Question regarding ISKCON...

[Chakra]

Perhaps that is why.

So arguing against other Hindus is also a crime now?

 

[Chakra]

As for Madhvacharya, he claimed to be avatar of Vayu. Did Ramanujacharya make any claims?
AFAIK, Mahaprabhu never made any claims, his followers believed himeslf to be Krishna.

Ramanuja probably didn't make any claims, but we consider him to be Adi Shesha.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So arguing against other Hindus is also a crime now?

No. But to be accepted as an avatara for all Hindus requires the support of all Hindus and not just one sect. Otherwise, a sect may accept one as an avatara but not others.

 

[Vinayaka]

No. But to be accepted as an avatara for all Hindus requires the support of all Hindus and not just one sect.

Surely that makes no sense at all, because some sects don't believe in avatar period. How can you support something you don't believe in? Of course you can support others right to believe in it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Forgot to think of them. We are so vast. From no one is an avatara to every thing is but an avatara.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram axlyz ji

Ratiben, just a question, but why is Ramanuja or Madhva not considered an incarnation of Vishnu? Both of them had a larger sphere of influence at the time and they too argued against anti-Vaishnavites to tell the world about Vishnu.

Madhavacharya is considered to be the incarnation of Vayu the powerfull , ...and Ramanujacharya to be an incarnation of Adisesha the Lords eternal servant and protector , ...who as is Laxmi devi , is an expansion of the Lord himself .

here is the perfect example of the lords mercy , ....everything directly or indirectly stems from the Lord , Madhava being an incarnation of Vayu the powerfull which was the form nececary to defeat the prevailing ignoranceof the day and firmly establish the worship of Visnu , ...Ramanujacharya similarly with great mercy appears to defend and protect the worship of Visnu , returning and re instating lost deity forms of the Lord to their rightfull position .

one could say that Adisesha he is infact the Lord himself , ...but as Adisesha he exhibits a particular quality , ..even Chaitanya Mahaprabhu comes in the mood of Srimati Radharani , this is a mood of loving devotional servitude , ...

as Gaudiya Vaisnava we see this as the unfolding of the Lord's grace each acharya is doing the right thing for the specific circumstance , for this reason there should be no need for disagrement between sects , ...it is as the blossoming of a lotus at no point of its flowering is it more or less pure , ...lotus is never impure .

 

[Asha]

Namaste Asha-ji,

Hare Krishna Prabhu Ji

You are right. My bad. It's just that most ISKCONites that I've met have said things about others that made me uncomfortable. Things like "Ramanuja and Madhva worshiped Chaitanya" or telling me that I'll go to Vaikuntha and they'll go to some higher place called Goloka. Forgive me, since you do not hold those views.

Would I be too far wrong to guess that these are the young an inexperienced Devotees ?
I have met this attitude in some youngsters when they go out distributing books.

Ultimatly we are worshiping Shree Krishna in his various lila most commonly for a Viasnava, in the Vrindarvan Lila. This is a very personal aspect, young devotees are first taught to praise and follow Lord Chaitanya, then only through understanding Lord Chiatanya will they come to an understanding of Krishna himself, let alone understanding the personal relationship between Radha and Krishna.
On the whole these young devotees repeat what they have heard but they do not yet understand it so it becomes skewed.@ratikala explained already that Vaikuntha is an entire planetary system Goloka Vrindarvan is the central planet,the abode of Shree Krishna in his Vrindarvan Lila this is an abode strived for or attained by only the highest devotees even from within our own tradition, of course everyone wants to attain the highest abode it is natural, but somany people are talking aboutit theoreticaly rather than from actual knowledge of it.

There is no doubt that there is a negative perception of Advaita in the ISKCON community. There are some who claim that Shankara was a disguised personalist, and there are some who claim that he is a demon. Prabhupada called them rascals (I know, the philosophy). So I hope you understand why I would be confused. This entire thread was made so that I could understand ISKCON's positions among contradictory viewpoints.

I would not like to judge all Advaitins by the same measure, and I know so many times Srila Prabhupada has been missunderstood for caling Advaitins ''Rascals'' and ''Demons''
This is because Prabhupada felt that these Advaitins were Raskals because they deluded their folowers by revealing only a partial truth. And many prople dislike his use of the term ''Mayavadi'' but considering that Advaitins claim that our personal form of Krishna is just an illusionary symptom of of maya, after all this is their claim, so we call them proclaimers of Maya!

Of course, if you are asking whether I'll bash ISKCON's views after understanding them, then that is simply not the case. There is no reason to think that I, a Vaishnava, would try to hurt and attack another Vaishnava's siddhanta just for the sake of it.

thats nice.

Shankaracharya was a Vaishnava. Advaita was Vaishnava in its roots. Even a child reading his Gita Bhasya would identify Shankara as a Vaishnava alone. He was born in a Shaiva family, however (AFAIK).
Could you explain what you mean by Parameshwara and Parabrahman? My understanding was that they are the same.

Jaya Shri Krishna

Oh dear I thought it was the other way around, I thought that he was born in Vaisnava family ????
will look it up later , ....

Parameshwara = the Supreme Lord, Supreme Controler, Bhagavan Shree Krishna (Vishnu) himself in all his gloriousness and form

Parabrahman= the Supreme (formless) Brahman

Jai Shree Krishna

Asha

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. but considering that Advaitins claim that our personal form of Krishna is just an illusionary symptom of of maya, after all this is their claim,

No Asha, that is not true. Those who say so have not understood 'advaita', perhaps Prabhupada too. Krishna is Brahman. Krishna constitutes all things in the universe and there is nothing else in the universe other than Krishna. "Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti". This comes from an 'advaitist'/'Mayavadi'.

 

[Makaranda]

considering that Advaitins claim that our personal form of Krishna is just an illusionary symptom of of maya, after all this is their claim, so we call them proclaimers of Maya!

You make it sound like some kind of disease by using the word symptom.

The Lord is in full control of his maya, and he wields it to appear on earth as the avatara. Krishna is one such avatara.

 

[Asha]

Hare Krishna Prabhu Ji

This is why I say that I would not like to judge all Advaitins by the same rule, I am sure you are correct not all Advaitins understands Advaita in the same way, just the same not all Gaudiyas understand the true depth of meaning in their tradition.
From what you say understand Brahman to be Krishna and Krishna to be Brahman, but if you understand in this way why do you call yourself atheist I dont understand this? I realy like many of you posts and I think I am understanding what you are saying, but you say you are atheist this I do not understand. I hear some things you say are like you have love for Krishna ?

Please explain for me, do you love Krishna ?

Does he have form?

And please could you explain what you mean

This comes from an 'advaitist'/'Mayavadi'.

Thank you

Jai Shree Krishna

Asha

 

[Asha]

Jai shree Krisna Prabhu ji

You make it sound like some kind of disease by using the word symptom.

By this I am meaning a result, Symptom is as a result

The Lord is in full control of his maya, and he wields it to appear on earth as the avatara. Krishna is one such avatara.

But your veiw of the Lord is it personal or impersonal ?

There you see this is saying the Form of Krishma as an avatara is his Maya ?
Is this what you are saying ?

Jai Shree Krishna

Asha

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Hare Krishna Prabhu Ji
Would I be too far wrong to guess that these are the young an inexperienced Devotees ?

That would be Bhakti Vinoda Thakur from the 19th Century. He wrote this in a book named Navadwipa Dham Mahatmya, I think. He wrote about anachronisms where Chaitanya went back in time and appeared in the dreams of Madhva and Ramanuja and they then became his followers (but, in secret). Though Madhva followed Tattavada and Ramanuja followed Vishishtadvaita in open, in private they were following Chaitanya, which made them very early adopters of Gaudiya Vaishnavism - from even earlier than the birth of Gaudiya Vaishnavism!

Apart from this, Bhakti Vinoda Thakur is also known for "discovering" a Chaitanya Upanishad, which he claimed was part of the Rig-Veda. These kind of claims are only taken seriously by followers of the tradition and in this case, I have talked to a few Gaudiya Vaishnavas, who themselves were doubtful of Bhakti Vinoda's claims.

To be clear, this is not criticism. Just pointing out that such claims about Gurus from other traditions (secret worship and the like) will obviously not sit well with people belonging to those traditions.

I would not like to judge all Advaitins by the same measure, and I know so many times Srila Prabhupada has been missunderstood for caling Advaitins ''Rascals'' and ''Demons''
This is because Prabhupada felt that these Advaitins were Raskals because they deluded their folowers by revealing only a partial truth. And many prople dislike his use of the term ''Mayavadi'' but considering that Advaitins claim that our personal form of Krishna is just an illusionary symptom of of maya, after all this is their claim, so we call them proclaimers of Maya!

Prabhupada called Advaitins rascals because he thought they were wrong. What is the misunderstanding here? I think people here understand it pretty well.

 

[Aupmanyav]

From what you say understand Brahman to be Krishna and Krishna to be Brahman, but if you understand in this way why do you call yourself atheist I don't understand this? I realy like many of you posts and I think I am understanding what you are saying, but you say you are atheist this I do not understand. I hear some things you say are like you have love for Krishna? Please explain for me, do you love Krishna? Does he have form?

Of course, I love Krishna. Just as dearly as a person following Sri Ramanujacharya or Sri Nimbarkacharya, or Sri Madhvacharya or Gauranga Mahaprabhu will do. If Krishna constitutes all things in the universe and there is nothing else in the universe other than Krishna, then what am I? Kkrishna exists in every pore of my body. Krishna is in me. Now whom else should I worship? That is why I am an atheist. Form is immaterial for Krishna. He can be with form and without form too. Form is 'maya'. As the Buddhist say 'nama-roopa' is an illusion. Even Gauranga Mahaprabhu said that there is no need to worry about Bheda and Abheda, it is indescribable. That is why his philosophy is known as 'Achintya Bhedabheda Advaita'.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Krishna is in me. Now whom else should I worship? That is why I am an atheist. Form is immaterial for Krishna. He can be with form and without form too. Form is 'maya'.

uh-oh Sir. That makes you a rascal

 

[Aupmanyav]

Many people called Krishna a rascal.

"Sun ri Yashoda Maiyya tero Nandlal ri kankariya se matki phode"
(Hear, O Yashoda Maiyya, your Nandlal broke my pitcher with a pebble)

Daiya re daiya, Jashoda maiya isko sambhal. Bada natkhat hai tero nandlal
(Oh Dios, Mother Jashoda, kindly keep him under control, your Nandlal is very naughty)

Paniya bharan ko jane na de, jaun toh wapas aane na de
Rah na chhode matki phode makhan le nikal, bada natkhat hai
(Does not allow us to go to fetch water, and if we go, then does not allow us to come back
will not leave our path, breaks our pitchers and takes out butter, your Nandlal is ..)

Jamuna pe aisi bansi bajayi, tan mann mein mere aag lagayi
Nind churayi ram duhayi kiya bura hal, bada natkhat hai
(He played such beautiful flute that my body and heart was on fire
stole by sleep, by Rama, put me in a bad shape, your Nandlal is ..)

Prit bina koyi git na jane, prit ki lekin rit na jane
Birha ki mari Radha bichari tadpe kitne sal, bada natkhat hai
(He always sings love songs, but does not know the way of love
poor Radha, writhes in wait for years, your Nandlal is ..)

Note: The 'black and white' film shows three famous actors of yesteryears, Balraj Sahni, Nirupa Rao and David Abraham on far right. The occasion is when Balraj and Nirupa come to check on David's daughter for marriage to their son. Nirupa was sort of universal mother in Indian cinema. Any mother's role and you would find Nirupa there. After the song is over, there is another song in which a famous actress, Hema Malini dances. The play-back singer, Lata Mangeshkar is considered an avatara of Goddess Saraswati. Lata, now 85, has sung 25,000 songs in 20 Indian languages. She never faltered on her notes.

 

[ratikala]

uh-oh Sir. That makes you a rascal

jai jai , ...but a very lovable rascal

 

[Asha]

Hare Krishna Prabhu ji

That would be Bhakti Vinoda Thakur from the 19th Century. He wrote this in a book named Navadwipa Dham Mahatmya, I think. He wrote about anachronisms where Chaitanya went back in time and appeared in the dreams of Madhva and Ramanuja and they then became his followers (but, in secret). Though Madhva followed Tattavada and Ramanuja followed Vishishtadvaita in open, in private they were following Chaitanya, which made them very early adopters of Gaudiya Vaishnavism - from even earlier than the birth of Gaudiya Vaishnavism!

Ok , so you want to be cheeky again

I am talking about the young devotees who do not fully understand the relationship of Goloka Vrindarvana to the Vaikuntha planets, this has already been explained by @ratikala mataji. But I tried to explain it again Because @axlyz ji asked me a direct question.

Ultimatly we are worshiping Shree Krishna in his various lila most commonly for a Viasnava, in the Vrindarvan Lila. This is a very personal aspect, young devotees are first taught to praise and follow Lord Chaitanya, then only through understanding Lord Chiatanya will they come to an understanding of Krishna himself, let alone understanding the personal relationship between Radha and Krishna.
On the whole these young devotees repeat what they have heard but they do not yet understand it so it becomes skewed.@ratikala explained already that Vaikuntha is an entire planetary system Goloka Vrindarvan is the central planet,the abode of Shree Krishna in his Vrindarvan Lila this is an abode strived for or attained by only the highest devotees even from within our own tradition, of course everyone wants to attain the highest abode it is natural, but so many people are talking about it theoreticaly rather than from actual knowledge of it.

As far as the question of Bhakti Vinode Thakur's Sri Navadwipa Dham Mahatmya, have you read this text or are you quoting portions presented within your own tradition ?

Would you please give a reference to whos translation or excerts you are quoting ?

Apart from this, Bhakti Vinoda Thakur is also known for "discovering" a Chaitanya Upanishad, which he claimed was part of the Rig-Veda. These kind of claims are only taken seriously by followers of the tradition and in this case, I have talked to a few Gaudiya Vaishnavas, who themselves were doubtful of Bhakti Vinoda's claims.

Are these senior devotees ?
I think you will find many devotees who do not fully understand its inner meaning, Sri Navadwipa Dham Mahatmya is not a text easily understood by neophytes, it is one to be read and expounded upon by a qualified Guru.

To be clear, this is not criticism. Just pointing out that such claims about Gurus from other traditions (secret worship and the like) will obviously not sit well with people belonging to those traditions.

No un due criticism taken

And I can understand that in the hands of the wrong person these texts can easily be misunderstood, but as Vaisnavas we are all Krishna devotees in one form or another, surely we are interested to hear more about the sublime nature of the Supreme Lord Shree Hari.

And I beleive the purpose of this thread is to unravel these Misunderstandings ?

Prabhupada called Advaitins rascals because he thought they were wrong. What is the misunderstanding here? I think people here understand it pretty well.

Hmmm, yes and I will also call you a rascal if I ask you the way to to Goloka Vrindarvana and you tell me that it does not exist

If you do not know then you must be truthful and say I am sorry I know nothing about it

Jai Shree Krishna

Asha

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Hi Asha,

As far as the question of Bhakti Vinode Thakur's Sri Navadwipa Dham Mahatmya, have you read this text or are you quoting portions presented within your own tradition ?

Would you please give a reference to whos translation or excerts you are quoting ?

Other traditions do not read this text (NDM), to the best of my knowledge. So if there any material presented from NDM, you can be sure, it is from someone who represents the Gaudiya school.

A quick google search got me a number of links. Here is one -
Why is Lord Chaitanya not accepted as Lord Krishna by other sampradayas? | The Spiritual Scientist

I do not see what is complex about this text, that would require expert interpretation. It is a Mahatmya ( like several other such texts) which explains the glories of a holy place. As far as I can see, the language and content is straight forward and simple.

Also, from the above link, I see Chaitanya talked to Shankara too . I was not aware of this, until now.

Thus all the leading acharyas from the vaishnava sampradayas including the guru Adi sankaracharya already knew about the glories of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu....

 

[Asha]

Hare Krishna Prabhu ji

Of course, I love Krishna. Just as dearly as a person following Sri Ramanujacharya or Sri Nimbarkacharya, or Sri Madhvacharya or Gauranga Mahaprabhu will do. If Krishna constitutes all things in the universe and there is nothing else in the universe other than Krishna, then what am I? Kkrishna exists in every pore of my body. Krishna is in me. Now whom else should I worship? That is why I am an atheist. Form is immaterial for Krishna. He can be with form and without form too. Form is 'maya'. As the Buddhist say 'nama-roopa' is an illusion. Even Gauranga Mahaprabhu said that there is no need to worry about Bheda and Abheda, it is indescribable. That is why his philosophy is known as 'Achintya Bhedabheda Advaita'.

You are truely Mischeivous you are deffinatly a Freind of Krishnas,

'Achintya Bhedabheda Advaita'. Hmmmm 'Achintya Bheda Abheda Tattva

Yes, it is true Krishna resides in the heart, and not a blade of grass moves without his sanction, But also I see he gave you the free will to be Mischevious , ...but as you love Krishna I wont mind one bit,

also you love bhajans do you Know where I can find one my Grumaharaji sings it and I would love to hear it,''Chitachor A Kanaya Teri Jai Hove'' Do you know where to find it ?


Jai Shree Krishna

Asha

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Right. It is always the followers. This is how it has been at least since the time of Shankara, up to the modern day Sai Baba. The followers elevate their Guru/founder to the status of an avatar and will attribute miracles to him.

That's true. However, i think none of them held that their siddhānta is right just because they were (considered) avatāra-puruṣas or that considering them as such is a pre-requisite for understanding their siddhānta. Establishing a siddhānta has always, at least until Śri Vallabha, based on śāstra.
Also, i doubt if there is any scope for accepting temporal validity - siddhānta valid only for a particular time - because that is invariably implying wrong understanding of the śāstras on the part of previous siddhāntins or vedas assuming different meanings at different times, which compromises their svataḥ-prāmāṇya. Muhammed, though, is claimed to have proposed such a thing, that there have been several prophets who gave teachings valid for their particular time, now to be superseded by his, and him being the last!

“Taking the Lord's advice, Ramanuja secretly cultured his attraction for Navadvipa. So that Gauranga's pastimes were not revealed prematurely, Lord Narayana then led Ramanuja here to Vaikunthapura and mercifully showed Ramanuja His transcendental form served by Shri, Bhu, and Nila. Ramanuja considered himself fortunate to obtain darshana of his worshipable Lord, when suddenly he saw the Lord assume the enchanting form of Gaurasundara, the son of Jagannatha Mishra. Ramanuja swooned at the brilliance of the form. Then Gauranga put His lotus feet on the head of Ramanuja, who was thus divinely inspired and recited prayers of praise. `I must see Gaura's actual lila on earth. I can never leave Navadvipa!'
“Gauranga said, `O son of Keshava, your desire will be fulfilled. When the Nadia pastimes will be revealed in the future, you will take birth here again. -- '

From -- Why is Lord Chaitanya not accepted as Lord Krishna by other sampradayas? | The Spiritual Scientist
"Ramanuja swooned at the brilliance of the form. Then Gauranga put His lotus feet on the head of Ramanuja, who was thus divinely inspired and recited prayers of praise. `I must see Gaura's actual lila on earth. I can never leave Navadvipa!'
“Gauranga said, `O son of Keshava, your desire will be fulfilled. When the Nadia pastimes will be revealed in the future, you will take birth here again."
Has Śri Rāmānuja reincarnated at Nadia yet?
Axlyz ji how do Śri Vaiṣṇava's take this?

Also, from the above link, I see Chaitanya talked to Shankara too

Now that's news to me too!

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।