Question regarding ISKCON...

[shivsomashekhar]

namaskram prabhu ji's

I will return to the converstaion when someone can be delighfull enough to reply to some of the potentialy uplifting aspects of this conversation .....or must we allways concentrate upon and prepetuate arguments ?

There may be some confusion here. This thread was started to learn about Iskcon and compare it with other forms of Vaishnavism. Such a comparison is bound to bring out the differences. I would say, if we cannot keep the discussion objective, if we cannot refrain from bringing in emotional content, then we should avoid participation.

but no , ...I am told that only Mahavachariya understands this verse , ...which makes everyone else fools , ..and suggests that no buddhi can manifest in any other acharya after his demise ???

I am not interested in philosopical inturpretations all this does is inflame rajas and tamas , ...in this case pride and ignorance , ...I am only interested in pure love of Hari , ...does that make me a dirtyword , ...universalist or non Hindu , .....?

As far as I can see, that is not what was said. According to Tattvavada, the position of Madhva is the correct one..supported by sufficient logic and Shastra, also ably defended by subsequent Acharyas in the line of Madhva (Jayatirtha, Vyaysa Raya Tirtha and others). If someone else shows up with a new outlook on the Gita, tradition requires this upstart to follow due process - produce appropriate literature and arguments to prove his interpretation is correct and that Tattvavada and other established positions are false.

You disapprove of polemics. But without such an engagement in polemics, anyone can claim anything without justification and everyone is correct at the same time, which would be chaotic. Who would you choose to follow and why? It is for this reason that we have polemics as a formal, disciplined tradition in India. Since at least the time of Nyaya (before Christ), debates have been a common practice among Indian doctrines. Stalwarts like Kumarila, Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, et al., saw it fit to participate in debates. There is a claim by Gaudiyas that Chaitanya debated too. By saying, philosophical interpretations only inflame Rajas and Tamas, we are saying all these people were wrong and we know better. Lastly, people debating philosophical points does not mean they hate each other.

I am confused by your stance. On one hand, you appear to disapprove discussions on differences, but you are also willing to start a new thread to discuss differences between ISKCON and Tattvavada. I will say once again that such discussions will never work if we get emotional.

Good Luck!

 

[Asha]

Hare Krishna Prabhu ji

Hare Krishna


There are many Hare Krishnas who believe that each philosophy (of each of the 4 sampradayas) is equally true and 100% Vedic and is capable of liberation, whereas some Vishsitadvaitins and Tattva-vadins believe that there are some beliefs in some sampradaya that are un-Vedic. In short, does one need to specifically be a GV to get Moksha or can one just be a normal devotee of Krishna from one of the 4 sampradayas or other sampradaya? What about Vaishnava Advaitins like Adi Shankara?

I can only give you my understanding on this (based on what we have been taught)

I cant see any reason that devotees from each sampradaya could or should not attain liberation by following their own acharyas.

It would be preposterous to assume otherwise?

The message of Lord Chaitanya is that anyone of any caste may atain liberation by simply chanting the Holy name.

Do we realy think that Krishna would differentiate between one who glorifies him as Narayana and one who Calls him Govinda.

Jai Shree Krishna

Asha

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I cant see any reason that devotees from each sampradaya could or should not attain liberation by following their own acharyas.

If this were true, then there would only be one Sampradaya...the very first one in the list. There was no need for any of the later Sampradayas as the first one was good enough. Again, this is Universalism, which is not applicable to traditional Hindu belief systems.

The message of Lord Chaitanya is that anyone of any caste may atain liberation by simply chanting the Holy name.

I am confused. From my limited knowledge, Chaitanya did not want Moksha. He was in favor of some other state which was above Moksha. Did he not say that Moksha was selfish or something to that effect? I could be wrong, of course. But the argument also comes up in the alleged debate between Chaitanya and a Tattvavada scholar where Chaitanya presents the idea of something better than Moksha (his fifth Purushartha).

 

[Asha]

Hare Krishna Ash Ji

Hare Krishna Asha-ji

I think you are saying the same thing "Jiva falls from Vaikuntha"..The difference being only in Semantic. Dreaming=Fall? If not What is fall?

I dont know ? is it semantics or is there a difference between Fall Down and forgetfullness ?

Also it is said that the Misuse of Free Will lead to the Falldown of Jiva from Spiritual Platform. Now if all Jivas have similar svabhava then why do they end up making different choices and end up in varying degrees of karma?

Prehaps depends on the Missuse ?

Why do some regain their memory of Sri Krishna and others remain forgetful ?

Why do some cry for Krishna , and how many truely know what this means ?

How many realise that they follow a tradition because their Karma has led them there, so why does our karma lead us to different forms of worship through different philosopical traditions ?

So with that in mind I would again conclude that each tradition has its place and that the different philosopies are only there to lead us to the worship or back to love of Godhead.

Jai Shree Krishna

Asha

 

[Aupmanyav]

Conclusion: Differences are OK (at least with us). Vive les différences.

 

[Asha]

Namaste

If this were true, then there would only be one Sampradaya...the very first one in the list. There was no need for any of the later Sampradayas as the first one was good enough. Again, this is Universalism, which is not applicable to traditional Hindu belief systems

No not at all, you forget that the mentality of embodied souls is constanty changing In Satyayuga everyone was pure minded by nature, here in this Kaliyuga we are quarelsome and self posessed, because of this we need different traditions due to our different natures and moods.

I am confused. From my limited knowledge, Chaitanya did not want Moksha. He was in favor of some other state which was above Moksha. Did he not say that Moksha was selfish or something to that effect? I could be wrong, of course. But the argument also comes up in the alleged debate between Chaitanya and a Tattvavada scholar where Chaitanya presents the idea of something better than Moksha (his fifth Purushartha).

Axlyz ji used the word liberation, I took this to mean liberation from this embodied nature therefore trancendance to the Spiritula realm. Lord Chaitanya himself left this material realm because he could no longer bear the sepperation.
But to a Gaudiya Vaisnava this liberation is also a reinstatement to our natural state of loving servitude.

We would consider this position to be above liberation just for the sake of personal release.

Please could you provide me with a link relating to this debate or please feel free to PM any information.

Jai Shree Krishna

Asha

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Hare Krishna!

Actually, Vishistadvaita also believes that the jivas have the same svarupa, ie we are exactly identical.

If all jivas have same svarupa then why do they have Diversity in karma?
This is a fundamental problem which i feel is answered satisfactorily only by Dvaita school, as it sorts Jivas based on Svarupa into three Categories, which i'm sure you're familiar with.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

No not at all, you forget that the mentality of embodied souls is constanty changing In Satyayuga everyone was pure minded by nature, here in this Kaliyuga we are quarelsome and self posessed, because of this we need different traditions due to our different natures and moods.

Let me ask this question, so I can understand your position better. You are saying *all* belief systems in the world are valid and all their followers will attain liberation. Do you discount anyone like Advaita/Mayavada or Shaivas?

If I start a new Sampradaya tomorrow, are all my followers assured of liberation?

Thanks

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Hare Krishna!

If all jivas have same svarupa then why do they have Diversity in karma?
This is a fundamental problem which i feel is answered satisfactorily only by Dvaita school, as it sorts Jivas based on Svarupa into three Categories, which i'm sure you're familiar with.

I do not see the problem. Also, I do not know that Tattvavada makes such a claim for that would mean, three categories = only three kinds of Karma in this universe, which is not true.

Karma is anadi (beginningless), as are souls. There is no requirement therefore, that it be equal for all souls.

 

[Asha]

Let me ask this question, so I can understand your position better. You are saying *all* belief systems in the world are valid and all their followers will attain liberation.

Let us limit this conversaton to the question in hand the 4 Vaisnava Sampradayas.

No I dont beleive that all the followers will attain liberation only the ones who are fully surrendered.

Do you discount anyone like Advaita/Mayavada or Shaivas?

Jai Shree Krishna

Asha

No I dont discount it, if they are fully surrendered they wiil attain the hevenly planets.
It is just that I have chosen this Sampradaya.

It dosent mean that I think your sampradaya is invalid.

If I start a new Sampradaya tomorrow, are all my followers assured of liberation?

Thanks

What sort of catch out tricky tricky question is this

Even Krishna did not start a new Sampradaya he continued in an existing Sampradaya forming the Sri Brahma Madhava Gaudiya Sampradaya.(of course I am talking about Sri Krishna Chaitanya) to illustrate surrender he came as his own devotee.

So you canot start a sampradaya, but even if you were the most elevated soul who has appeared to help mankind atain liberation even you would have to set the example of following in an existing sampradaya, and even still you would not be able to promise liberation to all your followers. Liberation would come only to the fully surrendered souls.

But you can show the path.

Jai Shree Krishna

Asha

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram prabhu ji

There may be some confusion here. This thread was started to learn about Iskcon and compare it with other forms of Vaishnavism. Such a comparison is bound to bring out the differences. I would say, if we cannot keep the discussion objective, if we cannot refrain from bringing in emotional content, then we should avoid participation.

yes true it invited those with experience of iskcon to comment on various points
and true such conversations are bound to bring out differences , However when initialy comenting i did not antisipate the anti Gaudia sentiments that would occur .

I can be perfectly emotionless if you like but what is the point ? .....who is here to actualy listen or learn ?...and who is here just to voice an opinion which expresses their underlaying emotions ?

the original question was between Vaisnavas , therefore i trusted that there there should be something commonly known as Vaisnava etiquete , it is only when this etiquete s broken that offenses and hurt occur .

You disapprove of polemics.

I dissaprove of pointless polemics , ...

It is for this reason that we have polemics as a formal, disciplined tradition in India.

there are rules for debating , ....and courtesies to be observed , ..this complells one to listen to anothers argument .

By saying, philosophical interpretations only inflame Rajas and Tamas, we are saying all these people were wrong and we know better. Lastly, people debating philosophical points does not mean they hate each other.

un skillfull debating inflames rajas and tamas which Is why I retired from this debate , ...in true and fair debate one does not strike at the heart , ..agreed it does not mean that one hates another , ..this is not the issue , the issue is striking at the heart of anothers beleifs , ....in otherwords you may insult me but do not insult the Deity or the Guru this is impermissable , ....

I am confused by your stance. On one hand, you appear to disapprove discussions on differences, but you are also willing to start a new thread to discuss differences between ISKCON and Tattvavada. I will say once again that such discussions will never work if we get emotional.

Good Luck!

please do not be confused , I am deeply sadened by harshness and un necesary criticism of any sampradaya or tradition , and should I decide to start another thread it will be after reading the offending articles and contemplating if there is in any way an understanding which can be reached between both offended parties ?

thank you for your wlshes of luck , please dont think me rude but I dont beleive in luck just blessings , ...some things are not meant to work , ...some times they are just meant to make you think , ...if we do not think , if we just go on to the next debate flexing the muscle of our learning we do nothing but fool our selves into believing in our prowess, ...

I have no learning I have only the experience of deity seva and of reflection , ...so yes this debating can at times be some what disstastefull to me .
I have now explained my position please may I ask which tradition you follow ?

namaskaram , Ratikala

 

[Chakra]

I do not see the problem. Also, I do not know that Tattvavada makes such a claim for that would mean, three categories = only three kinds of Karma in this universe, which is not true.

Karma is anadi (beginningless), as are souls. There is no requirement therefore, that it be equal for all souls.

This is exactly the explanation. Our Dharma Bhuta Jnana is different because it contracts and expands. In Moksha, the Dharma Bhuta Jnana is expanded to infinity. With Bhakti and service, this Jnana increases. I don't see a problem. I don't see how classifying souls into 3 categories helps increase the understanding. Just a question (a respectful one), but Tattva-ji and Ash-ji, can Vishnu give moksha to a Tamasic jiva?

 

[Chakra]

Hare Krishna Prabhu ji





I can only give you my understanding on this (based on what we have been taught)

I cant see any reason that devotees from each sampradaya could or should not attain liberation by following their own acharyas.

It would be preposterous to assume otherwise?

The message of Lord Chaitanya is that anyone of any caste may atain liberation by simply chanting the Holy name.

Do we realy think that Krishna would differentiate between one who glorifies him as Narayana and one who Calls him Govinda.

Jai Shree Krishna

Asha

Of course not. I was just wondering, since some ISKCONites don't believe that Advaitin Vaishnavas will get liberation.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Moksha is the realisation of the intrinsic bliss. I don't think Rajasic and Tamasic jivas even have moksha sadhanas

can Vishnu give moksha to a Tamasic jiva?

Wasn't Krishna's uncle Kamsa a Tamasic jiva?

Karma is anadi (beginningless), as are souls. There is no requirement therefore, that it be equal for all souls.

At the same time, it would be logically inappropriate if Souls have similar svarupa, but have varying degrees of karma. On what basis do they get karma? God knows
Also if all souls were same then why are some good and others Evil? The problem of evil remains unanswered. You may say Free Will. But if X and Y are Sugar (have same svarupa), then both must taste sweet, if Y tastes bitter, there's some Trouble.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hare Krishna! If all jivas have same svarupa then why do they have Diversity in karma?
This is a fundamental problem which i feel is answered satisfactorily only by Dvaita school, ..

Acintya, it is also answered satisfactorily by 'advaita' since all that you are perceiving is only Lord Krishna's 'maya'. Do you not know what maya did to Lord Balabhadra or Sage Narada? Who is stronger than Lord's maya except those who receive his grace?

 

[Aupmanyav]

If I start a new Sampradaya tomorrow, are all my followers assured of liberation?

That will depend on what you teach to your followers. If you teach 'dharma' which is 'sanatan', and if they follow it rightly, then they will sure attain liberation.

.. but Tattva-ji and Ash-ji, can Vishnu give moksha to a Tamasic jiva?

I do not get it. Why should the Lord give moksha to 'tamasic' jivas? It is against his own rules. Of course, moksha will be possible if they make an attempt to change their ways. And he will give moksha to even a person not worshiping him if the person is sattvic. The person may even be a non-Hindu. His administration is perfectly secular and rule-dependent; and not whimsical.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Acintya, it is also answered satisfactorily by 'advaita' since all that you are perceiving is only Lord Krishna's 'maya'. Do you not know what maya did to Lord Balabhadra or Sage Narada? Who is stronger than Lord's maya except those who receive his grace?

Can you please elaborate? I still don't get it. The degree of avidya differs from Jiva to Jiva, who puts them in avidya ? Isn't it Ishvara via his Maya? (Ofcourse they are one but consider conventional reality for the moment) .

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Can you please elaborate? I still don't get it. The degree of avidya differs from Jiva to Jiva, who puts them in avidya ? Isn't it Ishvara via his Maya? (Ofcourse they are one but consider conventional reality for the moment) .

Again, your premise is based on the idea that there is some kind of a start point - like in Christianity. In Vedanta, there is no start point. Souls are beginning-less, Karma is beginning-less and Maya is beginning-less too. It is not like there was some point in time when Ishvara introduced Maya.

 

[Chakra]

That will depend on what you teach to your followers. If you teach 'dharma' which is 'sanatan', and if they follow it rightly, then they will sure attain liberation.I do not get it. Why should the Lord give moksha to 'tamasic' jivas? It is against his own rules. Of course, moksha will be possible if they make an attempt to change their ways. And he will give moksha to even a person not worshiping him if the person is sattvic. The person may even be a non-Hindu. His administration is perfectly secular and rule-dependent; and not whimsical.

Yeah... I don't think we are in the position to classify jivas as tamasic and neither are we in position to question BhagavAn's motives.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Again, your premise is based on the idea that there is some kind of a start point - like in Christianity. In Vedanta, there is no start point. Souls are beginning-less, Karma is beginning-less and Maya is beginning-less too. It is not like there was some point in time when Ishvara introduced Maya.

If its beginning-less how can we expect it to have an end? How can karma be beginning-less? I mean how can we come under reaction without even acting?
Beginning-less karma would be a good oxymoron