Guest guest Posted April 9, 2003 Report Share Posted April 9, 2003 Why is Durga referred to both as the Reliever of Difficulties, then the difficulties themselves? prainbow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2003 Report Share Posted April 9, 2003 *** Why is Durga referred to both as the Reliever of Difficulties, then the difficulties themselves? *** Because She is Everything. That is why, in many paintings and scullptures of Devi in Her various forms, She holds both a noose and a goad. (See, for example, the image of Sarvambikesha at the top of our homepage: http://www.shaktisadhana.org). The noose is the Maya -- the sensations and experiences, sights and sounds of the material world, which can bring us great pleasure and fulfillment in this life, but which can easily become traps if we allow ourselves to become too attached to and identified with them. The goad is the unpleasant pokes and prods She occasionally delivers - - material misfortune, illness, death, adversity -- that make us look beyond Maya for more permanent and absolute forms of pleasure and fulfillment; little pushes toward Moksha. Thus She is both the nature of what we perceive as difficulties, and the essence of that which ultimately relieves these difficulties. That would be my answer, at least; others may offer more useful interpretations and elaborations. Aum Maatangyai Namahe , "prainbow61" <paulie- rainbow@u...> wrote: > Why is Durga referred to both as the Reliever of Difficulties, then > the difficulties themselves? > > prainbow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2003 Report Share Posted April 10, 2003 Thank you, DB! Actually this morning that makes more sense. As I was reading through it two nights ago, I only wanted to have my difficulties relieved! LOL. But you are right. She leads us back to Her. Blessed be, prainbow , "Devi Bhakta" <devi_bhakta> wrote: > *** Why is Durga referred to both as the Reliever of Difficulties, > then the difficulties themselves? *** > > Because She is Everything. That is why, in many paintings and > scullptures of Devi in Her various forms, She holds both a noose and > a goad. (See, for example, the image of Sarvambikesha at the top of > our homepage: http://www.shaktisadhana.org). > > The noose is the Maya -- the sensations and experiences, sights and > sounds of the material world, which can bring us great pleasure and > fulfillment in this life, but which can easily become traps if we > allow ourselves to become too attached to and identified with them. > > The goad is the unpleasant pokes and prods She occasionally delivers - > - material misfortune, illness, death, adversity -- that make us look > beyond Maya for more permanent and absolute forms of pleasure and > fulfillment; little pushes toward Moksha. > > Thus She is both the nature of what we perceive as difficulties, and > the essence of that which ultimately relieves these difficulties. > That would be my answer, at least; others may offer more useful > interpretations and elaborations. > > Aum Maatangyai Namahe > > > , "prainbow61" <paulie- > rainbow@u...> wrote: > > Why is Durga referred to both as the Reliever of Difficulties, then > > the difficulties themselves? > > > > prainbow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 Devi Bhakta wrote : "Thus She is both the nature of what we perceive as difficulties, and the essence of that which ultimately relieves these difficulties. That would be my answer, at least; others may offer more useful interpretations and elaborations" I wanted to reply to this, but as usual I got distracted, sorry for the delay. SHE gives goodness and also takes them away. So when we do receive the goodness from HER, used and enjoyed it but we are also being reminded that she can take it away. And When SHE does, we should not feel sad at all, but to let it go willingly. The willingliness to let it go is the greatest challenge, for most often when we have enjoyed the good things in life, we tends to forget that nothing in this world is permanent. To think that it is permanent is an illusion. "She is the reliever of difficulties and the difficulties itself" I can think of only one verse, and my favourite one too : What does not kill us , makes us stronger. It is during the most difficult times, that our devotion to the divine are being put to a tested. If we see it as difficulties, then it becomes one, but if we look for the goodness that may have gained from these difficulties, then it becomes a blessing in disguise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2003 Report Share Posted April 11, 2003 Then the Licchavi Vimalakirti said to the venerable elder Sariputra, "Reverend Sariputra, this goddess has already served ninety-two million billion Buddhas. She plays with the superknowledges. She has truly succeeded in all her vows. She has gained the tolerance of the birthlessness of things. She has actually attained irreversibility. She can live wherever she wishes on the strength of her vow to develop living beings." , "Nora" <ashwini_puralasamy> wrote: > Devi Bhakta wrote : > > "Thus She is both the nature of what we perceive as difficulties, > and the essence of that which ultimately relieves these difficulties. > That would be my answer, at least; others may offer more useful > interpretations and elaborations" > > I wanted to reply to this, but as usual I got distracted, sorry for > the delay. > > SHE gives goodness and also takes them away. So when we do receive > the goodness from HER, used and enjoyed it but we are also being > reminded that she can take it away. And When SHE does, we should not > feel sad at all, but to let it go willingly. The willingliness to let > it go is the greatest challenge, for most often when we have enjoyed > the good things in life, we tends to forget that nothing in this > world is permanent. To think that it is permanent is an illusion. > > "She is the reliever of difficulties and the difficulties > itself" > I can think of only one verse, and my favourite one too : What does > not kill us , makes us stronger. It is during the most difficult > times, that our devotion to the divine are being put to a tested. > > If we see it as difficulties, then it becomes one, but if we look for > the goodness that may have gained from these difficulties, then it > becomes a blessing in disguise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2003 Report Share Posted April 12, 2003 Durga (like most Hindu goddesses) is very much a goddess of This World -- not so much transcendant, but ensnaring us perpetually in the webs of Maya. And enjoying watching us as we either get more entangled or break free. The ISKCON people, when they refer to Durga, call her "the jailer of this prison-world." (Yuck.) I prefer to see her as a guide to the Maze -- it's all illusion, true, but impressive, no? There is a reciprical relationship between Durga and Kali. Durga is a source of energy, worshipped duing the waxing phase of the Moon. Kali is the remover of too much or stagnant energy, and worshipped during the Moon's waning phase. The ISKCON folk are terrified of Kali, and have as little to do with her as possible. I think this is because Kali is the same energy as their beloved Krishna -- but turned inside-out. Krishna is all-attractive on the outside, flute-playing, charming, the perfect lover or friend. Look inside Krishna (as his foster mother Yashoda did when she thought he was eating dirt, or as Arjuna did in the Bhagavad Gita) and he contains the awe-inspiring chaos of immensity. Kali is scary on the outside -- the sword, the body-parts as ornaments, the wild hair, dangling tongue, all-devouring mouth. But look inside her, and she is the sweetest, most caring Mother, effulgeant with love. And that is the blessing in disguise. -- Len/ Kalipadma Enticed is the bee of my mind/ By the black lotus feet of my Divine Mother./ On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:15:31 -0000 "Nora" <ashwini_puralasamy writes: > Devi Bhakta wrote : > > "Thus She is both the nature of what we perceive as difficulties, > and the essence of that which ultimately relieves these > difficulties. > That would be my answer, at least; others may offer more useful > interpretations and elaborations" > > I wanted to reply to this, but as usual I got distracted, sorry for > the delay. > > SHE gives goodness and also takes them away. So when we do receive > the goodness from HER, used and enjoyed it but we are also being > reminded that she can take it away. And When SHE does, we should not > feel sad at all, but to let it go willingly. The willingliness to let > it go is the greatest challenge, for most often when we have enjoyed > the good things in life, we tends to forget that nothing in this > world is permanent. To think that it is permanent is an illusion. > > "She is the reliever of difficulties and the difficulties > itself" > I can think of only one verse, and my favourite one too : What does > not kill us , makes us stronger. It is during the most difficult > times, that our devotion to the divine are being put to a tested. > > If we see it as difficulties, then it becomes one, but if we look for > the goodness that may have gained from these difficulties, then it > becomes a blessing in disguise. > ______________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2003 Report Share Posted April 13, 2003 I just wanted to say this is a very interesting post and that I'm prettty much on this same page - in terms of ISKON the most mysterious thing for me is why they refer to Kali as a 'him' --- Black Lotus L Rosenberg <kalipadma wrote: > > Durga (like most Hindu goddesses) is very much a > goddess of This World -- > not so much transcendant, but ensnaring us > perpetually in the webs of > Maya. And enjoying watching us as we either get > more entangled or break > free. The ISKCON people, when they refer to Durga, > call her "the jailer > of this prison-world." (Yuck.) I prefer to see her > as a guide to the > Maze -- it's all illusion, true, but impressive, no? > > There is a reciprical relationship between Durga and > Kali. Durga is a > source of energy, worshipped duing the waxing phase > of the Moon. Kali is > the remover of too much or stagnant energy, and > worshipped during the > Moon's waning phase. > > The ISKCON folk are terrified of Kali, and have as > little to do with her > as possible. I think this is because Kali is the > same energy as their > beloved Krishna -- but turned inside-out. Krishna > is all-attractive on > the outside, flute-playing, charming, the perfect > lover or friend. Look > inside Krishna (as his foster mother Yashoda did > when she thought he was > eating dirt, or as Arjuna did in the Bhagavad Gita) > and he contains the > awe-inspiring chaos of immensity. Kali is scary on > the outside -- the > sword, the body-parts as ornaments, the wild hair, > dangling tongue, > all-devouring mouth. But look inside her, and she > is the sweetest, most > caring Mother, effulgeant with love. And that is > the blessing in > disguise. > > -- Len/ Kalipadma > Enticed is the bee of my mind/ > By the black lotus feet of my Divine Mother./ > > > On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:15:31 -0000 "Nora" > <ashwini_puralasamy > writes: > > Devi Bhakta wrote : > > > > "Thus She is both the nature of what we perceive > as difficulties, > > and the essence of that which ultimately relieves > these > > difficulties. > > That would be my answer, at least; others may > offer more useful > > interpretations and elaborations" > > > > I wanted to reply to this, but as usual I got > distracted, sorry for > > the delay. > > > > SHE gives goodness and also takes them away. So > when we do receive > > the goodness from HER, used and enjoyed it but we > are also being > > reminded that she can take it away. And When SHE > does, we should not > > feel sad at all, but to let it go willingly. The > willingliness to let > > it go is the greatest challenge, for most often > when we have enjoyed > > the good things in life, we tends to forget that > nothing in this > > world is permanent. To think that it is permanent > is an illusion. > > > > "She is the reliever of difficulties and the > difficulties > > itself" > > I can think of only one verse, and my favourite > one too : What does > > not kill us , makes us stronger. It is during the > most difficult > > times, that our devotion to the divine are being > put to a tested. > > > > If we see it as difficulties, then it becomes one, > but if we look for > > the goodness that may have gained from these > difficulties, then it > > becomes a blessing in disguise. > > > > ______________ > Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today > Only $9.95 per month! > Visit www.juno.com > Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2003 Report Share Posted May 28, 2003 lördagen den 12 april 2003 11.20 skrev Black Lotus L Rosenberg: > The ISKCON people, when they refer to Durga, call her "the jailer > of this prison-world." (Yuck.) I prefer to see her as a guide to the > Maze -- it's all illusion, true, but impressive, no? ..... > The ISKCON folk are terrified of Kali, and have as little to do with her > as possible. This is an old post, but I just had to comment... The ISKCON people are afraid of and ignorant about the female even though they worship Her in the form of Radha on their altars. Radha and Durga are non-different, it is said in the Brahma-Vaivarta purana, a Vaisnava purana. They are both forms of the same feminine Shakti. Even though they might have human-size forms of Radha on their altars, and worship Her, still they can't see her. They think there is only Krishna. They just don't get it. Due to this massive offensive attitude towards their own worshipable deities, they don't advance spiritually on their own path. It is sad. To see the feminine, i.e. Durga, as the jail-keeper of this prison world is also a strange way of seeing it. It is fear of the supreme Shakti. Fear of the feminine, that makes them see Her in this way. Now, these kind of statements can be found as said by previous Vaisnava teachers, but the ISKCON people get it in the wrong way. They don't come from the Indian culture, but from the western culture, and see things from the wrong direction. Their eyes are originally tinted in the colour of christianity, and when they hear such statements, their own christianity makes an echo in them, and says - aha, the same thing, the female is evil. But it is not the same thing. Words can mean different thing depending on your preconceptions. The spiritual roots of ISKCON is a bengal feminine worshiping cult. A Radha worshiping cult. A spiritual path that prefer to see the supreme in Her feminine form. And then the modern representatives say they are feareful of the feminine, says She is the jailkeeper, and they are terrified of her. Something got twisted in the philosophy there somewhere. There is a story how some Kali-worshiping (thugs?) once captured a Vaisnava, and wanted to make him into an offering to Kali. But when they prepared him for the offering, and made prayers to the Kali deity, She burst out alive from her deity form and attacked her worshipers and killed them, who mistakenly tried to make the offering of a saintly person. I can't remember the details, but the point of the story is that Kali is a friend, and not an enemy of the Vaisnava. If ISKCON people are terrifed of the female, of Kali, they must themselves have made some offences towards her, since She shows herself in her terrifying form to them and not in Her loving form. If I sound a little bit angry, it is because I am. ISKCON misrepresents the philosophy and are offensive towards the supreme feminine. They got too many worldly-minded people among them, in their leadership, that twists the philosophy according to their own personal material goals, and clouds the spiritual. Therefore I am angry. Prisni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2003 Report Share Posted May 28, 2003 Hi Prisni, That was a direct attack to someone's belief, i don't know how the moderator managed to let such a posting appear. I have read many ISKCON books, there is nothing against Mother Kali or Shakti in their writings. It is just that they concentrate much on Krishna and Radha and also Ram. I have attended many ISkcon session myself and i heard nothing against Mother, they are too occupied with Krishna Lila. For me this is no argument so i prefer not to get involved in chain emails arguing about this. I hope this email will be accepted gracefully. Kind Regards, Prakash - Prisni Wednesday, May 28, 2003 9:14 AM Re: Re: Reliever of difficulties? lördagen den 12 april 2003 11.20 skrev Black Lotus L Rosenberg: > The ISKCON people, when they refer to Durga, call her "the jailer > of this prison-world." (Yuck.) I prefer to see her as a guide to the > Maze -- it's all illusion, true, but impressive, no? .... > The ISKCON folk are terrified of Kali, and have as little to do with her > as possible. This is an old post, but I just had to comment... The ISKCON people are afraid of and ignorant about the female even though they worship Her in the form of Radha on their altars. Radha and Durga are non-different, it is said in the Brahma-Vaivarta purana, a Vaisnava purana. They are both forms of the same feminine Shakti. Even though they might have human-size forms of Radha on their altars, and worship Her, still they can't see her. They think there is only Krishna. They just don't get it. Due to this massive offensive attitude towards their own worshipable deities, they don't advance spiritually on their own path. It is sad. To see the feminine, i.e. Durga, as the jail-keeper of this prison world is also a strange way of seeing it. It is fear of the supreme Shakti. Fear of the feminine, that makes them see Her in this way. Now, these kind of statements can be found as said by previous Vaisnava teachers, but the ISKCON people get it in the wrong way. They don't come from the Indian culture, but from the western culture, and see things from the wrong direction. Their eyes are originally tinted in the colour of christianity, and when they hear such statements, their own christianity makes an echo in them, and says - aha, the same thing, the female is evil. But it is not the same thing. Words can mean different thing depending on your preconceptions. The spiritual roots of ISKCON is a bengal feminine worshiping cult. A Radha worshiping cult. A spiritual path that prefer to see the supreme in Her feminine form. And then the modern representatives say they are feareful of the feminine, says She is the jailkeeper, and they are terrified of her. Something got twisted in the philosophy there somewhere. There is a story how some Kali-worshiping (thugs?) once captured a Vaisnava, and wanted to make him into an offering to Kali. But when they prepared him for the offering, and made prayers to the Kali deity, She burst out alive from her deity form and attacked her worshipers and killed them, who mistakenly tried to make the offering of a saintly person. I can't remember the details, but the point of the story is that Kali is a friend, and not an enemy of the Vaisnava. If ISKCON people are terrifed of the female, of Kali, they must themselves have made some offences towards her, since She shows herself in her terrifying form to them and not in Her loving form. If I sound a little bit angry, it is because I am. ISKCON misrepresents the philosophy and are offensive towards the supreme feminine. They got too many worldly-minded people among them, in their leadership, that twists the philosophy according to their own personal material goals, and clouds the spiritual. Therefore I am angry. Prisni Sponsor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2003 Report Share Posted May 28, 2003 "That was a direct attack to someone's belief, i don't know how the moderator managed to let such a posting appear. I have read many ISKCON books, there is nothing against Mother Kali or Shakti in their writings. It is just that they concentrate much on Krishna and Radha and also Ram. I have attended many Iskcon session myself and i heard nothing against Mother, they are too occupied with Krishna Lila" Greetings to you prakash. Thank you. Personally I don't see it as a direct attack to anyone's belief. That is Prisni opinion. If you want to take it as an attack then it becomes an attack to you. I shall let Prisni reply to your concern. Prisni have been a member of Shakti Sadhana for sometimes. A devoted Radha Bhakta. If you browse or I like to bring your attention to our message board discussion which I have compiled in the Homepage, Prisni have contributed a significant discussion. Do read them if you have the time. And in my personal opinion her views have been balanced and just. http://www.shaktisadhana.org/radha.html http://shaktisadhana.50megs.com/Articles/Messageboard/Messageboardmain ..html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2003 Report Share Posted June 5, 2003 Haribol Prakash Prabhu, All glories to Sri Sri Guru and Sri Gauranga! All glories to the Divine Mother of All! I am sorry that it took me a long time to reply to these interesting exchanges. I must say that I agree with Mother Prisni. Before embracing Gaudiya-Vaisnavism, I had (and still have) a strong affection for Kali Ma. According to the Gaudiya sampradaya, Shiva/Durga/Hanuman/Subramanya/Ganesh/... are not form of the Ultimate Divine but simply devas or demi-gods. Durga Ma is only recognized has Mahamaya, the Great Illusion (which is for the bhakta a kind of material curse). Didn't Durga incarnated Herself to be Krishna's sister? Why is Kali Ma connected to Bhagavan Sri Krishna in the Shakta tradition and not in Vaisnavism. We are supposed to worship Srimati Radharani and Vrinda Devi (Tulasi Maharani) but in reality, most modern Vaisnavas see Radha as "Krishna's girlfriend" only. As I wrote earlier, maybe they are affraid of Kali Ma because of Her purificative aspect. All I know is that it's very difficult to love the Divine Shakti and associate with these people because of their offenses towards Mother (call Her Radha, Durga,..it does not matter). For them, Shaktas are tamasic people who eat meat, drink, have "tantric sex" and have bizzar spiritual practices. Srila Prabhupada wrote that meat-eaters should worship Kali Ma. I know this from first-hand experience..I attend the mangala-arati three times a week and am a congregational member. If you do not take shelter of one of their spiritual master (even if that guru is also a Vaisnava but no in ISKON), you cannot do any service for the Deities or at the temple. Frankly, you are not welcomed. I am deep reflection concerning my sadhana and am thorned (spelling?), I feel I have to choose between Krishna and Kali. My prospective guru (in ISKON) is very liberal (as he accepts people fron the third-gender like me- tritiya prakriti) but I know he woudn't let me have Shakta practices. Prisni Mataji worte: "If ISKCON people are terrifed of the female, of Kali, they must themselves have made some offences towards her, since She shows herself in her terrifying form to them and not in Her loving form." And I say "Amen"! The Divine Shakti is part of Krishna's Lilas. Om Shanti! Maxime Re: Re: Reliever of difficulties? Hi Prisni, That was a direct attack to someone's belief, i don't know how the moderator managed to let such a posting appear. I have read many ISKCON books, there is nothing against Mother Kali or Shakti in their writings. It is just that they concentrate much on Krishna and Radha and also Ram. I have attended many ISkcon session myself and i heard nothing against Mother, they are too occupied with Krishna Lila. For me this is no argument so i prefer not to get involved in chain emails arguing about this. I hope this email will be accepted gracefully. Kind Regards, Prakash - Prisni Wednesday, May 28, 2003 9:14 AM Re: Re: Reliever of difficulties? lördagen den 12 april 2003 11.20 skrev Black Lotus L Rosenberg: > The ISKCON people, when they refer to Durga, call her "the jailer > of this prison-world." (Yuck.) I prefer to see her as a guide to the > Maze -- it's all illusion, true, but impressive, no? .... > The ISKCON folk are terrified of Kali, and have as little to do with her > as possible. This is an old post, but I just had to comment... The ISKCON people are afraid of and ignorant about the female even though they worship Her in the form of Radha on their altars. Radha and Durga are non-different, it is said in the Brahma-Vaivarta purana, a Vaisnava purana. They are both forms of the same feminine Shakti. Even though they might have human-size forms of Radha on their altars, and worship Her, still they can't see her. They think there is only Krishna. They just don't get it. Due to this massive offensive attitude towards their own worshipable deities, they don't advance spiritually on their own path. It is sad. To see the feminine, i.e. Durga, as the jail-keeper of this prison world is also a strange way of seeing it. It is fear of the supreme Shakti. Fear of the feminine, that makes them see Her in this way. Now, these kind of statements can be found as said by previous Vaisnava teachers, but the ISKCON people get it in the wrong way. They don't come from the Indian culture, but from the western culture, and see things from the wrong direction. Their eyes are originally tinted in the colour of christianity, and when they hear such statements, their own christianity makes an echo in them, and says - aha, the same thing, the female is evil. But it is not the same thing. Words can mean different thing depending on your preconceptions. The spiritual roots of ISKCON is a bengal feminine worshiping cult. A Radha worshiping cult. A spiritual path that prefer to see the supreme in Her feminine form. And then the modern representatives say they are feareful of the feminine, says She is the jailkeeper, and they are terrified of her. Something got twisted in the philosophy there somewhere. There is a story how some Kali-worshiping (thugs?) once captured a Vaisnava, and wanted to make him into an offering to Kali. But when they prepared him for the offering, and made prayers to the Kali deity, She burst out alive from her deity form and attacked her worshipers and killed them, who mistakenly tried to make the offering of a saintly person. I can't remember the details, but the point of the story is that Kali is a friend, and not an enemy of the Vaisnava. If ISKCON people are terrifed of the female, of Kali, they must themselves have made some offences towards her, since She shows herself in her terrifying form to them and not in Her loving form. If I sound a little bit angry, it is because I am. ISKCON misrepresents the philosophy and are offensive towards the supreme feminine. They got too many worldly-minded people among them, in their leadership, that twists the philosophy according to their own personal material goals, and clouds the spiritual. Therefore I am angry. Prisni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2003 Report Share Posted June 7, 2003 torsdagen den 5 juni 2003 09.54 skrev Maxime Lapointe: > According to the Gaudiya sampradaya, > Shiva/Durga/Hanuman/Subramanya/Ganesh/... are not form of the > Ultimate Divine but simply devas or demi-gods. Durga Ma is only > recognized has Mahamaya, the Great Illusion (which is for the bhakta > a kind of material curse). It depends on where you look. The Bhagavata purana mainly gives the viewpoint of worship of Visnu, and ultimately Krishna, and other things are secondary. If you go to the Brahma Vaivarta Purana, the other big purana glorifying Radha-Krishna, you find Radha and her expansions in the forefront. In that purana Radha herself speaks, and She makes it very clear that She and Durga are non-different, and also gives the philosophy how and why that is so. Now, of course, modern day Gaudiya Vaisnavas will say "bah, that purana is not authentic", meaning that the Bhagavata purana is written by Vyasadeva, but the Brahma Vaivarta purana was written by some shaktas, or something. A quite silly argument since it undermines the authenticity of all Vedic scriptures, including the Bhagavata purana. If it really was written when they say, it was written shortly after Caitanya's life on earth, and represent a widespread Vaisnava movement at that time highly influenced by Caitanya. A tradition that is now dead, unless there is some persons hidden somewhere in India that still carries it forward. It was supposedly in north Indian, where we now have Vrindavana, and where people still greet each other with "Jay Radhe" and there is the most wonderful "Jay Radhe" grafitti on the walls. Many things in the Brahmavaivarta purana fits much better with the practices of current day "Gaudiya" vaisnavism then the instructions of the Bhagavata purana which is ancient. > We are supposed to worship Srimati Radharani and > Vrinda Devi (Tulasi Maharani) but in reality, most modern Vaisnavas > see Radha as "Krishna's girlfriend" only. Radha and Krishna are identical. Radha is the life and soul of Krishna. How then can Radha only be only Krishna's girlfriend? Radha is the Shakti of Krishna, and is the same Shakti as Parvati is the Shakti of Shiva. The confusion here might come from that Krishna is used as a name of both the combination of Radha and Krishna, and as Krishna as separate together with Radha. If that is mixed up, some might think that Radha is something else, something separate. "A girlfriend" might be correct in another culture, but it is not correct in how western males look at their girlfriend. It is an unfortunate usage of words in today's language, and I think it should thus be avoided. > All I know is that it's very difficult to love the Divine Shakti and > associate with these people because of their offenses towards Mother > (call Her Radha, Durga,..it does not matter). For them, Shaktas are > tamasic people who eat meat, drink, have "tantric sex" and have > bizzar spiritual practices. Srila Prabhupada wrote that meat-eaters > should worship Kali Ma. I agree with you, so I just don't associate with them. What Prabhupada or someone says, is to the people he speaks to at that time. He was speaking to hippies, some of which maybe claimed to be tantrics worshiping Kali as an excuse for eating meat and free sex with everyone. So Prabhupada simply said that was nonsense, and that they had to stop it if they wanted to be his followers. There are many bizarre practices going on in the west, and some of them claim they worship Kali, but have absolutely no idea about the philosophy of Shakti. I would never call them Shaktas. Sometimes, to progress on a path, you have to narrow your vision in order to not become confused. But when having made sufficient progress, the vision might have to be widened again. Prabhupada spoke to complete neophytes, and had to narrow down and simplify quite a lot. That does not mean that is always supposed to be like that. Prisni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.