present the child with the bitter pill alone then the child will not take it and then his disease will not be cured. Many times Srila Prabhupada would tell Christians to whom he was preaching to that they could chant the name of Jesus or any name of God that they had.

From conversation with Father Emmanuel 1974:

Actually, it doesn't matter Krsna or Christ the name is the same. The main point is to chant the name of God.

8)

Varnashrama was not a democracy, there was no voting, it was monarchical. Varnashrama was a society wide phenomena in the vedic age. It didn't just pop up one day in the middle of a totally different type of society and culture. Varnashrama was organic to the culture it operated within. In modern times varnashrama only has relevance as a sanctuary, as a way to live apart from the modern world wide culture. Varnashrama spiritual communities may be able to exist in pockets here and there, where like minded souls can come together to make an endeavor to advance spiritually in each other's association, but thinking that the Vedic varnashrama society can overtake or replace modern materialistic society? That is absurd. It is not going to happen or even come anywhere near happening. Forget about fantasizing about the changing of modern society into a vedic monarachy, or at least run on varnashrama and vedic principles, it's a waste of your time. A pipe dream. The best we can affect the world in a big way is if we can influence some of the very powerful to take to vaisnavism. Then they could in turn use their power to better society. But society as a whole will not turn to varnashrama or the vedic path, it's just not feasible.

You have no idea what it is. So I suggest you read a few books every now and then, and then post on this subject. You are an ignorant man. varnasrana is applicable now more than ever. Instead of reacting to this statement with the usual 'this isn't vedic age', give half hour and understand why I made this assertion. That's much better than my telling you why it's not only important but easy to implement. Think for yourself and find out.

Can you back up your statement with anything other then "You are ignorant, I know better then you"?

August 23, 2005

Re-reading what I said above, I feel I wasn't clear in what I wrote. What I meant to say is:

Sri Chaitanya used the word "Hindu" to describe his own community, the community of Vaishnavas of devotees of Krishna.

785bgr

-Muralidhar

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one, Murali, though I otherwise find your writings well thought out in general.

It's not obvious that Sri Caitanya was referring only to his own community by the above. Rather, the gist of it seemed to be that everyone who follows the Vedas, regardless of who they are (i.e. Vaishnava or not) refrains from cow-killing.

The issue of distancing oneself from the term "Hinduism" is certainly understandable. In ISKCON's case, I think it was largely to get away from stereotyped, sectarian views of "Hinduism" held by the lay public, including the lay Hindu public. It is an unfortunate fact that Hinduism is besieged with many fake, impersonalist gurus who promote "Hinduism" as some sort of politically-correct, unfocused religious doctrine where anything goes and everything is alright (rather like modern Christianity in some ways).

alpa

August 24, 2005

Alpa,

In the section I quoted from the Kazi says, "In Your Vedic scriptures there is an injunction for killing a cow... etc...".

And Mahaprabhu replies, "The Vedas clearly enjoin that cows should not be killed. Therefore every Hindu, whoever he may be, avoids indulging in cow-killing."

It seems clear to me (though maybe others see things differently) that Mahaprabhu was using the word Hindu as a label for people whose life is guided by the Vedas. Did Mahaprabhu use the word "Hindu"? I tend to feel that Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj Goswami wasn't putting words in Mahaprabhu's mouth, and that Mahaprabhu really did say the words we read in Chaitanya Charitamrta.

In regard to the word "Hindu", there are things to consider. I guess we may want to differentiate ourselves from the politics of Hindu nationalism. Certainly that is a matter to consider. My own Guru says we should not affiliate ourselves with Hindu nationalism in any way. But then my understanding is that Mahaprabhu used the term "Hindu" as a synonym for "follower of the Vedas", or "practitioner of sanatana-dharma". So the term "Hindu" in and of itself is not objectionable to use, when we are describing the religious community we are affiliated with.

In Chaitanya Charitamrta Adi, Chapter 17, we see that Sri Krishnadas Kaviraj Goswami uses the word "Hindu" twenty (20) times a label for the devotees of Mahaprabhu. Note also that when he was referring to Mahaprabhu's people he used the word "bhakta" three times in that chapter. He didn't use other labels we may like to use such as "vaishnava" or "sanatan dharmi" even a single time. And what is interesting is that this chapter of CC is clearly a story about the interactions between various religious communities. Three communities are mentioned, the "mlechas" (Muslims), the nonbelieving Hindus (pasandi hindu - cc Adi 17.203), and the (Hindu) people who were chanting Krishna's names on the streets.

- Murali

CC A-di 17.192: "Then all the meat-eaters, hearing that there would be unrestricted congregational chanting in the city, came to submit a petition.

CC A-di 17.193: "'The religion of the Hindus has increased unlimitedly. There are always vibrations of "Hari! Hari!" We do not hear anything but this.'

CC A-di 17.194: "One meat-eater said, 'The Hindus say, "Krsna, Krsna," and they laugh, cry, dance, chant and fall on the ground, smearing their bodies with dirt.

CC A-di 17.195: "'Vibrating "Hari, Hari," the Hindus make a tumultuous sound. If the king [pa-tasa-ha] hears it, certainly he will punish you.'

CC A-di 17.196: "I then inquired from these yavanas, 'I know that these Hindus by nature chant "Hari, Hari."

CC A-di 17.197: "'The Hindus chant the name Hari because that is the name of their God. But you are Muslim meat-eaters. Why do you chant the name of the Hindus' God'

CC A-di 17.198: "The meat-eater replied, 'Sometimes I joke with the Hindus. Some of them are called Krsnada-sa, and some are called Ra-mada-sa.

CC A-di 17.199: "'Some of them are called Harida-sa. They always chant "Hari, Hari," and thus I thought they would steal the riches from someone's house.

CC A-di 17.200: "'Since that time, my tongue also always vibrates the sound "Hari, Hari." I have no desire to say it, but still my tongue says it. I do not know what to do.'

CC A-di 17.201-202: "Another meat-eater said, 'Sir, please hear me. Since the day I joked with some Hindus in this way, my tongue chants the Hare Krsna hymn and cannot give it up. I do not know what mystic hymns and herbal potions these Hindus know.'

</blockquote>

August 24, 2005

Alpa,

In the section I quoted from the Kazi says, "In Your Vedic scriptures there is an injunction for killing a cow... etc...".

And Mahaprabhu replies, "The Vedas clearly enjoin that cows should not be killed. Therefore every Hindu, whoever he may be, avoids indulging in cow-killing."

It seems clear to me (though maybe others see things differently) that Mahaprabhu was using the word Hindu as a label for people whose life is guided by the Vedas.

That was precisely my point. I believe he was using the term to refer to all followers of the Vedas, and not just to Vaishnavas or even to his specific branch of Vaishnavism.

Did Mahaprabhu use the word "Hindu"? I tend to feel that Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj Goswami wasn't putting words in Mahaprabhu's mouth, and that Mahaprabhu really did say the words we read in Chaitanya Charitamrta.

I am in agreement here.

In regard to the word "Hindu", there are things to consider. I guess we may want to differentiate ourselves from the politics of Hindu nationalism. Certainly that is a matter to consider. My own Guru says we should not affiliate ourselves with Hindu nationalism in any way. But then my understanding is that Mahaprabhu used the term "Hindu" as a synonym for "follower of the Vedas", or "practitioner of sanatana-dharma". So the term "Hindu" in and of itself is not objectionable to use, when we are describing the religious community we are affiliated with.

Use of the term is a relatively modern (as in, last several centuries) social convention, and as such I think this is one area where we can consider time, place, and circumstance. Certainly during Krishnadas Kaviraja's time, it was helpful to use the term to distinguish Hindus from nastikas, Muslims, etc. On the other hand, neo-Vedanta had not yet taken hold at that time. It is only in the last 200 years that we have witnessed the growth of neo-Vedantic thinkers who are quick to promote their concept of religion as the one, true "Hinduism." This concept, which is impersonalist and often ambiguous, is anathema to Vaishnava Vedantins.

Certainly it seems that A.C. Bhaktivedanta, although using the term "Hindu" in reference to contemporary followers of Veda, was always quick to distinguish his own doctrine from that of "Hinduism." Why is this? I believe it was simply to get away from the stereotypes people had and to emphasize that Vaishnavism is non-sectarian in essence.

None of this is meant to denigrate those who choose to use the term Hinduism when it is convenient. I think that, more than strictly using the label or not using it, what is important is to understand why one might use it and why one might not, and what the limitations of its use are. In this regard, I think iskcon people get too caught up in the label without understanding the implications. Often I hear them saying things like "Well, since we're not Hindus, we don't need to follow Vedas or wear dhotis, which are things Hindus do." That kind of misconception imho shows misunderstanding of why Bhaktivedanta distanced himself from the label.

alpa

August 24, 2005

OK,

- Murali

Hindus are a lost people

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads