20 thoughts on ““AN EXPOSURE OF THE SUPERFICIALLY THEOLOGICAL NATURE OF NON-VEDIC & ESP. THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS.”

  1. H.H. Prabhu ji
    I have many Questions, but pls give me my first
    Question’s answer.
    sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said us
    “जीवर स्वरूप हय कृष्नेर नित्य दास ।
    कृष्नेर तटस्था शक्ति भेदाभेद प्रकाश ।।
    Q . महाप्रभु जी ने कहा कि जीव का “स्व रूप” अर्थात आत्मा का अपना रूप नित्य दास है । परन्तु दास को आप “रूप” कैसे कह सकतें हैं ? रूप का अर्थ तो आकार है न की स्वभाव ।
    मेरा प्रश्न है कि अगर भावानुसार ही रूप मिलेगा तो वो उसका नित्य रूप नहीं हो सकता ।
    और फिर वहाँ पर किन किन तत्वों का शरीर बनता है ?
    और वो तत्व कौन प्रदान करता है ?
    गोलोक में भी क्या मन बुद्धि अहंकार और शरीर अलग से मिलता है ?
    सत्चिदानंद तो निराकार तत्व है । जैसे सत =नित्य + चिद = ज्ञान + आनंद
    ये तत्व अनुभूति करने वाली बस्तु है जो की आकार रहित है । फिर कृपया समझाये जब

    Like

    1. 1. There are many meanings of the Sanskrit term ‘svarūpa’. The meaning which is to be taken in this context is that of ‘svabhāva’ or living entity’s own existence. The term ‘svabhāva’ also has two meanings – 1) one’s own nature and 2) one’s own existence. So, it cannot be said that the eternal form of the living entity is that of a servant of Kṛṣṇa. Why? Because, if so accepted, the living entity will have to possess his pārṣada-deha (the form through which he serves the Lord in the transcendental realm) perpetually i.e. even during the conditioned stage. But, that is not possible. Hence, the first meaning of ‘svarūpa’ (ones own form) is not applicable. Furthermore, it is also not applicable because the ‘pārṣada-deha’ is not constituent of the marginal potency. It is rather faculty of the ‘sandhinī-vṛtti’ of internal potency. So, the ‘pārṣada-deha’ is technically not living entity’s innate form. It is his acquired form. Jīva is marginal and not internal potency. Jīva Gosvāmī explains this in his Prīti-Sandarbha. Only in the sense that such a ‘pārṣada-deha’ (transcendental gross body) and such a ‘siddha-deha’ (transcendental subtle body) are possessed by the siddha-bhakta, they are to be called as jīva’s ‘svarūpa’ or his own form. ‘Own’ or ‘sva’ would not mean innately possessed but rather possessed through acquisition in that context. Hence, the meaning ‘sva-ākāra’ is not applicable to ‘svarūpa’ here.

      The first meaning of ‘svabhāva’ (one’s own nature) or ‘sva-vṛtti’ or ‘nisarga’ is also not applicable as the meaning of ‘svarūpa’ in this context. How? Because, if the aversion to Kṛṣṇa is considered ‘anādi-bahirmukha’ or aversion from time without beginning, it cannot be said that all jīvas’ innate nature is to serve the Lord. Śāstras say that there are many types of jīvas like devas and asuras. Those of daivī-svabhāva are devotees of the Lord from their innate nature. Those of āsurī-svabhavā are non-devotees from the very nature. Hence, this svabhāva (own nature) of all jīvas is not the same from beginning. For the said reason, this meaning is also not applicable.

      The second meaning of the the term ‘svabhāva’ i.e. ‘sva-sattā’ or one’s own existence is properly suitable in the context. How? Because it also matches with Śrīla Gopālabhaṭṭa Gosvāmī’s explanation of jīva’s innate position as seen in his Dig-darśīnī-ṭīkā on Haribhaktivilāsa. Since, all jīvas’ (whether baddha or mukta or nitya-siddha) existence is compared with a minute particle of water and the Lord’s existence is compared with an unlimited ocean, the existence or ‘svabhāva’ of all tatastha-jīvas is that of being an ‘aṁśa’ (vibhinnāṁśa) or innately separate particle of the Lord. That status of being an innately separate particle or ‘nitya-vibhinna-aṁśa’ means that jīva has all the qualities of knowledge, happiness etc. that the Lord also possesses – but in minute degree. Because jīva’s existence is very minute compared to the Lord’s, he is to be considered a vibhinnāṁśa and thus his svarūpa or svabhāva (sva-sattā) is considered as eternally dependent on the Lord. Only in this sense of existential dependence (bhagavat-sattā-āśritattva) upon the Lord, the jīva’s svarūpa or svabhāva has been considered to be following the Lord (just as servant follows the master and is dependent on him for his maintenance and existence). This nitya-dāsatva does not indicate nitya-sevakatva. Had it been not so, all conditioned jīvas would also be perceived as serving the Lord even in their conditioned stage. Their serving mahāmāya is not to be considered serving the Lord. Otherwise, Lord Kṛṣṇa would not have discarded worship of other demigods (besides Him) as ‘improper worship’ in BG 9.23. Hence, nitya-sevakatva and nitya-dāsatva are not to be confused.

      2. Regarding the details of siddha-deha and pārṣada-deha, kindly study Prīti-Sandarbha and Bhakti-Sandarbha of JG.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. कृपया समझाये !
    आत्मा का स्वभाव क्या है ?
    स्वरूप क्या है ?
    वो स्वरूप अगर बनता है तो नित्य कैसे ?
    अगर नित्य तो किन तत्वों से बना ?
    दिखने में कैसा दीखता है ?
    क्या वहाँ भी कपड़े पहनने पड़ते है ?
    अगर हाँ तो वो जगत में तो कुंठा है ?
    और कुंठा वाले जगत को तो बैकुंठ अथवा उससे श्रेष्ठ धाम कैसे कह सकते है ।
    मेरा निवेदन है जबाब जरा सोचकर दें ।

    Like

  3. The essay is wonderful but the title seems irrelevant. To actually expose the superficiality of non-Vedic so-called religions you have to deal with their actual texts and prove their insufficiency, non-scientificness, impracticality and more than occasional bizarreness. Hare Krishna!

    Like

  4. Let us clarify that the even the title of the essay is fully relevant because if a profound perusal of our essay is made, it is well-explained there as to how the theological concepts of Abrahamic faiths lack analysis on core theological concepts like ‘ṣad-vidhā-śaraṇāgati’ (six-fold surrender), the concept of difference or non-difference between the jagat, jīva, and īśvara (living entity, God, and mundane world), various paths like karma, jñāna, yoga, and bhakti etc., and the types of relationships that the living entity can have with God (i.e. 5 types of sambandhas). Anybody acquainted with these faiths will easily comprehend our indications. So, the above essay is clearly giving strong indications regarding the comparative inferior nature of other faiths in synopsis. Hare Kṛṣṇa.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Could you please elucidate on the need and relevance of such attempts “to expose” other religious traditions in the context of the following statement by Prabhupada in his purport on SB 4.22.24:

      “Another important point mentioned in this connection is anindaya – we should not criticize others’ methods of religion. There are different types of religious systems operating under different qualities of material nature. Those operating in the modes of ignorance and passion cannot be as perfect as that system in the mode of goodness. In Bhagavad-gita everything has been divided into three qualitative divisions; therefore religious systems are similarly categorized. When people are mostly under the modes of passion and ignorance, their system of religion will be of the same quality. A devotee, instead of criticizing such systems, will encourage the followers to stick to their principles so that gradually they can come to the platform of religion in goodness. Simply by criticizing them, a devotee’s mind will be agitated. Thus a devotee should tolerate and learn to stop agitation.”

      and his numerous similar statements? Many thanks.

      Like

      1. There is no criticism; only exposing par-excellent nature of Sanātana Vaidika Dharma. Otherwise, even the establishment of Śrī Kṛṣṇa as ‘svayaṁ-bhagavān’ by Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Ācāryas would be considered demeaning of other forms like that of Lord Nārāyaṇa and Lord Rāma – which are also considered to by svayaṁ-bhagavāns by the Rāmānandī and Rāmānujī Sampradāyas.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. ānukūlyasya saṅkalpaḥ prātikūlyasya varjjanam / rakṣiṣyatīti viśvāso goptṛtve varaṇaṁ tathā / ātma-nikṣepa kārpaṇye śaḍ-vidhā śaraṇāgatiḥ //” – Rendition (by RKDB) – “Vow of executing favourable acts to the Lord, rejection of executing unfavourable acts towards the Lord, a firm confidence that the Lord will protect me, acceptance of the Lord as one’s maintainer, submission of one’s self to that Lord, and mood of utter weakness – constitute the six-fold surrender.” – From Vaiṣṇava-tantra quoted by JG in Bhakti-sandarbha and as also seen cited in CC 2.22.100, Caitanya-sikṣāmṛta, Bhajana-rahasya, Jaiva Dharma, and the Upadeśāmṛta-ṭīkā of BVT .

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Hello. May I ask you what the letters “AV” after the abbreviation of your name (“HG RKDB”) stand for? Thanks.

    Like

  6. I have another question, if you kindly permit – this time about the essay itself. How would you classify, per your methodology, the animistic beliefs of indigenous Amazonian tribes?

    Like

  7. It is conferred by the ‘caitya-guru’ and not by this destitute. This is the clarification. There is no discussion about any one’s own self in the SB 11.29.6 and CC 1.1.48 verse. Otherwise, SBSST’s taking to the renounced order will also be jeopardized. Were there no vaisnava-sannyasi gurus available in Madhva and Ramanuji Sampradayas from whom SBSST could have taken sannyasa just as CM took it from Sri Kesava Bharati of Sankara Sampradaya? Hence, the relevance of the instructions of a ‘caitya-guru’ cannot be discarded.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Answer to all your questions raised from points 1-7 is – ”phalena pariciyate” or ‘let the results of our activities speak for us”. Though we are fully in the situation of giving elaborate answers, we are not in any mood to make the issue politicized and manipulated by mischievous elements of certain neo-Gaudiya institutions. Hence, we have resorted to this short answer. Let the time reveal everything. Hare Krsna.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Many times, the reality on a ground level has to be ascertained by judging its results and not just by some argumentative discussion involving many underground intentions and connotations. Hence, ”phalena pariciyate” has your answer. But for that, you will need to harbour some great amount of endurance. Hare Krsna.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Rāgānugā-bhakti is a type of sādhana-bhakti and not just part of some sādhya-bhakti. From the beginning of my inception into Śrī Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya, I have been trying to follow the path of rāgānugā-sādhana-bhakti. As far as all other queries by some contender is concerned, we consider the time factor to be the best in terms of revealing the reality. When the answers are given by time, they are millions of times better than answers merely coming out of some argumentative discussions held in advance. Let the results of our activities speak. We shall not spare our valuable time in commenting any further on this issue. Haribol.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. My Dandavat Pranaams to Acharya Sri,

    2 Points:
    I)
    Well the article should be titled: “An extremely superficial exposure of the superficiality of other religions”

    For exposing someone else you should know what they are saying and then present the truth you know, but here you are just presenting what is their in Sanatana Dharma (and what you know of it) and have not taken the pains to understand what exactly the other religions are teaching … no quotations from any of their literature.

    I understand from Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s teaching that Gaudiya Vaishnavism is the highest and the only path where Sri Krishna is presented in the topmost form. But this article just seems to be of a very low standard not at all suitable for an Acharya.

    II)
    A Quoted in the article: “… It is not that Krishna hankers after such relationships …” — this seems to be really profound. Krishna does not hanker for relationships!!?? – now this is the first time I have heard this from a Gaudiya Vaisanava (if you are really one). You are seriously an epitome of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s teaching since you understand even those points which he never showed in any of his teachings. Please read Caitanya Caritamrita nicely especially Mahaprabhu’s teaching to Srila Sanatana Gosvami and Srila Rupa Gosvami and you would know whether Krishna hankers or not.

    Hare Krishna

    Like

  11. Dear Advaitagosvāmīdāsa,

    śrī-rām-kṛṣṇa-gaurahari.

    1) Even though the precise citations from the Abrahamic literature are not given in our above essay, the beliefs of the Abrahamic faiths presented in our article can be verified by consulting Abrahamic literature – if a reader feels skeptical. We haven not misrepresented their beliefs.

    2) “It is not that the Lord hankers after these relationships. Rather, the Lord wanting to satisfy the desires of his intimate devotees, voluntarily accepts such relationships along with a suitable demeanour and form needed for reciprocation in those relationships.”

    Above cited excerpt taken from our original above posted article is what is causing concern to your good self. Whatever we have written in this excerpt is wholly correct and ditto matching withe the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava siddhānta. Kindly refer to the first half part of SBG 4.11 Padyāvalī 13th or CC 2.8.69’s intention. You will find your answer right there.

    Sincerely,

    Acārya Śrī RKDB ‘AV’
    Primeval President & Mentor of BRVF (Bhārata) & its proposed global affiliates

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s