-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
aham brahmasmi --why so confusion ?
- Thread starter kalyan
- Start date
Acintya_Ash
Bhakta
Shri Krishna Sharanam Mamah 
तत्त्वप्रह्व
स्वभावस्थं निरावेशम्
With this you denied apauruṣeyatva, and...
Thus, not a hasty conclusion from my side.
a) There is no logic and no quote you can use to manipulate your earlier statement in 'A' to comply with apauruṣeyatva as understood by pūrvamīmāṅsakas and vedāntins; b) Neither Ching nor Dhammapāda are valid examples within vaidika systems, so the very use of these relegates the position to avaidika. c) why are you trying to invent new proofs for apauruṣeyatva and "brahmavit..." has nothing to do with it.
Of course, you can personally consider anything you want, but that cannot be presented as a valid position of vedānta. The discussion was not about inferiority, but about validity. No doubt, what we consider as brahman and what abrahamics hold to be God can't be two different things (i.e., we agree on the concept of theism per se), but, where exactly does Prabhupāda accept the validity of abrahamic religions in conferring mokṣa as understood within vedānta traditions? Imo, you are grossly misrepresenting Prabhupāda's views.
That would make Bhagavad Gīta too apauruṣeya, but that is not how it is understood in pūrvamīmāṅsa and vedānta. Also, it would be untenable within advaita since (advaita)brahman indulges in no activity, such as saying.
श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु।
Acintya_Ash
Bhakta
Oh! so if i compare Vedas with Tao Te Ching, that dismisses its Apaurusheyatva? What kinda logic is this?
I compared to illustrate that the above books share similar views/claims about Absolute Truth. That's the beautiful thing about Truth(God), it's nobody's exclusive property, its Universal
So what is the pūrvamīmāṅsaka and vedāntin understanding of apauruṣeyatva?
Why would I?
Christ is our guru
http://www.krishna.com/christ-our-guru
Srila Prabhupada accepted even Islam.
Srila Prabhupada: Islam is also Vaishnavism.
Dr. Patel: Mohammedanism is not Vaishnavism.
Srila Prabhupada: No, no. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu talked with the Pathanas (Muslims). He proved that "Yourreligion is Vaishnavism." (Moraing walk. Bombay, 17/02/74)
Srila Prabhupada: Then Islam is Vaishnava dharma (religion) in a crude form like Christianity.
(Room conversation. Tehran, 14/03/75)
Last edited:
No point in arguing with people who do not know what apauruṣeyatva is and it is laughable when people think vedas are a bookWith this you denied apauruṣeyatva, and...
Thus, not a hasty conclusion from my side.
a) There is no logic and no quote you can use to manipulate your earlier statement in 'A' to comply with apauruṣeyatva as understood by pūrvamīmāṅsakas and vedāntins; b) Neither Ching nor Dhammapāda are valid examples within vaidika systems, so the very use of these relegates the position to avaidika. c) why are you trying to invent new proofs for apauruṣeyatva and "brahmavit..." has nothing to do with it.
Of course, you can personally consider anything you want, but that cannot be presented as a valid position of vedānta. The discussion was not about inferiority, but about validity. No doubt, what we consider as brahman and what abrahamics hold to be God can't be two different things (i.e., we agree on the concept of theism per se), but, where exactly does Prabhupāda accept the validity of abrahamic religions in conferring mokṣa as understood within vedānta traditions? Imo, you are grossly misrepresenting Prabhupāda's views.
That would make Bhagavad Gīta too apauruṣeya, but that is not how it is understood in pūrvamīmāṅsa and vedānta. Also, it would be untenable within advaita since (advaita)brahman indulges in no activity, such as saying.
श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु।
तत्त्वप्रह्व
स्वभावस्थं निरावेशम्
Well, now i'm not sure whether you've not followed the line of discussion or whether you are intentionally adopting selective misrepresentation:
K: "do you think vedas are simply a book written by veda vyasa ?"
A_A: "Yes"
This [is what] results in denying apauruṣeyatva of the vedas
Then,
A_A: "just like Tao Te Ching is a book written by Laozi and Dhammapada was written by Gautama Buddha."
Confirms your denial of apauruṣeyatva of vedas not because you specifically chose those two books, but primarily because the books are not apauruṣeya as you yourself stated that they were "written" by so and so. Also, the logic adopted to support your idea of apauruṣeyatva is flawed. The result would be same irrespective of any authored book of any religion including smṛtis of our own, notwithstanding the content therein.
In which case it was wrong illustration, because the books cannot illustrate apauruṣeyatva, their content is/was not the point of discussion. Either that, or you accept that any written content with known authors can also be apauruṣeya which contradicts vedāntika approach.
Explaining the accepted methodology is a too big to be done in a thread. Since you've some advaita inclination, check this reference:
http://www.vijnana.org/2013/09/apaurusheyatva-of-vedas.html
Well you've answered your contention on your own:Why would I?
Christ is our guru
http://www.krishna.com/christ-our-guru
Srila Prabhupada accepted even Islam.
Srila Prabhupada: Islam is also Vaishnavism.
Dr. Patel: Mohammedanism is not Vaishnavism.
Srila Prabhupada: No, no. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu talked with the Pathanas (Muslims). He proved that "Yourreligion is Vaishnavism." (Moraing walk. Bombay, 17/02/74)
This is also what underlies the respect that Hinduism in general affords to all other religions. We don't classify anyone as kāfir/infidels, only because whatever their conception, it is acceptable to the extent of their capacity but still they are only "crude form". Note that this is primarily for a western audience. What can be considered authoritative viewpoint is what is presented in the siddhānta granthas viz., the prasthāna. So a quote from A-bhedābehda school's prasthānas is what will matter.
I don't fully agree with Prabhupāda's in helping them reform, though.
नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि ।
Last edited:
Kalyan is this your view? Because i HIGHLY disagree with you. Is Hinduism not many paths? To say Krishna and Rama are equal is a mind of a fool? Or to worship Shiva or Durga as the supreme is wrong? Condemning Smartas? The concept of 'all are one' and 'all lead to same path' is Hinduism at is CORE! This is the Hinduism DIR, not ISKCON DIR.
Last edited:
Acintya_Ash
Bhakta
You should really go through the teachings of Jesus and Mohammed and inculcate the Dharmic vaules they taught, instead of mocking sadhus. Swami Vivekananda too spoke highly of Christ and Mohammed, now you'll call him moron too, right?
Acintya_Ash
Bhakta
I was trying to state that all three books are apauruṣeya, because of their similar stance.
(which is wrong as per Vedantic approach. I admit my ignorance)
No I never meant that way. Writing/Conceptualization comes second, Realization comes first. Realization of Truth is impossible without Divine Grace. Seers who have penned down these scriptures, certainly had Divine Impetus behind them. That's how I understood it.
Before going further, i'll go read the Vedantic approach. Thank you for the link.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Is it necessary that we should have the same views as Swami Vivekananda? You should read Kalama Sutta. No one can attain 'nirvana' without reading Kalama Sutta - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta#Discerning_Religious_Teachings
"nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya, Skt. Bhavya-Rupyata),
nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū, Skt. Shramanah Guru (?))
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them."
Last edited:
Sorry to say this but that is the truth......I did not say Krushna and Rama are not equal as they are both avatars of Sri Maha Vishnu....So worshipping avataras of Vishnu or his family or the acharyas in the Ramanuja lineage can only grant one liberation after death of physical body........No other devata has power to sanction Moksham and remember I don't subscribe to ISKCON views either.... I subscribe to only vedam view....And as for your 'all are one' and 'all lead to same path' this is absolutely wrong as mentioned in vedas and BG.......As I said before I think, a person if for example worships a fake charlatan baba for whole his life by attributing some godly attributes to him, what happens to him after death? he wont reach any of the heavens, he would reach the person whom he followed for his entire life who is a charlatan already enjoying his punishments in lowest realms of hells. If a person goes east and if a person B goes west, their paths DONT meet. So all religions are same and all lead to the same path is heavily condemned by vedam and BhagawadGita,
Infact the Krushna went on a step further and said those who treat other devathas who are employed by him as equal to him are called the lowest of fools. What is the point of shivaites, they want to reach kailasam, well that is good, I respect that but kailasam is not liberation, There is a sloka which says 'Moksham iccheth janardana' only janardana can grant liberation...
So all gods are not equal in 'sanatana dharma', that is a wrong concept understood by non-knowers of the vedic scriptures.
2nd most importantly 'all religions do not lead to same goal'
both are blunder statements , many says jesus history is derived from a pagan sun god called mithra and christianity itself is a pagan fest and is bits and pieces of mithraism .......Lets say for instance this is true, then what happens to people who worship jesus who never existed ? they will go into DOOM as they believed in something which has not existed.
buddhism is a deviation from vedanta, vedantins do not have to read what was said by buddha but I respect Buddha and Buddhism very much and its interesting, but it is not a path for vedantinsIs it necessary that we should have the same views as Swami Vivekananda? You should read Kalama Sutta. No one can attain 'nirvana' without reading Kalama Sutta - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta#Discerning_Religious_Teachings
"nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya, Skt. Bhavya-Rupyata),
nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū, Skt. Shramanah Guru (?))
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them."
It is said by most people who know the history that
"R sponsored Vivekananda.
Vivekananda said “ The vast majority of men are atheists. I am glad that, in modern times, another class of atheists has come into existence in the Western world — I mean the materialists. They are sincere atheists. They are better than the religious atheists, who are insincere, who fight and talk about religion, and yet do not want it, never try to realise it, never try to understand it.”
R was THE materialist.
R enrolled Vivekananda into Freemasonry.
Vivekananda was a member of the Brahmo Samaj-founded by R stooges and OPIUM AGENTS Rabindra Tagore’s grandfather Dwaraknath Tagore and Raja Rammohan Roy at Calcutta on 20 August 1828.
The Rabindra Nath family DELETED grandfather Dwaraknath Tagore because he was in drugs and sex ( Sonagachi brothel for the top white invaders )" I don't have to mention here who R was
Same way they employed 'Shirdi sai baba' to destroy the sanatana dharma which they failed ! .
Krishna has said many things that prove this. These are some of them:
Those who worship other gods with faith and devotion also worship me, Arjuna, even if they do not observe the usual forms. I am the object of all worship, its enjoyer and Lord.
As they approach me, so I receive them. All paths, Arjuna, lead to me.
Clearly this means all paths lead to Krishna, Krishna is not separate from any god, he IS God. Durga, Shiva, Ganesha are all worshiped, and that means worshiping them, is also worshiping Krishna. Brahman, the Ultimate Reality is of many forms. To have a favourite and worship that form as the Supreme Being is ok, that it will lead you faster to moksha, but denying other forms as false is like saying God is false.
One who worships one as God, is still worshipping God. Through sincere prayer, upholding of dharma and surrender to this 'Charlatan' is now a form of God, and you can achieve moksha. There is no right or wrong form of God. That is an illusion. Although i do not personally agree that Swaminarayan is an avatar of Vishnu, their faith that he is, means they are worshiping Vishnu, therefore God.
No. If one goes West and one goes East, where does their path lead to? God. Religions are paths to God, so the end of the road is God. As religions are the beads of a necklace, God is the thread.
Do you have a source for this?
If they wish to go to Kailasam that is fine. If they wish to attain moksha that is fine too. Shiva will grant this in their eyes, as He is the Supreme to them. What you said about Janardana (Vishnu) is for Vaishnavites. As Saivite texts will say that except they will be talking about Shiva's personality and form, not of Vishnu's. Also, Janardana, while attributed to Vishnu and Krishna, is not exclusively for them. It can be for Shiva or Durga or Ganesha as well, as it means "One who inflicts suffering on evil men." or "He to whom all devotees pray for worldly success and liberation,".
I see that this pitting god against another god or making one superior to the other and saying the others are not god, is a product of this Kali Yuga. While i believe Vishnu is the Supreme, that does not mean i pit him against Shiva or Durga. Brahman is ALL, and has gifted us these forms to attain moksha.
Wondering why don't they chant "Jesus Hare, Jesus hare"? Or they've doubt on their own belief but hesitate to show it.
And Afaik, Islam and Christianity are mentioned as Mlechha dharmas and In Purana, Lord Vishnu in the form of Kalki is mentioned as destroyer of Mleccha dharmas.
And Afaik, Islam and Christianity are mentioned as Mlechha dharmas and In Purana, Lord Vishnu in the form of Kalki is mentioned as destroyer of Mleccha dharmas.
This he says cuz he is the inner controller of everything in this world....he exists inside a stone even...putting it other way, the stone is maintaining the form because of him being inside or else it collapses... He exists in all devas as their inner controller and it is through him, they get the power to grant something to a their devotees....Krushna says that devotion to that particular mini god is also increased by him if the devotee is inclined towards that mini god.
Krushna then says his worry is as these mini gods also get destroyed after certain period of time, their results are temporary...so what anyone wants temporary or permanent result? He then says for permanent results, only he can give just like a father worrying about his kids who are going to get temporary results, Krushna worries about his kids i.e us.
I have very high respect for Maha Siva but it is not in the hands of him to grant liberation.
This is condemned in BG..Those who worship evil will reach evil only! Simple as that...
Yes 7th chapter of BG.
And most importantly your opinion all religions lead to same path is heavily condemned from a vedic point of view..its all vedam which existed from time immemorial...because vedas say about supreme brahman as nArAyaNa because of that only Vishnu is supreme. ..
You're implying that the other gods that people worship are devas, and not God, Omni in all aspects. So what you are saying is true, worship of devas is fruitless as they are temporary, but other religions will disagree, exclaiming their god is not temporary. consider Ahura-Mazda. Is he a deva? If this is your view, that's fine, but saying he is unworthy of worship because the form you choose, Krishna, is not him. Yes, Krishna cares about us, lovingly so. You would call those who worship God in a mortal form e.g Swaminarayan? evil? i would not say they will reach evil! Their love of god is sincere, they are still worshiping Vishnu! just in a mortal form. Which i don't approve of, but not evil in any way! As a Sri Vaishnava, i believe Shiva is the biggest Vaishnava, that he is not God himself. Narayana is Brahman itself. But people are attracted to different forms. Maha Shiva is Supreme to them. Brahman to them. In the end, we all worship Brahman. just different forms of him. If you don't believe Shiva grants liberation, that is the view of a Vaishnava. Bringing strife towards different gods is not productive at all, n fact you are less likely to achieve moksha that way. Love of everyone, including animals, and seeing Brahman everywhere in everyone, is the aim of a Hindu. How is the path to God condemned? If you think i disagree with the Vedas, that's far from the truth, and if what you say is true, that only Vishnu is supreme, this is quite the drawback on Saivites and Shaktis. But i stand firm that whatever from they choose to worship, it is Brahman, Nirguna or Saguna.
Edit: Just realised what you meant by Devathas, as in Indra and Agni. Yes i would consider them foolish, as they are just temporary supernatural beings, and cannot comprehend the glory and size of Brahman (Narayana). Yes, Krishna would say this, as it is true.
Last edited:
well swaminarayan is a cult, remember they are not worshipping the brahman inside swaminarayan, they are worshipping the swaminarayan without realising the vishnu inside anything acting as brahman, in that case they would reach where the character swaminarayan reached, if he did not exist, these people also attain lowest realms.......if one worships anything realising the brahman/Vishnu is only the inner controller giving shakti/energy to the mini god, then there should not be any problem ,but it not they surely reach whom they worship!
Siva only says this to markandeya his devotee when he asks for moksha and there are numerous times where Siva himself admits to the supremeness of Vishnu in a purana called 'padma purana'
I think our debate is done
I will have to read Padma Purana!you should delve into the section where Siva talks to Parvathi devi.......I think our debate is done