Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 68

Thread: Why is demigod worship different from worshiping paramatma

  1. #21
    Join Date
    September 2013
    Location
    York, PA, USA
    Age
    61
    Posts
    45
    Rep Power
    41

    Re: Why is demigod worship different from worshiping paramatma

    Quote Originally Posted by Anirudh View Post


    It is indigestible to learn that a person of Srila Prabhupada's stature has said this.
    I've done a search thru Srila Prabhupada's works via the Bhaktivedanta VedaBase software and can find nowhere where he calls Jesus an incarnation of Lord Krishna or of Vishnu. He did refer to Jesus on a couple of occasions as a "perfect devotee" (something he also said of Muhammad whose followers do not consider him divine as Jesus' followers do. I don't know about Gaudiya Vaishnavism as a whole, but ISKCON does not appear to teach that.
    Jeff (a.k.a. Govinda Das)

    Hindu Quaker.
    Though I am eternal, immutable, and the Lord of all beings, yet I manifest Myself by controlling material Nature, using My own divine potential energy, the Divine Light
    (Bhagavad Gita 4:6

  2. #22

    Re: Why is demigod worship different from worshiping paramatma

    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa View Post
    This means that all the gods mentioned, including Varaha, Narayana, Kurma, Nrisimha, ... etc, are parts of Lord Krishna.
    Just because there is a verse in the Bhagavatam which says that "no one should make a distinction between Me, Bramhā and Shiva" does not mean that Brahma and guna avatara Shiva are not jiva souls. Similarly just because there are verses in the Bhagavatam which say "Bramhā Vishṇu Mahesh are simply roles played by Nārāyaṇ for the purpose of creation, maintenance annhilation" also does not mean that Brahma and guna avatara Shiva are not jiva souls. It is said that Brahma and Shiva are guna avataras of Lord Vishnu, but that does not necessarily mean that they are Vishnu tattva or Lord Vishnu Himself. Lord Vishnu is not a jiva.
    Jiva souls are subordinate to the Lord Vishnu because their existence depends on Him.
    Namaste bramha jijnasa,

    Truth exists on multiple dimensions. I can see this Truth as being what you have said, as Truth on one dimension. This is the dimension of Shri Hari that Gauḍīya vaīshṇav siddhānta chooses.

    This may [or may not] surprise you, but I simply love this dimension. Always did

    om namo bhagavate vāsudevāya
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  3. #23
    Join Date
    November 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    80
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Why is demigod worship different from worshiping paramatma

    Hare Krsna,

    It's unfortunate that wherever ISKCON is part of the topic, every conceivable controversy is going to find a way to the thread. However, that said, it doesn't solve the issue to shut down every challenge of the teachings and not take some time to answer them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Anirudh View Post
    ...It is indigestible to learn that a person of Srila Prabhupada's stature has said this. There is another person who runs Peace TV too has made nice revelations linking or using Veda to his own religious aspirations. I am not comparing both the personalities by any means...
    Yes you are or you wouldn't have said. It is ludicrous to accuse Srila Prabhupada of being a Zakir Naik because YOU can't digest and understand WHAT is the teaching, and instead fall back on your own personal loathing of what you understand about Christian religion.
    Quote Originally Posted by govind_das View Post
    I've done a search thru Srila Prabhupada's works via the Bhaktivedanta VedaBase software and can find nowhere where he calls Jesus an incarnation of Lord Krishna or of Vishnu. He did refer to Jesus on a couple of occasions as a "perfect devotee" (something he also said of Muhammad whose followers do not consider him divine as Jesus' followers do. I don't know about Gaudiya Vaishnavism as a whole, but ISKCON does not appear to teach that.
    Govind Das ji is correct.
    Quote Originally Posted by Anirudh View Post
    "...interested to understand whether the Abrahamic deity discussed in this thread is a Para Devata (Paramatma) or a Anya Devata (Demi God)?..."
    We aren't discussing an Abrahamic deity. Your mind alone is stuck on this. Now, I can understand, you get hung up on term "avatar" thinking, we worship Jesus as Divine incarnation of Lord Krsna. Please, every living being is an "avatar" technically as it means only "incarnation." Srila Prabhupada nowhere EVER said, Jesus is God. Neither did Srila Prabhupada ever say, Jesus is Krsna. He said rather, in conformity with the teaching of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu:
    "The Lord then pointed out that there is no limit to the saktyavesa-avataras and that they cannot be counted. However, some can be mentioned as examples. The saktyavesa incarnations are of two kinds--direct and indirect. When the Lord Himself comes, He is called saksat, or a direct saktyavesa-avatara, and when He empowers some living entity to represent Him that living entity is called an indirect or avesa incarnation."-Teachings of Lord Caitanya,Chapter 8: The Avataras
    It is our belief and part of the greatness of Sanathana Dharma that we understand the God is all-pervading even in Abrahamic countries as the jiv atmas from those countries also belong to the One Supreme Divine, Lord Krsna Bhagavan. And because we believe that the Lord Krsna is ever trying to reach conditioned souls who cry out in bewilderment and pain, Divine Lord tries to reach them, in a way they can understand. Sending empowered jivas (saints) is NOT the same as a Divine incarnation, and CERTAINLY not the same as a PURNA avatar. There is no shastric evidence to show any DIVINE Incarnation of MahaVishnu Tattva ever incarnates outside of Bharatvarsh. Please understand properly what is being said.

    It has to be considered, are the MODERN teachings of Jesus the same as the original? You see, many are condemning based on interpretations altered over the course of 2,500 years. And this isn't speculation because there is archaeological evidence.

    Simplest example: There was another Jesus, known as Mani who actually did come to India, and moved to the Himalayas, traveled throughout Tibet and China and was regarded as a Buddha (awakened one) and whose Philosophy survives to this day as the Pure Land sect of Chinese Buddhism. Dalai Lama acknowledges his scriptures are preserved in Tibetan Buddhist monasteries. His grave is located in Kashmir.
    "Buddha Mani has proclaimed the truth; let this truth dwell in your hearts. Extinguish in yourselves every desire that antagonizes the Buddha, and in the perfection of your spiritual growth you will become like unto him. That of your heart which cannot or will not develop into Buddha must perish, for it is mere illusion and unreal; it is the source of your error; it is the cause of your misery; it is attachment to darkness and matter. You attain to immortality by filling your minds with truth and light. Therefore, become like unto vessels fit to receive the Master’s words. Cleanse yourselves of evil and sanctify your lives. There is no other way of reaching truth.

    The truth is universal and leads to justice and righteousness. Matter is not the eternal, the everlasting, the imperishable. Seek not the darkness, but seek the Light. If we liberate even a small amount of the Light within our souls from matter, wish no ill to others, and become clear as a crystal diamond reflecting the light of truth, what a radiant picture will appear in us mirroring things as they are, without the admixture of burning desires, without the distortion of erroneous illusion..."
    http://manichaean.wordpress.com/tag/manichean/
    Of course it's not Vedic Sanathana Dharma, but in some ways seems coming from that, derivative. THEY are derivative, not WE are derivative. Where would an ordinary Abrahamic EVER have this level of knowledge without being specially born with it? I think we don't modernly understand the ancient world teachings, what has been erased, altered, denied, and even murdered to suppress. Teachings of Manichean Gnosticism are about acquiring punya by good deeds to cleanse the evil inclinations in the heart so as to reincarnate into favorable opportunities to acquire birth in the World of Light. It's my belief those are the original teachings of Jesus who was born into an Abrahamic country and murdered... whose followers who kept those teachings were driven off,,, towards India, Tibet and ancient China where they were sheltered or those teachings would not have survived the suppression. But suffice to say, whatever is in mode of goodness, that originates with Lord Krsna. In my investigations on the subject, can't help but stand in awe at the wisdom of His Holiness Srila Prabhupada against convention to speak the truth.

    -please forgive my mistakes

    Sukhāvatī And The Light-World: Pure Land Elements In The Chinese Manichaean Eulogy Of The Light-World
    http://booksandjournals.brillonline....72852.i-286.60
    Last edited by Devi Dasi; 22 January 2014 at 03:18 AM.
    uttama hañā vaiṣṇava habe nirabhimāna
    jīve sammāna dibe jāni' 'kṛṣṇa'-adhiṣṭhāna

    "Although a Vaiṣṇava is a most exalted person, he is prideless and gives
    all respect to everyone, knowing everyone to be the resting place of Kṛṣṇa."
    -Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Antya 20.25

  4. #24
    Join Date
    October 2012
    Location
    Bhaarath
    Age
    51
    Posts
    1,113
    Rep Power
    1502

    Re: Why is demigod worship different from worshiping paramatma

    Namaste Devi Dasi

    My opinion on Abrahamic religion is not going to change, considering what has been done to Bharat by the missionaries.
    I have no qualms with your out burst.
    I just said what i perceived based on what you said as " Iskcon founder's message"

    More over i didn't post anything after that as the OP felt this is not the place to discuss that. Your comments were un called for. However your aggressive position wouldn't change my opinion.
    Last edited by Anirudh; 22 January 2014 at 11:05 AM.
    Anirudh...

  5. #25

    Re: Why is demigod worship different from worshiping paramatma

    Quote Originally Posted by Devi Dasi View Post
    Srila Prabhupada nowhere EVER said, Jesus is God.
    Namaste Devi Dasi,

    Interesting you say that, I was recently viewing this video: Srila Prabhupada - Accepting Suffering as Enjoyment
    Maybe you care to comment on that

    :[2:35]The material world means: The son, as soon as I must speak of the son there must be a father. As soon as I say friend there must be another man, friend. As soon as I say water, there must be something as water. But in the absolute world we name water and the water is the same. This called absolute. No different separation. So in the kingdom of God, God is God and his son is also God. So by chanting Hare Krishna You are directly in contact with God.
    [15:46]Disciple: Wat is our view of Lord Jesus Christ?
    Prabhupada: Jesus Christ is son of God, the best son of God, we have all respect for him
    [10:46]In other forms of life (animals, plants, etc.) it is not possible to understand what is God. but for man this possible if he tries,if he reads the scripture never mind Bible, Bagvad gita, [Ba??] Then he understands God.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    October 2012
    Location
    Bhaarath
    Age
    51
    Posts
    1,113
    Rep Power
    1502

    Re: Why is demigod worship different from worshiping paramatma

    Thank you Avyaydya for sharing the video and giving the pointers
    Anirudh...

  7. #27
    Join Date
    November 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    80
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Why is demigod worship different from worshiping paramatma

    Hare Krsna,

    May I ask why respected Anirudh ji is dismissing my reply as an "outburst?" This is, after all, a "discussion" forum. It is the ISKCON subforum as well, in which, one would expect that giving the ISKCON viewpoint and explanation is what is being "requested." And you did after all, make the unfortunate and ludicrous (meaning: "foolish, unreasonable, out of place") comparison with particularly anti-Hindu Islamic missionary, Zakir Naik from Peace TV with perhaps the foremost pro-Hindu missionary of modern times. Do you think it does not deserve a reply? My comments were by way of explanation to show that Srila Prabhupada did not, does not promote Jesus as a worshippable deity as the Christians do, but took examples of the better qualities of Jesus as a saint, "SON" of God, and how he spent his life trying to help suffering people to KNOW God, that this is a qualification as an empowered jiva, not an ordinary jiva.

    I said you are using your personal loathing for Christian religion to prevent from understanding what good qualities exist in Jesus as a holy person which you admit by mentioning the harm done by Christian missionaries. Let me ask you by way of logic, is it possible that the ancient personality of Jesus has nothing to do with how ignorant and greedy people have understood and interpreted his teachings? Do you really think a peaceful man who was killed for going contrary to Abrahamic beliefs really wanted to lead wars as his followers did hundreds of years later?

    It is with purpose of giving context to WHY Srila Prabhupada was sharing his belief that Jesus was Satyavesa avatar. This is not a direct avatar of Lord Krsna Bhagavan. It is jiva tattva. You don't believe? Fine. Why disrespect on ISKCON subforum by comparing with Zakir Naik who has spent his life converting Hindu's away from their religion into Abrahamic beliefs when Srila Prabhupada did the opposite? How is it that you label my position as aggressive when I have given citations to support the truth of it, and your comment is not the aggressive outburst? If you hate ISKCON and Srila Prabhupada so much, kindly refrain from spreading propaganda mischief about how ISKCON is invalid, ISKCON is Abrahamic, ISKCON founder is like Zakir Naik. At least, don't say anything inflammatory which requires a reply. Srila Prabhupada is our Guru-Acharya after all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anirudh View Post
    My opinion on Abrahamic religion is not going to change, considering what has been done to Bharat by the missionaries.
    I have no qualms with your out burst.
    I just said what i perceived based on what you said as " Iskcon founder's message"

    More over i didn't post anything after that as the OP felt this is not the place to discuss that. Your comments were un called for. However your aggressive position wouldn't change my opinion.
    uttama hañā vaiṣṇava habe nirabhimāna
    jīve sammāna dibe jāni' 'kṛṣṇa'-adhiṣṭhāna

    "Although a Vaiṣṇava is a most exalted person, he is prideless and gives
    all respect to everyone, knowing everyone to be the resting place of Kṛṣṇa."
    -Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Antya 20.25

  8. #28
    Join Date
    November 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    80
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Why is demigod worship different from worshiping paramatma

    Hare Krsna,

    My comment: "We aren't discussing an Abrahamic deity. Your mind alone is stuck on this. Now, I can understand, you get hung up on term "avatar" thinking, we worship Jesus as Divine incarnation of Lord Krsna. Please, every living being is an "avatar" technically as it means only "incarnation." Srila Prabhupada nowhere EVER said, Jesus is God. Neither did Srila Prabhupada ever say, Jesus is Krsna."
    Quote Originally Posted by Avyaydya View Post
    Interesting you say that, I was recently viewing this video: Srila Prabhupada - Accepting Suffering as Enjoyment
    Maybe you care to comment on that

    :[2:35]The material world means: The son, as soon as I must speak of the son there must be a father. As soon as I say friend there must be another man, friend. As soon as I say water, there must be something as water. But in the absolute world we name water and the water is the same. This called absolute. No different separation. So in the kingdom of God, God is God and his son is also God. So by chanting Hare Krishna You are directly in contact with God.
    Within context, Srila Prabhupada is speaking to people who are 100% raised in Abrahamic religions, and majority of whom are Christians. Therefore, as their Guru, Srila Prabhupada's message is given in specific context to them, that they might better understand that the entire purpose of Christian religion is that ultimately they will know the One Absolute Supreme, who is Bhagavan Krsna.

    "The son, as soon as I must speak of the son there must be a father."

    Srila Prabhupada is teaching them that Jesus is the son, a very special son because everyone is a "son of God, child of God." But Lord Krsna is the Father, the Adi Purusha. Did you hear somewhere in the tape Srila Prabhupada says Hare Jesus? NEVER! It is always praises of the Namas of Krsna Tattva. So it is erroneous and false propaganda to say otherwise.

    "As soon as I say water, there must be something as water. But in the absolute world we name water and the water is the same. This called absolute. No different separation."

    Srila Prabhupada seems to be discussing Philosophy here, and introducing Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy to Christians in a way comprehensible to them by using their belief in Jesus as a starting point which points to Lord Krsna. IN the Abrahamic religions, God is based on ancient Zoroastrian dualism dichotomies: good/evil, light/dark, male/female, god/devil. In such philosophies God is forever separate and unreachable to the devotees, who propitiate (gain the favor of) by offering sacrifices.

    By way of teaching makes the remark about the absolute world, if we name an object, it has no distinction from that object. Most likely this is a reference to Krsna Nama Tattva, that qualities of Lord Krsna's name are non-different from Lord Krsna Himself. Whereas if I say "water, water, water." There is only the word "water" but the word is separate from the object. Created thing are known by their names, but their names are separate from the object such that if you try to taste sweetness from the word "sugar" you will get none. But to chant Krsna, you will receive prema rasa, according to your qualification and receptivity because the Name of Krsna is non-different from Krsna.

    The purpose for introducing this Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy is because Christianity, being an Abrahamic based religion teaches the duality of forever opposites. But it is something that Jesus in contravention to Abrahamic religion went against, leading to the killing of Jesus because Jesus, who called himself "Son of God," and "prayed to God," also said, "I and my Father are One." Christians wrongly interpret this to mean, "Jesus is God." When in fact Jesus is jiva tattva and describing unitarian turiya consciousness where the Lover and the beloved are One.

    "So in the kingdom of God, God is God and his son is also God. So by chanting Hare Krishna You are directly in contact with God."

    Srila Prabhupada is introducing Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy to Christian audience by relating examples they can accept and understand from teachings and life of Jesus. In the material world there is duality and distinction, but unitarian consciousness you get direct contact with God... AND THIS IS ACHIEVED BY... chanting Hare Krsna. So who do you get by chanting Names of Krsna tattva? You get God, Krsna.


    [15:46]Disciple: Wat is our view of Lord Jesus Christ?
    Prabhupada: Jesus Christ is son of God, the best son of God, we have all respect for him
    Son of God, means empowered jiva, not God directly, but part and parcel of God, a saint of God spreading message of God-consciousness. Sanathana Dharma is so noble it hasn't got any quarrel with any other belief system. There is no conflict with anything at all, because it has got the original apaurusheya
    Vedic knowledge. Everything else is derivative, and confused in some aspect or another. There is no teaching within ISKCON to "worship Jesus" like a God, only explaining the teachings of Christianity to Christians from Gaudiya Vaishnava perspective so they will have more correct understanding.

    What is meant by "best son" is only he has lived up to the highest qualities of a saint, a devotee. Srila Prabhupada is clearly taking the Christian understanding of Jesus as a God, and putting it within the context of Jesus SON of God, SON of Krsna, and to have this kind of direct unitarian consciousness with God, Krsna, chant the Names of God, Hare Krsna.

    [10:46]In other forms of life (animals, plants, etc.) it is not possible to understand what is God. but for man this possible if he tries,if he reads the scripture never mind Bible, Bagvad gita, [Ba??] Then he understands God.
    It's a mystery that mankind has the capacity to "Know God" and throughout the world has religions and scriptures to teach an awareness of God? Is there somewhere saying forget Bhagavad-Gita read Bible as you are implying?

    Srila Prabhupada is speaking directly to CHRISTIAN background devotees and teaching them religion is the highest, mankind has the capacity to understand God which is a quality animals don't have. Bhagavad-Gita doesn't teach other religions are false. Teaching another religion is false is an ABRAHAMIC teaching, not a Sanathana Dharma teaching. Bhagavad-Gita teaches even though another form of belief and worship may be wrong, or given to lower forms, demigods, ancestors, with good intention and sincerity, the worship comes to Krsna, the actual and ultimate Lord. Sanathana Dharma has no quarrel with other religions or religious scriptures. Many saints within Sanathana Dharma have said the exact same things. Only political persons want to make "us" against "them" in imitation of the most extremist and misguided Abrahamics. There is nowhere Srila Prabhupada says go read and study Bible! He is telling people from Bible backgrounds, look, your Bible, our Bible. We respect Jesus as saint, Son of God. Now chant Hare Krsna... and read my books (all English language translations of Shastras).

    These things are so obvious it is none other than false propaganda and mischief to imply they are other than what they are or that Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON are syncretic mix with Abrahamic religion for having outreach to Christians and training them to be devotees of Lord Krsna.

    "Christian, Muhammadan, Hindu-it doesn't matter. If he is simply speaking on behalf of God, he is a guru. Lord Jesus Christ, for instance. He canvassed people, saying, "Just try to love God." Anyone-it doesn't matter who-be he Hindu, Muslim, or Christian, is a guru if he convinces people to love God. That is the test.

    The guru never says, "I am God," or "I will make you God." The real guru says, "I am a servant of God, and I will make you a servant of God also." It doesn't matter how the guru is dressed. As Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, "Whoever can impart knowledge about Krsna is a spiritual master." A genuine spiritual master simply tries to get people to become devotees of Krsna, or God. He has no other business." -
    (Science of Self Realization Chapter 2: Choosing a Spiritual Master)

    "Just like Lord Jesus Christ. He was so badly treated and still he was thinking, "Father, they do not know what they are doing. Please excuse." This is suhrdah. He is praying to God This is sadhu, mahatma. Suhrdah prasanta. Not that... In India there are examples like Haridasa Thakura, Prahlada Maharaja. And the Western countries also, Lord Jesus Christ, he is saktyavesa-avatara, God's son. And he tolerated so much. These are the examples of mahatma. Don't misunderstand that we are preaching that mahatmas are only in India. No. By the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead there are mahatmas even amongst the birds, even amongst the beasts, even amongst the lower than animals. Because this Krsna consciousness movement is going on in different places, in different circumstances." -(Srimad Bhagavatam 5.5.3 --vrndavana Oct 25, 1976)
    And "Lord" Jesus Christ in this context is not Bhagavan, but honorific as in Sri and ji, just as Lord also applies to rulers, or from the medieval English, Masters, as in this context Jesus as a spiritual master, a guru to the Abrahamics and devotee of God, Krsna. Srila Prabhupada is always very clear on that point. How you people miss the most amazing thing that here is 70's-80 year old elder whose disciples often finished his sentences because he grew tired, yet managed with beyond human endurance to translate so many great spiritual works and disseminate them worldwide and create a movement of Vaishnavas fully accepted within the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya.

    If Srila Prabhupada thought Christianity is the highest, why didn't he spend life preaching that instead? His whole life and movement said to Christian people, this is good, but Gaudiya Vaishnavism is higher still, become Vaishnav.

    -please forgive my mistakes
    uttama hañā vaiṣṇava habe nirabhimāna
    jīve sammāna dibe jāni' 'kṛṣṇa'-adhiṣṭhāna

    "Although a Vaiṣṇava is a most exalted person, he is prideless and gives
    all respect to everyone, knowing everyone to be the resting place of Kṛṣṇa."
    -Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Antya 20.25

  9. #29

    Re: Why is demigod worship different from worshiping paramatma

    Quote Originally Posted by Devi Dasi View Post
    Hare Krsna,
    Within context, Srila Prabhupada is speaking to people who are 100% raised in Abrahamic religions, and majority of whom are Christians. Therefore, as their Guru, Srila Prabhupada's message is given in specific context to them, that they might better understand that the entire purpose of Christian religion is that ultimately they will know the One Absolute Supreme, who is Bhagavan Krsna.
    ...
    Srila Prabhupada is teaching them that Jesus is the son, a very special son because everyone is a "son of God, child of God." But Lord Krsna is the Father, the Adi Purusha. Did you hear somewhere in the tape Srila Prabhupada says Hare Jesus? NEVER! It is always praises of the Namas of Krsna Tattva. So it is erroneous and false propaganda to say otherwise.
    ...
    Srila Prabhupada seems to be discussing Philosophy here, and introducing Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy to Christians in a way comprehensible to them by using their belief in Jesus as a starting point which points to Lord Krsna. I
    ...
    Srila Prabhupada is introducing Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy to Christian audience by relating examples they can accept and understand from teachings and life of Jesus.
    ...
    There is no teaching within ISKCON to "worship Jesus" like a God, only explaining the teachings of Christianity to Christians from Gaudiya Vaishnava perspective so they will have more correct understanding.
    ...
    Srila Prabhupada is clearly taking the Christian understanding of Jesus as a God, and putting it within the context of Jesus SON of God, SON of Krsna, and to have this kind of direct unitarian consciousness with God, Krsna, chant the Names of God, Hare Krsna.
    ...
    Srila Prabhupada is speaking directly to CHRISTIAN background devotees and teaching them religion is the highest, mankind has the capacity to understand God which is a quality animals don't have. Bhagavad-Gita doesn't teach other religions are false. Teaching another religion is false is an ABRAHAMIC teaching, not a Sanathana Dharma teaching. Bhagavad-Gita teaches even though another form of belief and worship may be wrong, or given to lower forms, demigods, ancestors, with good intention and sincerity, the worship comes to Krsna, the actual and ultimate Lord. Sanathana Dharma has no quarrel with other religions or religious scriptures. Many saints within Sanathana Dharma have said the exact same things. Only political persons want to make "us" against "them" in imitation of the most extremist and misguided Abrahamics. There is nowhere Srila Prabhupada says go read and study Bible! He is telling people from Bible backgrounds, look, your Bible, our Bible. We respect Jesus as saint, Son of God. Now chant Hare Krsna... and read my books (all English language translations of Shastras).
    ...
    If Srila Prabhupada thought Christianity is the highest, why didn't he spend life preaching that instead? His whole life and movement said to Christian people, this is good, but Gaudiya Vaishnavism is higher still, become Vaishnav.
    Namaste Devi Dasi,

    Thank you for this explanation. By the way I did not imply anything, I refrained from making any comment. As a polytheist I do not believe in or hold on to absolute truths. It is a pluralistic thinking in which different views are just that: different views on reality. I accept that a Belief in a supreme God creates its own unique viewpoints.

    That is the difference with monotheism who sees its view as supreme as its God. Monotheism is based on acceptance of a view called belief. For me all views are true from a personal perspective and false from an absolute perspective. So my only interest is in collecting and understanding views.

    I think that is the Vedic perspective too, that is why it is called: Sanatan DHARM and not Sanatan Jnaan. The Richis believed in Man constantly renewing himself, like Cosmic Man Purusha is constantly renewing himself through sacrifice. That is why Sanatan Dharm constantly renews itself through gurus developing new paths. But if one of these paths becomes absolute and dominant, that is the end of Sanatan Dharm. That is why proselyting is against Sanatan Dharm. It is a danger to diversity. So when I read Hinduism is monotheism on this forum, I am deeply saddened about the loss of Vedic ideals.

    If you feel I have reservations about Ishkon as a movement, understand that those can only be based on Dharm, not on Jnaan. I really do not mind whether Ishkon is syncretic or not. If Christianity would follow Dharm, I would consider them Sanatan Dharm too. For in my view Sanatan Dharm does not prescribe what to believe, only how to act (follow Dharm).

    I selected some of your comments. You write that Bhagavad-Gita does not teach that other religions are false, though their ideas may be wrong and inferior. This sounds condescending and the difference seems trivial to me personally. At the same time Srila Prabhupada is so busy trying to convince Christians of Krishna worship that it seems proselyting to me.

    If you would be so kind would you care to explain: Does Hare Krishna see this as proselyting? And what is its position on proselyting?
    Last edited by Avyaydya; 27 January 2014 at 04:45 AM.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    November 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    80
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Why is demigod worship different from worshiping paramatma

    Hare Krsna,

    Sorry have not answered sooner. Let's take a look at what respected Avyaydya ji has written:
    Quote Originally Posted by Avyaydya View Post
    As a polytheist I do not believe in or hold on to absolute truths.
    You are ascribing philosophical nuances which are peculiarly your own concept of polytheism, for polytheism in general definition does not imply disavowal of absolute concepts. For one thing, Vedas as described as apaurushya because the sages in higher states of consciousness perceived God as sound vibration Shabda Brahman implies a source which is "absolute." Concepts of an Absolute Divinity permeate Upanishads and Puranas. If you want to disavow all the scriptures within Sanathana Dharma you can, but it wouldn't be intellectually honest.
    yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante
    "The entire material cosmic manifestation is born of the Supreme Brahman."
    -Taittirīya Upaniṣad 3.1
    It is a pluralistic thinking in which different views are just that: different views on reality. I accept that a Belief in a supreme God creates its own unique viewpoints. That is the difference with monotheism who sees its view as supreme as its God.
    I'm unaware of any philosophical school in history, with the exception of modern New Age movement, which holds pluralistic views on reality. This is tantamount to saying, every view is correct even in contradiction. Moreover, I don't see the pluralistic paradigm as being the same as "polytheism." It's simply an unsupported inference... "Polytheism means... all these views... which amounts to virtually every view with the exception of any one dominant view." It's just an opinion with label of "polytheism" on it. Polytheism simply means a pantheon of separate gods who are often in competition or condition of jealously. The power of the Vedic conception of multiple lights (devatay) is the underlying "unity."
    Monotheism is based on acceptance of a view called belief.
    Are you really insinuating that "belief" has no basis in the polytheistic conception? Again, just opinion latched onto a concept of polytheism. Polytheism is not a specific philosophical school, it's a generic term describing multiplicity and doesn't even disavow potential of a unitarian principle. Neither is polytheism the obverse of monotheism. All "religions" throughout the ages whether monotheistic or polytheistic have a basis in "beliefs."
    For me all views are true from a personal perspective and false from an absolute perspective.
    If you do not believe in or hold absolute truths, then are you denying the Divine origin of the Vedas? Because Sanathana Dharma is very much a religion with absolute truths, not least of which is belief that Vedas are originating as Sruti of the Divine in Sound Swaroop. For this reason Vedas and Upanishads are an absolute source.

    Why do you insist on pigeon-holing beliefs into such extremely narrow categories like polytheist, and implying some superior philosophical properties to that, and then monotheist and implying foreign Abrahamic religion to that? Sanathana Dharma includes scriptural legacy of interpretive work by the sages which includes a form of monotheism. There is nothing foreign or falsely interpolated about it.

    Savo deve eko Narayana na dwitiyacha kaschit
    "There is only one God, Narayana and no second"-Yajur Veda


    etAvAn asya mahima | ato jyAyAGSca pUrusha: |
    pAdo 'sya vishvA bhUtAni | tripAdasyAmRtam divi || 3 ||
    (etAvAn) All that is here seen (asya) is his (mahima)
    greatness. (ata: ) And then, beyond all this (purusha: ca)
    is that Purusha (jyAyAn) great. (vishvA bhUtani) All
    that was created in this world (pAdo) is but one part
    (asya) of him. (tripAd) The other three parts are (divi)
    in heaven, (amRtam) where they are eternal.
    -Purusha Sukta, verse 3


    I think that is the Vedic perspective too, that is why it is called: Sanatan DHARM and not Sanatan Jnaan.
    You really think you personally speak for the authorized interpretations of the Vedas and this gives you the right to invalidate Vaishnava Siddhanta? On what qualification do you make such claim? May I ask who is your Guru?
    The Richis believed in Man constantly renewing himself, like Cosmic Man Purusha is constantly renewing himself through sacrifice. That is why Sanatan Dharm constantly renews itself through gurus developing new paths.
    Do you really believe any guru can come and invent some new "truths" without establishing his teaching on what is apaurusheya? Where are the various "paths" even going? What is there purpose? Or do we simply invent a purpose for the path to suit our new fandangled conceptions? In actuality, the principles of religious practice change with the Yuga Dharma as the mentality of humanity changes in different ages. In the primary age, Satyuga, the Dharma Bull stands on all 4 legs. In each succeeding yuga, it loses one of it's legs until finally in Kali Yuga, there is only one leg left standing, and all mankind have become shudras (lost principles of religion).
    arjuna uvāca
    yo 'yaḿ yogas tvayā proktaḥ
    sāmyena madhusūdana
    etasyāhaḿ na paśyāmi
    cañcalatvāt sthitiḿ sthirām
    Arjuna said: O Madhusūdana, the system of yoga which You have summarized appears impractical and unendurable to me, for the mind is restless and unsteady.
    -Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 6.33

    The path of spiritual practice in Satyuga and Tretayuga becomes increasingly difficult even during the Dwaparayuga, as stated here by Arjuna and next to impossible in Kaliyuga.
    tapah saucam daya satyam
    iti padah krte krtah
    adharmamsais trayo bhagnah
    smaya-sanga-madais tava
    In the age of Satya [truthfulness] your four legs were established by the four principles of austerity, cleanliness, mercy and truthfulness. But it appears that three of your legs are broken due to rampant irreligion in the form of pride, lust for women, and intoxication.
    -Srimad Bhagavatam 1.17.24

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Demigod worship different from worshiping para-atma?
    By Spirit Seeker in forum God in Hindu Dharma
    Replies: 147
    Last Post: 01 January 2014, 12:04 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 31 July 2009, 02:18 AM
  3. What is metaphoric and literal?
    By Spiritualseeker in forum Scriptures
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 13 June 2009, 10:31 PM
  4. Idol worshipping
    By vcindiana in forum God in Hindu Dharma
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 24 July 2007, 11:39 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •