Guest guest Posted December 16, 2000 Report Share Posted December 16, 2000 [Text 255429 from CIS] > Here Srila Prabhupada informs us that the prostitutes were not only > beautiful, but that they were "well-known." In addition, they walked in > the same procession as the "learned brahmanas." They were situated behind > the soldiers and ahead of the servants carrying chamaras, umbrellas, > jewels etc, meant for worship of Lord Rama. > > It is interesting to note that in the Treta-yuga (one million years ago) > the prostitutes were "well-known" meaning that they didn't have to hide in > shame, nor were they demonized. Why? Because they were devotees of Lord > Rama. > > Similarly, at the time of Lord Krishna in Dwaraka (only 5,000 years ago) > we also read that the prostitutes were accepted as devotees and came out > with the others to welcome Lord Krishna in public gatherings. They were > not looked down upon or demonized. > > Most interesting is that Sukadeva Goswami describes these incidents in the > assembly of sages (most of them celibate monks, including Sukadeva > himself) at the time of the passing of Pariksit Maharaja. > > What is clear from the Bhagavatam is that prostitutes were not sneered at > or demonized. This is the point: Devotees of the Lord are never demonized! > This is Vedic culture. ISKCON is supposed to represent Vedic culture. Vaishnava and Vedic culture are the two notions that are not identical. Vedic culture is a broader phenomena and it's rather futile to reconstruct it. What we do really need is Vaisnava culture. And as we know, according to Vaisnava culture, things that are not favorable to the devotional service are to be rejected, e.g. sex outside of marriage and not for the conception of children, meat eating, intoxication, gambling, tv, etc > How do we reconcile the views of Vedic culture and that of Jayadvaita > Swami and other modern-day leaders of ISKCON? They present themselves as > the bastions of Vedic culture and understanding, yet their views are > diametrically opposed, in this regard, to the standard of Vedic culture. The is only one way to reconcile, we have to admit, that we are not striving to build a Vedic culture and are quite satisfied with Vaishnava dynamic culture. ys abhinanda das Vladimir TP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2000 Report Share Posted December 16, 2000 [Text 255429 from CIS] > Here Srila Prabhupada informs us that the prostitutes were not only > beautiful, but that they were "well-known." In addition, they walked in > the same procession as the "learned brahmanas." They were situated behind > the soldiers and ahead of the servants carrying chamaras, umbrellas, > jewels etc, meant for worship of Lord Rama. > > It is interesting to note that in the Treta-yuga (one million years ago) > the prostitutes were "well-known" meaning that they didn't have to hide in > shame, nor were they demonized. Why? Because they were devotees of Lord > Rama. > > Similarly, at the time of Lord Krishna in Dwaraka (only 5,000 years ago) > we also read that the prostitutes were accepted as devotees and came out > with the others to welcome Lord Krishna in public gatherings. They were > not looked down upon or demonized. > > Most interesting is that Sukadeva Goswami describes these incidents in the > assembly of sages (most of them celibate monks, including Sukadeva > himself) at the time of the passing of Pariksit Maharaja. > > What is clear from the Bhagavatam is that prostitutes were not sneered at > or demonized. This is the point: Devotees of the Lord are never demonized! > This is Vedic culture. ISKCON is supposed to represent Vedic culture. Vaishnava and Vedic culture are the two notions that are not identical. Vedic culture is a broader phenomena and it's rather futile to reconstruct it. What we do really need is Vaisnava culture. And as we know, according to Vaisnava culture, things that are not favorable to the devotional service are to be rejected, e.g. sex outside of marriage and not for the conception of children, meat eating, intoxication, gambling, tv, etc > How do we reconcile the views of Vedic culture and that of Jayadvaita > Swami and other modern-day leaders of ISKCON? They present themselves as > the bastions of Vedic culture and understanding, yet their views are > diametrically opposed, in this regard, to the standard of Vedic culture. The is only one way to reconcile, we have to admit, that we are not striving to build a Vedic culture and are quite satisfied with Vaishnava dynamic culture. ys abhinanda das Vladimir TP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2000 Report Share Posted December 16, 2000 Dear Abhinanda Prabhu, Dandavats! Jaya Srila Prabhupada! Thanks for your post: >Vaishnava and Vedic culture are the two notions that are not identical. >Vedic culture is a broader phenomena and it's rather futile to reconstruct >it. What we do really need is Vaisnava culture. And as we know, according >to Vaisnava culture, things that are not favorable to the devotional >service are to be rejected, e.g. sex outside of marriage and not for the >conception of children, meat eating, intoxication, gambling, tv, etc Unfortunately, you missed the whole point of my post, which was that it is clear from the Bhagavatam that prostitutes were not sneered at or demonized, because they were Vaishnavas. This is the point: Devotees of the Lord are never demonized! This is Vedic culture, and it is Vaishnava culture (dasanudas). It is the same mentality of respecting Vaishnavas. ISKCON is supposed to represent Vaishnava culture. This is one of the problems within ISKCON. When it is favorable for us we say Vedic culture, when it is not favorable we shy away from Vedic culture, and say Vaishnava culture. I hope you understand that Vaishnava culture is a lot broader and far more comprehensive than simply following a regulated lifestyle. The point is, in the beginning we stress the rules and regs, and that is proper, but when we are no longer at the first stage then we have to strive to become far more compassionate and understanding. "Broad-minded" is the term Srila Prabhupada used. You can clearly see the difference by studying what Srila Prabhupada taught, and how he dealt with devotees who were having trouble. The personal dealing is a much higher application of Vaishnava culture than the rules and regs. Prabhupada quoted Lord Chaitanya many times in this regard, that achara is higher than pracara. We see in sastra (and in modern day ISKCON) that many followers of austerity fall down, fall away, become bitter, attack the devotees (thru the media, etc.) and end up spoiling their human form of life. On the other hand, we see Vaishnavas, who were formerly addicted to all kinds of bad habits (even prostitutes) develop love for the Lord and get His mercy. There are so many examples in sastra and within ISKCON. So the siddhanta is follow the rules and regs, but strive to come to the higher mentality of compassionate, respectful, recognition of all Vaishnavas. This is the meaning of dasa, dasa, anudasa. In my quotes from sastra, the ladies in question at the time of Lord Rama and Lord Krishna WERE Vaishnavas. The definition of Vaishnava is one who worships the Supreme Personality of Godhaead in His personal form. There may be higher and lower degress of purity but one is still accepted as Vaishnava, nevertheless. In these sastric quotes ALL the citizens involved were Vaishnavas, and they were following Vaishnava culture, the same culture that we follow when greeting an exalted personality! Yet, you immediately tried to deny that it was Vaishanva culture. Do you follow what I mean now? For example, Srila Haridasa Thakur converted a prostitute into a Vaishnava. She became his disciple and attracted others to Vaishnavism on behalf of her spiritual master. Still, ISKCON devotees refer to her as a prostitute, and not as a Vaishnava. I could accept "former prostitute" but in reality she should be known as Haridas Thakur's disciple. That's what we say in regards to our own devotees, so-and-so's disciple. We don't refer to each other according to our former bad habits. I raise these points only because I'm trying to raise the awareness of Vaishnava consciousness. Specifically the first aparadha, sadhu ninda, must be avoided at all costs. As I stated in my previous post, our aversion is simply the opposite side of the same coin of attachment. It is negative attachment, not transcendence. The process is to enable us to transcend. This is the whole point of my argument. yours in service, vaiyasaki dasa... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2000 Report Share Posted December 16, 2000 Dear Abhinanda Prabhu, Dandavats! Jaya Srila Prabhupada! Thanks for your post: >Vaishnava and Vedic culture are the two notions that are not identical. >Vedic culture is a broader phenomena and it's rather futile to reconstruct >it. What we do really need is Vaisnava culture. And as we know, according >to Vaisnava culture, things that are not favorable to the devotional >service are to be rejected, e.g. sex outside of marriage and not for the >conception of children, meat eating, intoxication, gambling, tv, etc Unfortunately, you missed the whole point of my post, which was that it is clear from the Bhagavatam that prostitutes were not sneered at or demonized, because they were Vaishnavas. This is the point: Devotees of the Lord are never demonized! This is Vedic culture, and it is Vaishnava culture (dasanudas). It is the same mentality of respecting Vaishnavas. ISKCON is supposed to represent Vaishnava culture. This is one of the problems within ISKCON. When it is favorable for us we say Vedic culture, when it is not favorable we shy away from Vedic culture, and say Vaishnava culture. I hope you understand that Vaishnava culture is a lot broader and far more comprehensive than simply following a regulated lifestyle. The point is, in the beginning we stress the rules and regs, and that is proper, but when we are no longer at the first stage then we have to strive to become far more compassionate and understanding. "Broad-minded" is the term Srila Prabhupada used. You can clearly see the difference by studying what Srila Prabhupada taught, and how he dealt with devotees who were having trouble. The personal dealing is a much higher application of Vaishnava culture than the rules and regs. Prabhupada quoted Lord Chaitanya many times in this regard, that achara is higher than pracara. We see in sastra (and in modern day ISKCON) that many followers of austerity fall down, fall away, become bitter, attack the devotees (thru the media, etc.) and end up spoiling their human form of life. On the other hand, we see Vaishnavas, who were formerly addicted to all kinds of bad habits (even prostitutes) develop love for the Lord and get His mercy. There are so many examples in sastra and within ISKCON. So the siddhanta is follow the rules and regs, but strive to come to the higher mentality of compassionate, respectful, recognition of all Vaishnavas. This is the meaning of dasa, dasa, anudasa. In my quotes from sastra, the ladies in question at the time of Lord Rama and Lord Krishna WERE Vaishnavas. The definition of Vaishnava is one who worships the Supreme Personality of Godhaead in His personal form. There may be higher and lower degress of purity but one is still accepted as Vaishnava, nevertheless. In these sastric quotes ALL the citizens involved were Vaishnavas, and they were following Vaishnava culture, the same culture that we follow when greeting an exalted personality! Yet, you immediately tried to deny that it was Vaishanva culture. Do you follow what I mean now? For example, Srila Haridasa Thakur converted a prostitute into a Vaishnava. She became his disciple and attracted others to Vaishnavism on behalf of her spiritual master. Still, ISKCON devotees refer to her as a prostitute, and not as a Vaishnava. I could accept "former prostitute" but in reality she should be known as Haridas Thakur's disciple. That's what we say in regards to our own devotees, so-and-so's disciple. We don't refer to each other according to our former bad habits. I raise these points only because I'm trying to raise the awareness of Vaishnava consciousness. Specifically the first aparadha, sadhu ninda, must be avoided at all costs. As I stated in my previous post, our aversion is simply the opposite side of the same coin of attachment. It is negative attachment, not transcendence. The process is to enable us to transcend. This is the whole point of my argument. yours in service, vaiyasaki dasa... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2000 Report Share Posted December 17, 2000 > I raise these points only because I'm trying to raise the awareness of > Vaishnava consciousness. Specifically the first aparadha, sadhu ninda, > must be avoided at all costs. As I stated in my previous post, our > aversion is simply the opposite side of the same coin of attachment. It is > negative attachment, not transcendence. The process is to enable us to > transcend. This is the whole point of my argument. To me this perception that you are pointing out is a key ingredient that is often missing in our general dealings.. I think that the position you are trying to point out is based on the idea to 'hate the sin, not the sinner'. The point is that a vaisnava does not judge others, he sees everyone as servant and himself as fallen. This is the character of all saints, and saintliness itself (of course the guru will chastise the disciple, but the bonafide guru in doing so is only acting on an essential level, and not out of envy or some other mundane consideration). We are aspiring for saintliness, and because of that we can be called vaisnavas, but deeper than that is the conviction of the vaisnava that he is actually a fallen fool, unworthy disciple, etc, and all others are vaisnavas. When Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote his songs, he was not pretending to be fallen, he was really feeling fallen and humble. I think the problem is often that many are all too ready to portray themselves as advanced, but an actually advanced person is devoid of such tendencies. Gravity, the state of being grave, this is possessed of the vaisnava, he will not speak out of turn, and only speak when his speaking will act in Krsnas (and of course our) favour, otherwise he is silent, in the sense that he will not speak when his speech will not be favourable. It is true that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati roared like a lion to smash the offenders, but then he knew exactly what Krsna wanted at any given time, so his roar had maximum effect. So the problem you speak of in terms of some ISKCON members general lack of percieved tolerance, or the driving out of people who continue to fall, or demonising such people, can only be due to our lack of understanding this principle of gravity either due to being puffed up and desirous of control, or simply because we do not know what Krsna wants at any point in time. We really need to be honest, and only accept positions and act according to our particular level of advancement. Not 'shoot from the hip' as they say, and say and do things based on inferior judgement, or our speculation as to what is right in any given circumstance. If we are not self realised, then why bother to criticise in situations where we may not be in posession of all the facts, if we do not actualy know the heart of the fallen person. Only a pure devotee can see what lurks in our hearts, only he is fit to deliver chastisement. If we do not know, is it not better to remain silent and trust that Krsna is the controller, and will do the needfull? Surely it is this kind of mentality we have to nurture, Krsna would be pleased with such character, isn't it? If we just look at the damage that is done to sincere people by those who act out of a desire to control, we can understand how destructive this is. We have plenty of examples now. We may think that people in ISKCON need to be controlled, but are we the ones to do it, if we ourselves need the masterfull hand of the pure sadhu, to root out our anarthas? If we are in that position, we are in the last place to be telling others what to do, other than advise everyone to chant the holy name, and pray for guidance. This does not mean that practical guidance should not be given in everyday situations. Of course even neophyte devotees can give advice and guidance, but that is not what we are talking about. It is not easy to hold a position, and give sound advice, and not fall into the trap of criticising, of passing judgement, and brodcasting our misconceptions to others. That is where all the problems start. Just my two bits worth, I'm preaching to myself here!. Your servant Samba das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2000 Report Share Posted December 17, 2000 > I raise these points only because I'm trying to raise the awareness of > Vaishnava consciousness. Specifically the first aparadha, sadhu ninda, > must be avoided at all costs. As I stated in my previous post, our > aversion is simply the opposite side of the same coin of attachment. It is > negative attachment, not transcendence. The process is to enable us to > transcend. This is the whole point of my argument. To me this perception that you are pointing out is a key ingredient that is often missing in our general dealings.. I think that the position you are trying to point out is based on the idea to 'hate the sin, not the sinner'. The point is that a vaisnava does not judge others, he sees everyone as servant and himself as fallen. This is the character of all saints, and saintliness itself (of course the guru will chastise the disciple, but the bonafide guru in doing so is only acting on an essential level, and not out of envy or some other mundane consideration). We are aspiring for saintliness, and because of that we can be called vaisnavas, but deeper than that is the conviction of the vaisnava that he is actually a fallen fool, unworthy disciple, etc, and all others are vaisnavas. When Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote his songs, he was not pretending to be fallen, he was really feeling fallen and humble. I think the problem is often that many are all too ready to portray themselves as advanced, but an actually advanced person is devoid of such tendencies. Gravity, the state of being grave, this is possessed of the vaisnava, he will not speak out of turn, and only speak when his speaking will act in Krsnas (and of course our) favour, otherwise he is silent, in the sense that he will not speak when his speech will not be favourable. It is true that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati roared like a lion to smash the offenders, but then he knew exactly what Krsna wanted at any given time, so his roar had maximum effect. So the problem you speak of in terms of some ISKCON members general lack of percieved tolerance, or the driving out of people who continue to fall, or demonising such people, can only be due to our lack of understanding this principle of gravity either due to being puffed up and desirous of control, or simply because we do not know what Krsna wants at any point in time. We really need to be honest, and only accept positions and act according to our particular level of advancement. Not 'shoot from the hip' as they say, and say and do things based on inferior judgement, or our speculation as to what is right in any given circumstance. If we are not self realised, then why bother to criticise in situations where we may not be in posession of all the facts, if we do not actualy know the heart of the fallen person. Only a pure devotee can see what lurks in our hearts, only he is fit to deliver chastisement. If we do not know, is it not better to remain silent and trust that Krsna is the controller, and will do the needfull? Surely it is this kind of mentality we have to nurture, Krsna would be pleased with such character, isn't it? If we just look at the damage that is done to sincere people by those who act out of a desire to control, we can understand how destructive this is. We have plenty of examples now. We may think that people in ISKCON need to be controlled, but are we the ones to do it, if we ourselves need the masterfull hand of the pure sadhu, to root out our anarthas? If we are in that position, we are in the last place to be telling others what to do, other than advise everyone to chant the holy name, and pray for guidance. This does not mean that practical guidance should not be given in everyday situations. Of course even neophyte devotees can give advice and guidance, but that is not what we are talking about. It is not easy to hold a position, and give sound advice, and not fall into the trap of criticising, of passing judgement, and brodcasting our misconceptions to others. That is where all the problems start. Just my two bits worth, I'm preaching to myself here!. Your servant Samba das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2000 Report Share Posted December 17, 2000 > I raise these points only because I'm trying to raise the awareness of > Vaishnava consciousness. Specifically the first aparadha, sadhu ninda, > must be avoided at all costs. As I stated in my previous post, our > aversion is simply the opposite side of the same coin of attachment. It is > negative attachment, not transcendence. The process is to enable us to > transcend. This is the whole point of my argument. To me this perception that you are pointing out is a key ingredient that is often missing in our general dealings.. I think that the position you are trying to point out is based on the idea to 'hate the sin, not the sinner'. The point is that a vaisnava does not judge others, he sees everyone as servant and himself as fallen. This is the character of all saints, and saintliness itself (of course the guru will chastise the disciple, but the bonafide guru in doing so is only acting on an essential level, and not out of envy or some other mundane consideration). We are aspiring for saintliness, and because of that we can be called vaisnavas, but deeper than that is the conviction of the vaisnava that he is actually a fallen fool, unworthy disciple, etc, and all others are vaisnavas. When Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote his songs, he was not pretending to be fallen, he was really feeling fallen and humble. I think the problem is often that many are all too ready to portray themselves as advanced, but an actually advanced person is devoid of such tendencies. Gravity, the state of being grave, this is possessed of the vaisnava, he will not speak out of turn, and only speak when his speaking will act in Krsnas (and of course our) favour, otherwise he is silent, in the sense that he will not speak when his speech will not be favourable. It is true that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati roared like a lion to smash the offenders, but then he knew exactly what Krsna wanted at any given time, so his roar had maximum effect. So the problem you speak of in terms of some ISKCON members general lack of percieved tolerance, or the driving out of people who continue to fall, or demonising such people, can only be due to our lack of understanding this principle of gravity either due to being puffed up and desirous of control, or simply because we do not know what Krsna wants at any point in time. We really need to be honest, and only accept positions and act according to our particular level of advancement. Not 'shoot from the hip' as they say, and say and do things based on inferior judgement, or our speculation as to what is right in any given circumstance. If we are not self realised, then why bother to criticise in situations where we may not be in posession of all the facts, if we do not actualy know the heart of the fallen person. Only a pure devotee can see what lurks in our hearts, only he is fit to deliver chastisement. If we do not know, is it not better to remain silent and trust that Krsna is the controller, and will do the needfull? Surely it is this kind of mentality we have to nurture, Krsna would be pleased with such character, isn't it? If we just look at the damage that is done to sincere people by those who act out of a desire to control, we can understand how destructive this is. We have plenty of examples now. We may think that people in ISKCON need to be controlled, but are we the ones to do it, if we ourselves need the masterfull hand of the pure sadhu, to root out our anarthas? If we are in that position, we are in the last place to be telling others what to do, other than advise everyone to chant the holy name, and pray for guidance. This does not mean that practical guidance should not be given in everyday situations. Of course even neophyte devotees can give advice and guidance, but that is not what we are talking about. It is not easy to hold a position, and give sound advice, and not fall into the trap of criticising, of passing judgement, and brodcasting our misconceptions to others. That is where all the problems start. Just my two bits worth, I'm preaching to myself here!. Your servant Samba das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2000 Report Share Posted December 17, 2000 > I raise these points only because I'm trying to raise the awareness of > Vaishnava consciousness. Specifically the first aparadha, sadhu ninda, > must be avoided at all costs. As I stated in my previous post, our > aversion is simply the opposite side of the same coin of attachment. It is > negative attachment, not transcendence. The process is to enable us to > transcend. This is the whole point of my argument. To me this perception that you are pointing out is a key ingredient that is often missing in our general dealings.. I think that the position you are trying to point out is based on the idea to 'hate the sin, not the sinner'. The point is that a vaisnava does not judge others, he sees everyone as servant and himself as fallen. This is the character of all saints, and saintliness itself (of course the guru will chastise the disciple, but the bonafide guru in doing so is only acting on an essential level, and not out of envy or some other mundane consideration). We are aspiring for saintliness, and because of that we can be called vaisnavas, but deeper than that is the conviction of the vaisnava that he is actually a fallen fool, unworthy disciple, etc, and all others are vaisnavas. When Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote his songs, he was not pretending to be fallen, he was really feeling fallen and humble. I think the problem is often that many are all too ready to portray themselves as advanced, but an actually advanced person is devoid of such tendencies. Gravity, the state of being grave, this is possessed of the vaisnava, he will not speak out of turn, and only speak when his speaking will act in Krsnas (and of course our) favour, otherwise he is silent, in the sense that he will not speak when his speech will not be favourable. It is true that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati roared like a lion to smash the offenders, but then he knew exactly what Krsna wanted at any given time, so his roar had maximum effect. So the problem you speak of in terms of some ISKCON members general lack of percieved tolerance, or the driving out of people who continue to fall, or demonising such people, can only be due to our lack of understanding this principle of gravity either due to being puffed up and desirous of control, or simply because we do not know what Krsna wants at any point in time. We really need to be honest, and only accept positions and act according to our particular level of advancement. Not 'shoot from the hip' as they say, and say and do things based on inferior judgement, or our speculation as to what is right in any given circumstance. If we are not self realised, then why bother to criticise in situations where we may not be in posession of all the facts, if we do not actualy know the heart of the fallen person. Only a pure devotee can see what lurks in our hearts, only he is fit to deliver chastisement. If we do not know, is it not better to remain silent and trust that Krsna is the controller, and will do the needfull? Surely it is this kind of mentality we have to nurture, Krsna would be pleased with such character, isn't it? If we just look at the damage that is done to sincere people by those who act out of a desire to control, we can understand how destructive this is. We have plenty of examples now. We may think that people in ISKCON need to be controlled, but are we the ones to do it, if we ourselves need the masterfull hand of the pure sadhu, to root out our anarthas? If we are in that position, we are in the last place to be telling others what to do, other than advise everyone to chant the holy name, and pray for guidance. This does not mean that practical guidance should not be given in everyday situations. Of course even neophyte devotees can give advice and guidance, but that is not what we are talking about. It is not easy to hold a position, and give sound advice, and not fall into the trap of criticising, of passing judgement, and brodcasting our misconceptions to others. That is where all the problems start. Just my two bits worth, I'm preaching to myself here!. Your servant Samba das 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.