Universality and transcendance

[Beggar]

 

 

I fail to see how this now becomes the eternal religion of the soul. A christian will make the same argument for his religion and a moslem will do the same.

 

Cheers

Sanatan dharma simply means service to the Supreme Being which is the natural positon of every soul, hence, "the eternal religion of the soul." Of course if you want to see only the differences in each monotheistic religion this will not make sense to you.

[theist]

 

As I have said several times before, Sanatana Dharma is a term coined by Indian patriots less than 200 years ago as they were resentful of the term Hindu for its foreign origin. It was an outcome of the mood of the time, much similar to how Bombay became Mumbai recently.

 

I fail to see how this now becomes the eternal religion of the soul. A christian will make the same argument for his religion and a moslem will do the same.

 

Cheers

 

Why are you an atheist so interested in a debate such as this? For anyone out there that may not know and by curious, sanatana means eternal, dharma means religion or duty or nature. The eternal nature, the eternal religion, the eternal duty of every soul as part and parcel of krishna is to love Him and serve Him. THAT IS THE SANATAN DHARMA.

 

I spare everyone the rest of my thoughts right now but I am astonished at how incredibly stupid some people on this forum are. To argue over such a simple term... ahh the hell with this.

[theist]

 

Sanatan dharma simply means service to the Supreme Being which is the natural positon of every soul, hence, "the eternal religion of the soul." Of course if you want to see only the differences in each monotheistic religion this will not make sense to you.

 

I made my comment before reading yours. Can you believe the level this so-called debate has sunk to. It is amazing how people can read the literature we have been exposed to and appear to talk such high level theology but yet remain so absolutely clueless. Absolutely no spiritual vision in the slightest.

 

Religion is for sure one of the last great hurdles to cross over on the way to finding the Lord.

[Amlesh]

 

Religion is for sure one of the last great hurdles to cross over on the way to finding the Lord.

 

Well said, for sure the eternal confusion created by the different issues pertaining to religion, culture, rituals can be eradicated if we can understand properly the various purpose of our Holybooks. The vedas and Upanishads are the 2 extremities and for sure there is a mediator. In simpler words I would say, the Veda is the Thesis, the upanishads becomes the Anti-thesis and it's the Gita which acts as the Synthesis bringing both ends to common grounds.

 

When all confusions are cleared, then only one becomes the seer of God.

[cbrahma]

 

I know he wore saffron, the nama, practised ekadashi, etc, etc., which - surprise, surprise - is exactly the set of traditions peculiar to Vaishnava sects in India.

 

What make it is a universal solution to the world's problems? I do not see Hare Krishnas from Prabhupada's time necessarily being happier than other humans. In fact, it is the other way around for a number of them - their misery and repressions a testimony of the failure of the path they chose. So much for an universal solution.

 

Cheers

Yes but he made an important distinction between the external rites and Krsna Consciousness.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

In simpler words I would say, the Veda is the Thesis, the upanishads becomes the Anti-thesis and it's the Gita which acts as the Synthesis bringing both ends to common grounds.

 

 

I honestly don't see how a credible case can be built in support of this idea. The fact is that the Gita is far more akin to the Upanishads in spirit, essence and structure; for this obvious reason, it is often called the Gitopanishad. Typically, the gist of most/all Upanishads revolves around questions put by a party to a sage or more knowledgeable personage and develops through the responses formulated thereof, and in this shares the same fundament with the Gita.

 

The four Vedas, on the other hand, concern themselves with hymns that are meant to be chanted during fire sacrifices to the personified forces of nature, later deified as Indra, Varuna and Rudra (who may or may not be the Shiva that we know today) and equally bear references to accounts that may be partly historical in origin (examples of such are the Battle of Ten Kings, the protracted wars of attrition between the so-called Aryans and Dasas/Dasyus etc). Of course, I am diametrically at odds with the mainstream Indologists on this score, being a committed opponent of the AIT/AMT/acculturation model or any of the variations of the largely outmoded racial theories on the genesis of Indian civilisation. The point remains, however, and it is one which the naive believers of the popular or should I say populist Puranic version of events cannot escape, that the very verses of the Vedas vehemently contradict the pious notion that they are "apaurusheya" as claimed by a sizeable chunk from within the tradition. Instead of Vedic dharma being an age-old God-given essence, the internal textual evidence would indicate that Indian spirituality in all of its phenomenal contemporary diversity, is a product of complex historical processes. Thus, in the Vedas, we have mundane military skirmishes, priests appealing to the natural forces for a number of different purposes and a host of other elements, but strangely, never God Himself, whether in a personal or impersonal capacity, being directly revealed to earthly humans, or even delivering spiritual information to them, in contrast with the Koran, for instance, where we have a divine envoy personally instructing Hazrat Mohammed on divinity. Many people, and Vaishnavas specifically, do not seem to be able to resist the temptation to artificially syncretise the widely diverging, from a geographical, philosophical and historiographical perspective, various divisions of Sanskrit scriptures. What defendable scholarly research and opinions would demonstrate, however, is that such approaches are more works of fiction than anything else and tend to have a far greater insubstantial basis in reality than their exponents would have the rest of the world believe.

 

Having said this, Amlesh, I appreciate the mood in which and humility with which your posts are written and I shall terminate on this note: may the self-appointed Vaishnava apologists on this forum learn from you an ounce of spiritual qualities as rudimentary as tolerance, compassion and generosity of spirit. Then again, I'm not holding my breath on that.

[Amlesh]

 

The fact is that the Gita is far more akin to the Upanishads in spirit, essence and structure; for this obvious reason, it is often called the Gitopanishad.

 

 

Yes it's true, but Gita does not neglect material nature also. That's why it is known to be the mediator of all existing philosophies.

[Kulapavana]

 

When iskcon devotees are preaching, it is only then that iskcon/krishna-conciousness/hare-krishna is transcendental to Hinduism.

 

It's only when iskcon devotees want money or are fighting persecution that suddently iskcon is a part of the grand Hindu tradition.

 

Nothing wrong with that, right?

 

Perhaps during the times of Bhaktivinoda Thakur or even earlier, the idea that somehow "the end justifies the means" crept into the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, eating it from the inside, by removing the essential element of total honesty. Devotees started to think that it is ok to lie and cheat as long as it is useful, at least for the moment, in serving Krsna. Truth became something flexible, that you could bend to suit your needs. And in Iskcon that idea became very prevalent, both in terms of crooked doctrine, and crooked practice. ISKCON was turned into Isk-CON, where devotees were using various con-games to collect the money, and where in turn they themselves were conned by their con-master leaders, sannyasis, and "gurus".

 

IMO that is the root cause of all the problems that plague this movement.

I know many sweet and advanced devotees in Iskcon, and there is plenty of good in this movement. But without total honesty and total rejection of the idea that "the end justifies the means" this movement is not going to live up to it's potential.

[shvu]

 

Yes but he made an important distinction between the external rites and Krsna Consciousness.

 

If the distinction was real, then why bother to continue age-old sectaran practices such as the nama, etc from India and expect Americans to follow these Indian traditions? Should you not as a follower of the tradition accept the rules he laid down as having some significance? Then you will have to accept that these external rites exist for a reason and they are connected to Krishna consciousness or else Prabhupada would have kept these rites outside his universal movement - Iskcon.

 

If you as a Guru intended to create a universal spiritual movement which was free from the limitations of existing religious systems, then the first thing you would do is give it a new name to clearly identify the uniqueness. But if you choose to use a 1000+ year old name [which is still in use] to your new movement and try to modify its meaning, how does that work?

 

Instead of C vs. V, if you argued for C vs. GV - which is what you are really arguing for anyway - then I doubt you will have anyone objecting here. But when you use the more generic term Vaishnava and read new meanings into it, then it is only fair that you expect to be challenged on a general discussion forum.

 

Cheers

[cbrahma]

 

If the distinction was real, then why bother to continue age-old sectaran practices such as the nama, etc from India and expect Americans to follow these Indian traditions? Should you not as a follower of the tradition accept the rules he laid down as having some significance? Then you will have to accept that these external rites exist for a reason and they are connected to Krishna consciousness or else Prabhupada would have kept these rites outside his universal movement - Iskcon.

 

If you as a Guru intended to create a universal spiritual movement which was free from the limitations of existing religious systems, then the first thing you would do is give it a new name to clearly identify the uniqueness. But if you choose to use a 1000+ year old name [which is still in use] to your new movement and try to modify its meaning, how does that work?

 

Instead of C vs. V, if you argued for C vs. GV - which is what you are really arguing for anyway - then I doubt you will have anyone objecting here. But when you use the more generic term Vaishnava and read new meanings into it, then it is only fair that you expect to be challenged on a general discussion forum.

 

Cheers

His approach was non-sectarian completely. He wanted to create brahmins simply to have Diety worship in the temple where people could visit and associate with devotees. The first priority was sankirtana.

[shvu]

 

His approach was non-sectarian completely.

 

Very well. You will agree then, that this non-sectarian movement should not have been given the sectarian name Vaishnavism, as Vaishnavism has a long history and through all its history, it has always been sectarian, even to this day. There is really nothing in scripture to to show Vaishnavism as anything other than sectarian and any liberal meanings associated with the name are nothing more than unfounded claims from recent Gurus.

 

In the absence of historical and scriptural evidence, it boils down to this - If you have faith in the words of these Gurus and require no further corroboration, then a new, universal non-sectarian movement can pass for Vaishnavism. If mere faith in the words of these Gurus is not sufficient and alternate corroboration is necessary, then as no such evidence exists, it is concluded that a non-sectarian movement such as iskcon cannot qualify as Vaishnavism. It has to have a different name.

 

Pure semantics as I see it.

 

Cheers

[cbrahma]

 

Very well. You will agree then, that this non-sectarian movement should not have been given the sectarian name Vaishnavism,

Vaisnavism is NOT Sectarian in spite of what you read on this forum.

That is the sum and substance of your misunderstanding.

[shvu]

 

Vaisnavism is NOT Sectarian in spite of what you read on this forum.

That is the sum and substance of your misunderstanding.

 

Then try and explain how it relates to Shaktism and Shaivism and how they have been perceived in history. I mean the actual perception, not your understanding.

 

Also your understanding othe word sect will be helpful.

 

Cheers

[cbrahma]

 

Then try and explain how it relates to Shaktism and Shaivism and how they have been perceived in history. I mean the actual perception, not your understanding.

 

Also your understanding othe word sect will be helpful.

 

Cheers

 

I've already quoted Bhaktivinode Thakur on the subject of sectarianism.

Since you don't remember I'll do it again.

 

The different activities practiced in the process of worship are called alocanagata. Examples of alocanagata are sacrifices, austerities, fire sacrifices, vows, studying scriptures, deity worship, constructing temples, respecting the purity of various trees and rivers, dressing like sannyasis, acting like acaryas, dressing like brahmacaris or grhasthas, closing one s eyes, respecting particular types of books, rules and regulations in eating, and respecting the purity of particular times and places. The examples of alocyagata are attributing personalism or impersonalism on the Supreme Lord, installing deities, exhibiting the mood of an incarnation of the Lord, speculating on heaven and hell, and describing the future destination of the soul. The different forms of these spiritual activities create divisions of sectarianism.

 

Differences that arise from places, times, languages, behaviors, foods, dresses, and natures of various communities are incorporated within people s spiritual practices and gradually make one community so completely different from another community that even the consideration that everyone is a human being may cease to exist. Due to these differences there is disagreement, cessation of social intercourse, and fighting, even up to the point of killing one another. When an asslike mentality becomes prominent within the kanistha-adhikaris, they certainly indulge in these things. But if they develop a swanlike mentality, then they do not take part in quarrels; rather, they endeavor to attain a higher level. Madhyama-adhikaris do not quarrel so much about external standards, but they are always attacked by philosophical disagreements. Sometimes they condemn the standards of neophytes and establish their own standards as superior. They condemn the neophytes deity worship in order to establish the worshipable Lord as formless. In such cases, they are also considered asslike people. Otherwise, if they had a swanlike mentality and a desire to attain a higher level, they would respect others practices and inquire about higher topics. Contradictions actually arise only due to asslike mentality. Swanlike persons consider the necessity for different practices according to one‘s qualification, so they are naturally detached from sectarian quarrels. In this regard, it should be understood that both asslike and swanlike people are found amongst the kanistha-adhikaris and madhyama-adhikaris. I do not expect that asslike people will accept this book with respect. If neophytes and madhyama-adhikaris become completely indifferent in regard to the contradictions found in various practices and try to advance further, then they become swanlike persons. Then they are our respectable and dear friends. Although swanlike personalities may accept a particular practice from birth or childhood according to instructions they have received, they nevertheless remain indifferent and nonsectarian.

 

Sectarianism then obviously identifies the transcendental realities with material rites and rituals. It's as simple as that. A Vaisnava neophyte will argue to the death that those who don't follow all the presribed rituals aren't Vaisnavas, especially those who don't worship in the temple (arcanam).

Jesus broke with the temple religion, that is the religious Rabbis, the Pharisees. They considered Him to be so heretical they wanted Him dead.

He spoke of worship in Spirit and in Truth. That is sanatana dharma, knowledge of brahman.

[raghu]

 

Perhaps during the times of Bhaktivinoda Thakur or even earlier, the idea that somehow "the end justifies the means" crept into the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, eating it from the inside, by removing the essential element of total honesty. Devotees started to think that it is ok to lie and cheat as long as it is useful, at least for the moment, in serving Krsna. Truth became something flexible, that you could bend to suit your needs. And in Iskcon that idea became very prevalent, both in terms of crooked doctrine, and crooked practice. ISKCON was turned into Isk-CON, where devotees were using various con-games to collect the money, and where in turn they themselves were conned by their con-master leaders, sannyasis, and "gurus".

 

IMO that is the root cause of all the problems that plague this movement.

I know many sweet and advanced devotees in Iskcon, and there is plenty of good in this movement. But without total honesty and total rejection of the idea that "the end justifies the means" this movement is not going to live up to it's potential.

 

Far be it for me to amend, add to, or disagree with this analysis in anyway, but having met a few sweet, soft-spoken devotees in iskcon whose voices are rarely heard, and then having seen the obnoxious ones who loudly frequent forums such as these, I have a different perception of the problem. I think iskcon's problem is that it has shudras doing all of its "preaching." By which I mean their steadfast dedication to the gangster-like strategy of avoiding coherent thought and resorting instead to the internet equivalent of clubs and baseball bats to bludgeon their opponents into silence. Which rarely works since people aren't as stupid and as obsequious as they think. It kind of gets back to what I was saying somewhere else about the little bully syndrome. It just seems to me that iskcon isn't the place to be if you are looking for genuine spiritual guidance/authentic Vaishnavism. But it is the place be if you are a social misfit who enjoys a sense of newfound power and authority.

 

At least if these iskconites could distance themselves from terms like "Vaishnavism,Vedic,Bhagavad-gita" etc then no one would really care what they preach. It is only because they preach many wrong ideas in the name of Vaishnavism that those of us who are truly committed to that discipline feel obligated to step forward and stop them from dragging our sampradayas through the mud.

 

I have, on more than one occasion, seen friends become attracted to iskcon based on what appeared to them to be a shared spiritual point of view, only to be violently excommunicated when they could not accept some of the strange neo-Hindu ideas that the iskcon people were propagating.

[shvu]

 

I've already quoted Bhaktivinode Thakur on the subject of sectarianism.

Since you don't remember I'll do it again.

 

Bhakti Vinod is not an authority on the topic. Something does not become true just because Bhakti Vinod or someone else said so. It appears that is sufficient for you, but I would like to remind you that you are in a generic discussion forum arguing with non-Gaudiya Vaishnavas. And therefore, bald statements from Gaudiya Gurus without substantiation add no value.

 

If you were to pick up a history book or a Purana or a sanskrit dictionary and read about Vaishnavism/Shaivism/Shaktism, their growth, their interactions, etc., you will be in a much better position to understand this. But without any of the above and wholly relying on Prabhupada's propoganda statements will continue to leave you ignorant and misinformed about some ground realities of religion in India.

 

If you are aware that your view of Vaishnavism is specific to you and your Gurus and you are fine with continuing to hold on to the same view regardless of its veracity, then you are welcome to. We all are entitled to our own opinions, however incorrect they may be. But if you want take a step back and learn more without applying your biases, then you can start here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaivism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaishnavism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaktism

 

And to round off,

 

Dictionary meaning of Sect - A group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or a leader.

 

You will learn that Vaishnava is an Indian sect just like several other sects, no matter how much some people here may try to distort the real picture. Other than sentiments and baseless statements by some Bengali Babus, there is nothing else to support the elevation of any of these sects to a non-sectarian level.

 

Cheers

[cbrahma]

 

Bhakti Vinod is not an authority on the topic. Something does not become true just because Bhakti Vinod or someone else

Cheers

You are incredible. Dis-ing a major acarya, Bhaktisiddhanta's spiritual master.

ROFLMAO

[matarisvan]

 

You are incredible. Dis-ing a major acarya, Bhaktisiddhanta's spiritual master.

ROFLMAO

 

Yeah...right. will you accept that your whole argument is based on the axiomatic statements of Bhakti Vinoda Takur?

 

That will make everything simpler.

[cbrahma]

 

Yeah...right. will you accept that your whole argument is based on the axiomatic statements of Bhakti Vinoda Takur?

 

That will make everything simpler.

Guru-sastra-sadhu makes sectarianism very difficult. Too bad for trenchant Hindus.

[matarisvan]

 

You will learn that Vaishnava is an Indian sect just like several other sects, no matter how much some people here may try to distort the real picture. Other than sentiments and baseless statements by some Bengali Babus, there is nothing else to support the elevation of any of these sects to a non-sectarian level.

Cheers

I agree. The christians on this forum have been fed too many lies by their hare krishna gurus. Now they are not able to accept that they went wrong on the subject.

This is the danger of relying on a false position for sentimental reasons and wilfully igonring facts.

[matarisvan]

 

Guru-sastra-sadhu makes sectarianism very difficult. Too bad for trenchant Hindus.

 

Thanks for admitting your position. Continue to keep your head buried in the sand. You have been taken for a ride by Prabhupada and it is pathetic to see you have gone too far to be able to come out.

[cbrahma]

 

Thanks for admitting your position. Continue to keep your head buried in the sand. You have been taken for a ride by Prabhupada and it is pathetic to see you have gone too far to be able to come out.

I can see your position very clearly in any case. I'm sure you're Indian, with your arrogant Hindu bias. Not impressive.

[Kulapavana]

 

Thanks for admitting your position. Continue to keep your head buried in the sand. You have been taken for a ride by Prabhupada and it is pathetic to see you have gone too far to be able to come out.

 

In order to make Vaishnavism appeal to people with strong pro-Christian sentiment in the West, Prabhupada presented Krsna Consciousness in a particular fashion. Some of his followers took this compromise teachings as the final word, and stopped making the transition towards real Vaishnavism. They froze half way across the path. That was the risk he took. But many made it to the other side, casting away all former sentiments. Thus the risk was IMO worth taking.

[cbrahma]

 

In order to make Vaishnavism appeal to people with strong pro-Christian sentiment in the West, Prabhupada presented Krsna Consciousness in a particular fashion. Some of his followers took this compromise teachings as the final word, and stopped making the transition towards real Vaishnavism. They froze half way across the path. That was the risk he took. But many made it to the other side, casting away all former sentiments. Thus the risk was IMO worth taking.

Your presumption to know Prabhupada's intention in the absence of his voicing them is considerable. What necessity would there be to 'cast off' any sentiments, as though there were a contest between Christianity and Vaisnavism.

[Kulapavana]

 

Your presumption to know Prabhupada's intention in the absence of his voicing them is considerable. What necessity would there be to 'cast off' any sentiments, as though there were a contest between Christianity and Vaisnavism.

 

Read his introduction to Srimad Bhagavatam for clues.