[Hindus Only] Question for Hindus

[निताइ dasa]

, I feel compelled to point out that this list has been posted and debunked on this forum and elsewhere, multiple times.

As I recall, we never reached a conclusion, esp not of "debunking it". Faith is the underlying principle in every single claim of Vedanta. It works like this

Faith (in a system or process)>definitions of evidence>reasoning based upon infomation from evidence>conclusions.

Everything is accepted only on the basis of faith alone. I mean Vedic Epistemology is very clear that Pranam itself needs belief to work, and there is no way to rank one pramana over another without a basis of faith. There is no objective reasoning by we should accept any pranama, or forms of pranama or interpretations of pranama (meaning what constitutes Vedas themselves) without a little faith.

Now I agree, that other schools will not accept. But, itsypocritical to suggest that our logic is circular when yours is not. Everything is circular, because everything defines off each other. "Why should be accept the Vedas as sources of knowledge?". Because the Vedantic acharyas say so. Why should be accept the acharyas? Because the Vedas tell us to. and so on..." This is exactly the issue that led to the argument between me and Kalyanji.

 

[4M17]

@4M17, since no one else is telling you and I see that you are copy-pasting this list on multiple threads, I feel compelled to point out that this list has been posted and debunked on this forum and elsewhere, multiple times.

It comes down to this - a HK does not need such proof. He accepts the avatar claim on faith alone. I am positive that you never *once* thought of actually verifying any of the above (you cannot verify anyway, as most of these references have no numbers). The HK position rests on circular logic -

Why is Chaitany an avatar? Because the Gaudiya Acharyas say so.
Why should we accept the claim of these Acharyas? Because they belong to the line of Chaitanya, an avatar.

For the non-HK, dubious references - such as the above - do not work. So, for both HKs and non-HKs alike, this list is useless.

Feel free to use the search feature to look up past discussion on this topic. It will be simpler for you to reference older threads, instead of pasting these lists again.

Im sorry if this disturbed you, im new to this site but I posted it only on 2 threads thts all, i'll seach & refer to other topics-thanks for the hint ..the main reason is each time I look up a thread I see you guys criticizing the gaudiya vaisnavas and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu..thts too offensive its not befitting for vaishnavas to criticize other vaishnavas-that's vaishnava aparadha - z most serious offense tht'll lead to disastrous consequences in their own spiritual progress. its also very contaminating for those reading such gossips..some have gone so far tht they have even criticise Srimati Radharani, can u imagine that?..gaudiyas as well as the other sampradayas are doing the same things-following the regulative principles, chanting mahamantra, devotional service & preaching about the Lord's glories..so why hammering the gaudiyas like that..gaudiyas & other sampradayas preaches the same thing(little differences are not important)-even if u see the comments on the scriptures of the acharyas of the different vaishnavas sampradayas, u'll find that the wordings can be different but the context is the same that Krishna/Narayana/Vishnu is supreme and we should devote ourselves to his service and that's the main point...Gaudiyas should not be criticised since Iskcon has been preaching the glories of the Lord to the whole world and its thanks to Iskcon that 2d everyone learnt about devotion to the Lord is the best practice..

 

[4M17]

To shivomashekar PR - Gaudiya followers don't accept things based on just faith..its based on scriptural evidences..I've just given the scriptural evidences about Chaitanya's incarnations..but you have your free will to accept it or not..

 

[Aupmanyav]

Only 'advaita' stands by itself, not just because of mention in the scriptures but also because of modern science. We started with a ball of energy at the time of Big-Bang. There did not exist anything else.