Guest guest Posted July 10, 2000 Report Share Posted July 10, 2000 Hi Manas, Your feelings are justified. I presented a pretty one sided view. After I wrote that, I visited some other aspiring Western Vaisnavas and asked them what they think our Guru Varga, namely, the Gaudiya Math Acaryas including Bhaktivedanta Swami, and the collective seniour devotees present, including a number of men and woman in their middle ages, having been devotees for 20 years or more, unanimously agrees that our Gurus were against the policies of the Jaganath Puri Temple on the same grounds you state. I was a bit taken back, having thought I heard a different approach once, and somehow feeling it in myself a bit. I myself am able, by my karma, to be very easily speaking on behalf of the Autocratic Theocratic view of Orthodox Hinduism. But oddly, for myself, actually, I often cannot feel it myself. It's a dichotomy I live out for reasons of my various karmas and conditionings. I personally am one of those who judges people solely by their character. I was raised in a very multi-racial multi-cultural Oakland California, in the era of Post Martin Luther King effects, and present day with the Black Panthers, the SLA, and overall general Hippie Activism in the 60's and 70's peace and love era. That's in me. I was in Berkeley with the Army National Guard fully bayonetted 6 rows deep all the way down the main streets surrounding the University in response to Vietnam and the Kent State killings by the National Guard. In other words, if you know this era and area at all, it was the home of the Hippies in those days, the stage of the rock and roll drug revolution, anti-Vietnam activism, and other things which represented revolution by a large part of the youth against American culture up to that point, which contained more gross materialism, and great amounts of White Superiority presence in America. In the early sixties, Martin Luther King changed America through his very successful civil rights movement on behalf of the African Americans and others. If you know the era I grew up in, and where I grew up, you realize I was IMMERSED in this consciousness in a very big way. I went to High School in a Catholic High School which was eavenly 1/3rd Chicano, 1/3 African American, and 1/3 White. There were no fights in 4 years. In the period of Oakland and California that I grew up in, at least in this Catholic High School in one of the worst areas of poverty and crime in Oakland, there was absolutely a mood of non-prejudice based on race or culture. Everybody was treated equally. I had friends in all categories. I "slept over" and was in rock bands with, went to parties with, grew up with, African Americans, lots of them in close proximity, and Chicanos equally. I know both of these cultures intimitely at least as far as Oakland goes. I was deeply involved with Franciscan priests in High School. I was going to the Seminary to become one. There was ABSOLUTELY a mood of non-prejudice based on race. It wasn't even an issue. I grew up where we all brothers and sisters, and mostly I was with people who would add "we're ALL Gods children". That's absolutely Catholic, and definitely Franciscan. That's how I was raised. That's how I am personally actually. I do however resort to only one last thought in favor of Puri's ways, leaving aside all religious considerations, philosophical considerations, etc., and say this: Enough already with disrupting indiginous cultures. Leave standing that which remains if it be non-violent and it wants not to be invaded. I think these both apply to modern Puri. I know for sure that they have fought off government and populous and international opinion battles already in recent years. They clearly consistantly vote amongst themselves to not change this policy. So I'm saying, let's learn from Tibet and other invaded places, that some places, should just be left alone. On that grounds I think we could back off? That's like calling the philosophical battle a non-issue. Then it just becomes something to discuss in National Geographic, for Westerners or the whole world to marvel over- "a strict religious practice which by seeming definition defies it's own dictum as if blind to obvious reality". On the other hand, some might argue, that taking birth within their restrictive definitions is somehow special. They might have some reason to believe that. There probably is some sort of religious definition on their end that's meaningful to them, and so then again it's really up to us as to whether we're going to bother them constantly because one of their beliefs rubs our intellect the wrong way. But the kind, socially conscious, and non-interferring me says "since they ain't hurting us, why not just let them have it their way in their place". Then, if someone of that mood comes forth in the world and speaks that mood out, that too, what of it? It's something authentic from a certain sub section of the Hindu population- it too is just an offering to the reader, not something that is being demanded. So I'm for non-interference in other words. Especially when it comes to still standing ancient cultures and beliefs. At least it's old and interesting, provocative. I really doubt that anyone in the West is going to ACTUALLY start to feel that they are less. I think pretty much EVERYONE would see it the way Martin Luther King would see it. I think even Gandhi fought against it. I think it's pretty obvious that the only people that REALLY let if affect them is the priests or council in control in Puri itself. I haven't ever met anyone who REALLY FULLY believed in those things who lived at all in any part of the modern India or any other part of the world. I've met those kind of believers only in the villages in India, for what that's worth. So you see, I can see it both ways. Like I said, I just have some sort of tendency to be able to repeat what sounds like Orthodox Hindu logic or philosophy. Some of it I really believe, but some of it rubs me after I write it, sometimes. This is because I'm in motion regarding realizations. Kindof at a high speed these days. One more thing, the Brihat Parashara Hora Sastra says that the student of Jyotish must be known to the teacher, yet we see all teachers we've seen so far are teaching people they've never met through the internet, books, software, lectures, etc. Obviously, Jyotish wouldn't spread if to learn it you had to go to India, stay and get to know a teacher, and if qualified in character, then trained manually. That would take time. Few would do it. Then those who did could come back and teach those they know, but this process would be slow, though it could happen. So, most of us are products of "breaking the rules". Interesting thought. My Guru taught "mercy before justice", meaning, that in this age of Kali, in our line, Sri Caitanya and Lord Nityananda, gave out their jewels to everyone equally, regardless of race or caste. Sri Caitanya went along with Caste things in some places, not attempting to change them, but he himself taught that it did not apply to Krishna Bhakti at least. And he like the Gita and Bhagavatam, praised this as the Supreme Yoga. So there too, He who lived in Puri, taught otherwise. Thanks for listening, Das Goravani 2852 Willamette St # 353 Eugene OR USA 97405 or Fax: 541-343-0344 "Goravani Jyotish" Vedic/Hindu Astrology Software 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.