Little girl in India born with 8 limbs..named Lakshmi

vaisnava hindus are definately monotheistic. it is a popular misconception that we are polytheists. a common error dont worry.

i find it curious that u italicized "your" hindu definite. it is not my defintion, but rather, THE definition of vaisnava hinduism i didnt invent it. it has been passed down thru disciplic succession, going all the back to the source.

for me / us / vaisnavas. god is a person. bhagavan (beloved) which is the highest of 3 of his aspects. brahman (or impersonal energy) paramatma (the supersoul that resides within all of us) and bhagavan the eternal person and origin of all. and we believe that that person has a name. and that the original name of god is krsna.

i hope that answers ur question.

 

most vaisnavism that is in the west is pretty screwed up of which devoted seems to subscribe to. they have brought the devotional sentiment of their ishta devata (chosen deity) being the all in all to a fundemental level of their deity is the all in all and all other dieties are lesser. these vaisnavas who have misunderstood their faith are quick put to put down other paths such as worship of siva or kali as being somehow bereft of spiritual purity or authenticity.

a true vaisnava simply loves vishnu or rama or krishna or any vishnu avatara and sees kali sakhas or saivites etc., as being of another path that is not lesser than theirs.

we are all brothers and sisters on the path to universal enlightenment

 

i read about that

apparently she was supposed to be conjoined twins, as she has two rib cages and two sets of kidneys and such. and people think shes the goddess of prosperity lakshima incarnate or some shit

 

Adhyatma Upanishad states something like this...
In the cave of the body is eternally set the one unborn. The earth is His body. (Though) moving within the earth, the earth knows Him not. The water is His body. (Though) moving within the water, the water knows Him not. The fire is His body. (Though) moving within the fire, the fire knows Him not. The air is His body. (Though) moving within the air, the air knows Him not. The ether is His body. (Though) moving within the ether, the ether knows Him not. The mind is His body. (Though) moving within the mind, the mind knows Him not. The intellect is His body. (Though) moving within the intellect, the intellect knows Him not. The ego is His body. (Though) moving within the ego, the ego knows Him not. The mind-stuff is His body. (Though) moving within the mind-stuff, the mind-stuff knows Him not. The unmanifest is His body. (Though) moving within the unmanifest, the unmanifest knows Him not. The imperishable is His body. (Though) moving within the imperishable, the imperishable knows Him not. The Death is His body. (Though) moving within Death, Death knows Him not. He, then, is the inner-self of all beings, sinless, heaven-born, luminous, the sole Narayana.

--------------------------------------------------
Basically, it means that God is omnipotent, omnipresent being. Whether you call Him Narayana, or Her Laxmi. You are right though Mr. Xac, that to define Him as one set thing is wrong, because it excludes everything else that is also made up of Him. He is everywhere, He is in everything, He transcends our thoughts.

He merely breaths out and all the worlds form, He merely breathes in , all the worlds are destroyed. He cannot be defined.

 

Amen.

 

how lovely of you chief cow pie. thats not a sweeping generaliztion by any stretch of the imagination. your naive assumption and insinuation that i (or most vaisnavas- excuse me true vaisnavas) consider kali worship or shiva worship or whatever lesser is inaccurate at best. not to mention insulting. but after reading ur posts, i should not be surprised at the level of grace you display.

your statement of what a true vaisnava is.... well, appaling. i grew up in india, with traditional vaisnavas. not even iskcon (as i assume that is what u are referring to when u say "screwed up vaisnavism") for your information. but regardless, how distasteful of u to make such an assumption of me and the vaisnavism i adhere to. you do not even know me.

please dont put words in my mouth or assume to know anything about me, my path or iskcon for that matter. perhaps you have had bad interactions with some fanatical devotees, if so, i am sorry, but please dont lump us all together, we are a vast and variegated group, and unless you are a part of that group, you would have no idea about the dynamic and opposing ideas we share. u obviously have no idea about 2nd generation devotees and how liberal we are in regards to all paths of sanatana dharma. for example, i am often asked to speak at interfaith dialogues at universities and seminars with representatives of all faiths.

yes my ishta deva, is krsna. actually caitanya mahaprabhu. i, or anyone in my family treats or has treated other paths with complete adn utter respect. what u are doing by insinuating what u have, is akin to prejudice. i dare say, u are most guilty of what u accuse me to be.

until u kno me, or my path, or my views on spirituality, i would prefer u do not say anything about me or isckon currently. as ur ignorance and lack of current knowledge is alarming and extremely insulting. who are u to judge what is screwed up anyway? sheesh. talk about holier than thou.

hopefully u can take this post with the spirit with which it was intended. i doubt it tho, considering the insulting nature of ur sarcastic remarks towards "the vaisnavism of the west" lol. as if it and we were all the same, with no contrasting ideas. how superficial an analysis.

we have an expression in french, dieu seul me jugera, only god will judge me.

 

speaking as you do, you would be approaching what i would describe as a true vaisnava.

pranams unto you for editing through so much vaisnava material and deciding what should be discarded and not worthy of the path to godliness

blessings unto you to raise the vaisnava flag that has been sullied by so many vaisnavas

 

24 hour operation. Sounds pretty bad.

 

Because like most religions there are different ideas pertaining to such matters and often completely different denominations, as you yourself have said...

 

that is taken out of context. i was referring to a specific group of vaisnavas that chief cowpie was talking about, when i stated that among us there are many variegated ideas with opposing ideas and not meaning we have differences in our basic theology.

i was not referring to vaisnavas in general who are pretty much all on the same page, regardless of denomination, when it comes to what i mentionned above about our common belief in regards to how god is defined. vaisnavas (of all the 4 schools of vaisnava hinduism) are notorious for agreeing on the definition of god. every school of vaisnavism sees god as a person, an eternal person. whose name, form and pastimes are worshipped. this is commonplace and i dare say, an absolute in all of vaisnavism.

thats what i meant by THE defintion.

hope that clarified for u.

 

to a point vaisnavas are the same but there are both dvaiten and advaiten vaisnavas of which the conclusions of each system disagree. chaitanya mahaprabhu whom you claim devotion, is adored by vaisnavas of both schools as being of their philosophical bent.

i tend to think mahaprabhu was an advaiten as his primary teaching was acintya bheda abheda tattva or the truth that we are both simultaneously and inconcievably one and different from god. in some odd use of logic, dvaiten vaisnavas emphasize the different from god but can't reconcile the one with god. advaiten theology emphasizes that for god to know itself as god, an aspect of god must not be god or different for such existence of god whereas dvaiten vaisnavas go down a tangential alley with the theory of the jivatma soul as eternally distinct.

in his own personal life, chaitanya mahaprabhu took initiation into the renounced order of life, sannyasa, from the advaiten lineage of sripad sharkacarya and another big straw is his personal preference for bhagavatama commentary of sridhara swami, a known advaiten.

his close friendship with advaitens of his day, the panca sakhas of orissa for instance which was omitted by his dvaitist biographers such as krishna dasa kaveraja in the chaitanya caritamrta which does much to cast doubt on the authority of said text. in such texts, they have mahaprubhu denouncing distorted examples of advaiten theology to give credence to their dvaitist theology when clearly the obvious lesson is subtleties of advaiten theology beyond the masquerading of pretenders. the truth is the beauty and magnificence of advaiten theology does not lend itself to the egoic claim, i am god as it is so often presented.

such books as well cast mud upon those whom i claim deep reverence and association, the bauls of bengal for instance.

but all in all, the books have a joy about them as relishable are the activities and devotion of gauranga avatara.

 

indeed they do.

and u could consider mahaprabhu advaitin, because of achinya bheda beda tattva, but it is different philosophy than regular advaitins. it is a qualified non-dualism, recognizing at once the oneness with god and at the same time the difference. which yes is in contrast to dvaitists (like madhvacharya for example) who focus on the absolute distinction between god and jiva.

and mahaprabhu took sannyasa indeed into the shankaracharya advaita school. there werent many options at the time however. regardless he was different than most of the advaitins, in that he did see a difference between god and the jiva. he definately didnt accept that everything in the world is illusion, including the form and pastimes of the divine.

when i said, in my above post, that vaisnavas are the same all around was in direct response to something XAC mentionned about the defining of god. i was referring to the fact that pretty much all vaisnavas accept the personal form, the deity, the name and pastimes of god to be transcendant and by all means definative.

 

agreed

 

And are all Hindus vaisnavas?

 

no, but they are the vast majority. at least some sort of vaisnava.

 

Wow, this post has created quite the interesting conversation

 

What i was getting at is; do all Hinudu's (generally speaking) share your definition of 'God'?

 

well, yes, vaisnavas do, and as i mentionned -we are the vast majority.

i hope that answers ur question

but again, not my definition. THE definition. at least for vaisnava hinduism.

 

There maybe differences but all hindus believe in one God who appears in different forms.