shankaracharya

[jijaji]

All seekers please examine carefully what each religious belief system asks of you, keeping in mind three rules:

 

1.What you are required to believe is what the system cannot prove.

 

2.Anything that you are asked to keep secret is of more value to the teacher than to the student.

 

3.*Any practice that is forbidden offers something that the system cannot successfully replace with an alternative.

 

Q:

"Don't you believe that giving up the pleasures of the senses will produce a different consciousness?"

 

A:

"My personal experience, is that it produced the consciousness of fanaticism."

 

 

 

[theist]

jijaji said,

Q:

"Don't you believe that giving up the pleasures of the senses will produce a different consciousness?"

 

A:

"My personal experience, is that it produced the consciousness of fanaticism."

jijaji,

 

I accept that merely trying to renounce material pleasure can produce a frustrated fanatic.

 

But as you know one can also renounce material sense 'pleasure' by experiencing spiritual pleasure.Trading up.Like giving up a Saab for a Bently or a Mazarotti.

 

A problem arises however when we find ourselves being dishonest and engaging in pretense.Trying to fool ourself as well as others.

 

What do you think?

 

 

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by jijaji:

Q:

"Don't you believe that giving up the pleasures of the senses will produce a different consciousness?"

 

A:

"My personal experience, is that it produced the consciousness of fanaticism."

I have written on this before. While every school has looked at sense enjoyment as an obstacle to ultimate realization, this takes extreme forms in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. If we take sex for example, Srila Prabhupad restricts even Grahasthas to having sex only once a month and that to for begetting religious children. I am unaware if this has any shastric basis. If we look at most ancient books, including the ones in Tamil, they place no such restriction. On the contrary, books like Thirumanthiram do offer tantric insights into sex. If we look at any ancient temple, we do find explicit depictions of sexual acts. Before GV, no acarya, be it Sri Ramanuja or Adi Sankara, put such restrictions on sex. This has often made me wonder why such extreme restrictions are found in GV. I am yet to get a convincing answer for this.

 

My understanding is that, in Sanatana dharma, there no such thing as giving up sense enjoyment. You just transcend that. Can you really transcend by artificial renunciation? Artificial renunciation, not only leads to fanaticism, but in most cases you fall down more miserably. What is the point in pretending to have given up sex, when you ultimately end up marrying somebody's ex-wife whom you used to address mataji? Yet, every ISKCON speaker will urge impressionable young men to renounce sex. I find that terrible. I have come across many 20+ boys, who have pathetic conceptions of sex. I have also wondered as to why the same speaker never urged the young man to give up his job. Is a job that pays $8000 a month less addictive than sex?

 

Is there any shastric injunction against sex enjoyment between a man and his wife?

 

[karthik_v]

I have often come across unqualified attacks on Adi Sankara and Advaita from many speakers in ISKCON. I will quote one such without naming the guru. A disciple asked: Which of the 2 is better, Advaita or atheism?

 

The response was: Which of the 2 is better, yellow stool or brown stool?

 

I found this to be highly repulsive. Is anyone qualified to deal with Adi Sankara in such a condescending and obnoxious manner? We can always criticize another philosophy in a knowledgeable way, but this is not one such.

 

Now don't misconstrue that I am anti-ISKCON. It is the teachings of Srila Prabhupad that appeals most to me. Yet, we need not be hesitant of pointing out something that is wrong. May be SP was very critical of Advaita as it was most popular in the USA then. Knowledgeable devotees can enlighten me here.

 

[jijaji]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

I have written on this before. While every school has looked at sense enjoyment as an obstacle to ultimate realization, this takes extreme forms in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. If we take sex for example, Srila Prabhupad restricts even Grahasthas to having sex only once a month and that to for begetting religious children. I am unaware if this has any shastric basis. If we look at most ancient books, including the ones in Tamil, they place no such restriction. On the contrary, books like Thirumanthiram do offer tantric insights into sex. If we look at any ancient temple, we do find explicit depictions of sexual acts. Before GV, no acarya, be it Sri Ramanuja or Adi Sankara, put such restrictions on sex. This has often made me wonder why such extreme restrictions are found in GV. I am yet to get a convincing answer for this.

 

My understanding is that, in Sanatana dharma, there no such thing as giving up sense enjoyment. You just transcend that. Can you really transcend by artificial renunciation? Artificial renunciation, not only leads to fanaticism, but in most cases you fall down more miserably. What is the point in pretending to have given up sex, when you ultimately end up marrying somebody's ex-wife whom you used to address mataji? Yet, every ISKCON speaker will urge impressionable young men to renounce sex. I find that terrible. I have come across many 20+ boys, who have pathetic conceptions of sex. I have also wondered as to why the same speaker never urged the young man to give up his job. Is a job that pays $8000 a month less addictive than sex?

 

Is there any shastric injunction against sex enjoyment between a man and his wife?

Right On..!

 

 

more later.....

 

 

 

[jijaji]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

A disciple asked: Which of the 2 is better, Advaita or atheism?

 

The response was: Which of the 2 is better, yellow stool or brown stool?

 

 

sounds like a very sick fanatic...

 

 

 

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by theist:

But as you know one can also renounce material sense 'pleasure' by experiencing spiritual pleasure.

Very true. But, is it possible for someone who is so addicted to earning a US degree or US dollars, to give up sex? Aren't Kamini and Pratishta asha most difficult to overcome even as per Srimad Bhagavatam? Transcending sense enjoyment and experiencing spiritual bliss is possible - not for all, but for a few. The majority still needs sense enjoyment within rules. Isn't that why we have Grahastha asrama? How come all the great rshis of the past enjoyed sex to their heart's content before retiring into aranyas? Here the question is: Are the rules prescribed in ISKCON having any shastric basis? And how come no other acharya before GV never forbade sex? Could it be that GV stance on sex is more an outcome of Muslim influence?

 

 

[shvu]

Is there any shastric injunction against sex enjoyment between a man and his wife?

Not that I am aware of. Au contraire, I remember instances of some prayers in the Vedas wishing for a long and prosperous life, etc.

 

The majority of people follow the karma marga, for that is the simplest and in my opinion, the most realistic one. A person should do his duty and try not to be affected by the results. Having born as humans it is natural for people to enjoy being prosperous, and enjoying sensual pleasures which have been made available to mankind. There is nothing wrong with this, unless it is taken to extremes and in fact, a person who follows a trade/profession should do it to the best of his ability and make the most out of it. Renunciation of sensual pleasures and worldy possessions are for people who wish to take up sanyasa which is an alternate way and is not an inclination found in many.

 

However in India, we find this has not been followed correctly. One who wishes to be prosperous is frowned upon as materialistic and greedy. A feeling that material pursuits are bad was created among the people. With such an attitude, people have over the centuries, lost their drive and become weak and fatalistic with a "What can we do? This is our fate..." outlook in life.

 

Many believe, this is a result of confusion due to improper understanding of scriptures. For instance, the Gita verse 18.66 is interpreted literally as, "give up all your dharma" by most of it's commentators, which is incorrect.

 

Cheers

 

[theist]

What is the purpose of yoga practice if not to transcend mundane desires?All paths agree with the necessity to do so.

 

So even in marriage this should be kept in mind.Your spouse is not a sex toy.If loving affection is really there we will be helping each other develop bhakti as the primary goal.

 

The mind and material molded senses will demand so many things from us.Some will power is required to get us through the transitional stage.

 

Will power alone will never suffice however.

 

Nothing can replace the actual surrender to Krishna.He will carry us.

[theist]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Very true. But, is it possible for someone who is so addicted to earning a US degree or US dollars, to give up sex? Aren't Kamini and Pratishta asha most difficult to overcome even as per Srimad Bhagavatam? Transcending sense enjoyment and experiencing spiritual bliss is possible - not for all, but for a few. The majority still needs sense enjoyment within rules. Isn't that why we have Grahastha asrama? How come all the great rshis of the past enjoyed sex to their heart's content before retiring into aranyas? Here the question is: Are the rules prescribed in ISKCON having any shastric basis? And how come no other acharya before GV never forbade sex? Could it be that GV stance on sex is more an outcome of Muslim influence?

Who is forbiding sex?SP even helped some of his disciples get married.Grhastra ASHRAM is a holy order as I see it.

 

Doesn't a particular guru have the option of defining somewhat what it means to be his disciple?

 

Some may be disciples and some followers in a more general sense.

 

 

[shvu]

I found this to be highly repulsive. Is anyone qualified to deal with Adi Sankara in such a condescending and obnoxious manner? We can always criticize another philosophy in a knowledgeable way, but this is not one such.

The Madhva and Ramanuja traditions also disgaree with Advaita and in fact, were founded on the basis that they differed from Shankara in interpreting Vedanta. These 3 have among themselves held several debates and have criticized one another a lot. But their criticism has always followed the rules of debate and they provide scriptural logic for their disagreement. This reqires that the critic know the tenets of the opponent as well as the opponent himself.

 

However in the case of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, this did not happen because,

 

1. Unlike the big three, the GV system is not based on Sruti. This ruled out any common grounds for debate. This also meant the followers of GV did not have to study the other systems.

 

3. The tradition of polemics died out in India, in the last few centuries.

 

Consequently, their criticism has no scriptual basis and is un-scholarly with people indulging in name-calling and abusing Shankara. The founder had to compete with the Ramakrishna Math in the US, which was already popular and hence he criticized the baaaaad mayavadins. His disciples are following suit, without really knowing a thing about Mayavada. All they know about it is, it is very bad with the arrogant mayavadins wanting to be God [sic].

 

Cheers

 

[Rati]

Do not confuse traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavism with the brand offered by Gaudiya Math and ISCKON. The traditional sampradayas have no such restrictions on sex between married couples (what was introduced in those institutions, along with many other new inventions), and the overall prohibition against sex outside of marriage is really something that is part of Hindu society and was just taken for granted. Also, even with the general stigma attached to illicit sex, still prostitutes always thrived in Hindu culture. I guess going to brothers is not really considered to be as bad as having involvement with someone who is married and not your own spouse.

 

Traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava society only has householders for the most part, with only a mere handful of Bababjis making up the renounced order. so it is not in fact expected for most people to ever leave household life, which when you think about it is the most practical approach for this day and age.

 

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by Shvu:

For instance, the Gita verse 18.66 is interpreted literally as, "give up all your dharma" by most of it's commentators, which is incorrect.

Thanks for the nice post. I have also come across very erotic verses in the 10th mandala of Rk veda. What is Adi Sankara's Bhasya on this verse [18.66]?

 

Originally posted by Theist:

What is the purpose of yoga practice if not to transcend mundane desires?All paths agree with the necessity to do so.

Transcend, yes. Renounce, no. Also, can everybody transcend? And does every other sampradaya impose such restrictions as GV does? More than all, I would like to know the shastric basis.

 

Originally posted by Theist:

So even in marriage this should be kept in mind.Your spouse is not a sex toy.If loving affection is really there we will be helping each other develop bhakti as the primary goal.

Did the rshis who enjoyed sex with their wives use them as toys? Was Apala used as a toy by her husband? When the great Andal expresses her lust for Lord Vishnu, was she not being transcendental? Is sexual attraction between a man and his wife the anti-thesis of true affection and love? Is it really an impediment to spiritual advance that it has to be artificially repressed? I would really appreciate some shastric references.

 

Originally posted by Theist:

Nothing can replace the actual surrender to Krishna.He will carry us.

Agreed. Whether we renounce artificially or not, if we are truly surrendered, He will carry us. On the other hand, despite artificial suppressions, if we lack surrender, He will just say You have got a long way to go baby.

 

Originally posted by Theist:

Grhastra ASHRAM is a holy order as I see it.

So do I. Is there anything unholy about sex between a man and his wife?

 

Originally posted by Theist:

Doesn't a particular guru have the option of defining somewhat what it means to be his disciple?

Very much, yes. But does it not have to be based on shastras? Please correct me if I am wrong. Even Guru pramana is valid only if it has shastric basis.

 

Originally posted by Theist:

Some may be disciples and some followers in a more general sense.

Which means that we cannot have rules and restrictions dished out to all and sundry [especially impressionable young men], as is done often. Specific restrictions should be given to initiated disciples in secrecy, based their levels while the general audience [mostly grahasthas] should get a discourse that applies to them. Again that rules out aggressive preaching against sex within mariage, in public lectures and to those not initiated. Above all, we should explain as to why GV alone has this kind of extreme restrictions on sex, which even other Vaishnava traditions like Sri sampradaya and Madhva sampradaya don't.

[jijaji]

Why are all these so-called renounced celibates always so concerned about married peoples private lives?

 

Because they are affected by SEX in two ways;

 

1. Fear

 

2. Fascination

 

And they go back and forth between these extremes, other wise they would not have to 'Fight the Flesh'

 

God created me with natural urges and desires, these celibate-preist types are against God I say!!!

 

They are always condemming that which God blessed me with.

 

God is all good and supplies us with the ability to enjoy and prosper in the world while we are on the path to the spiritual world.

 

Many will tell you to give up everything here to attain the eternal relm.

This is putting the horse before the cart.

Celibacy HAPPENS to one like the falling of a leaf...not imposed...after one has realization of the divine on such a level one no longer is attracted to this side.

The practice of 'Celibacy' is a sham because Celibacy is something that happens to you through spiritual attainment, whereby you become disinterested in sense pleasures. You don't condemm you just are unaffected by callings of the senses as they are insignificant to what is happening inside you spiritually.

That is something that cannot be PRACTICED!!

 

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-08-2002).]

[Guest guest]

Your representation of Indian religious affiliations before Mahaprabhu is misleading.

It can be compared to another religious resurgence,the 60's spiritual awakening.

In the late 19th century there was a semi-popular emergence of eastern philosophy,and religious practices.Popularized by Madame Blavatsky,Tennyson,And many other Russians,Germans,French,and British aristocracy,communes and the "occult" became all the rage,among the intellectual,and moneyed elite.This continued till WW1,then it more or less dissapated.

In the 1960's the earlier "movement",was reborn,and took on massive proportions,engulfing the majority of the western world.

This is what happened in India,there were vibrant devotional communities,previous to Caitanya,But it attained massive proportions due to him,engulfing not only the intellectuals who could read Jayadeva,or the other poet's,Mahaprabhu spread Bhakti far and wide ,from the lowest,to the highest.

Why you have a fixation on the intracacies of who initiated who,is lost on me.It seems to me to be nothing more then an attempt to belittle vaisnavas,an activity that can hardly be considered auspicious.

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by shiva:

Why you have a fixation on the intracacies of who initiated who,is lost on me.It seems to me to be nothing more then an attempt to belittle vaisnavas,an activity that can hardly be considered auspicious.

Prabhuji,

 

I know that your post was meant for Jijaji, but I wanted to respond to this part quoted above. If we are offended when somebody points out that Caitanya Mahaprabhu was initiated by an Advaita acharya [though I regard that as a valid question], don't you think that the followers of Advaita philosophy and Hindus in general will be very offended when even ISKCON sannyasis compare Adi Sankara's philosophy of Advaita to yellow stool? Don't you think that a lot of followers of Advaita philosophy will be offended when many ISKCON sannyasis, despite their limited knowledge of Advaita, condemn that philosophy day in and day out? Don't you think that a lot of Hindus in general will be very offended when some GV sannyasi declares that Parvati is none but a mere servant of Krishna? Don't you think that a lot of Hindus will feel offended when ISKCON speakers time and again declare that Shiva is just a demi-God? To be very honest, I have not seen even one condescending remark about other traditions in the many writings of Swami Chandrasekharendra Saraswati, the former pontiff of Kanchi Sankara mutt. That makes me wonder as to what makes the sannyasis of ISKCON more qualified than that great seer that they can abuse even Adi Sankara and Advaita. If we make sweeping and childish generalizations about other schools of philosophies, then we should be prepared for a sharp response from knowledgeable practitioners of those schools.

 

Just imagine how often we have been told in ISKCON and GV that Adi Sankara's Advaita was a stop-gap arrangement that was meant to counter Buddhism and that was meant to be brushed aside by Sri Ramanuja. Did anyone ever quote any shastric evidence for such a claim? Did we ever question as to why Adi Sankara created disciplic succession, if that were really the case?

 

I have seen my father, a devout follower of Lord Narayana, getting repulsed when ISKCON sannyasis make such uninformed and biased remarks about Adi Sankara and Advaita. I am not surprised that a follower of Advaita is offended.

[jijaji]

Brahmacarya: Brahmacarya refers to a state of mind in which we see everyone and everything as an expression of the Supreme. To practice Brahmacarya, we must open our minds to delve into the hidden depths of creation and to see that there is a single energy and a single consciousness pervading all forms. The word Brahmacarya is a composite of two words, i.e. Brahma, the Supreme, and carya, to observe. (Contrary to popular Indian meaning, it does not mean celibacy.)

[theist]

I wonder why the fuss over what iskcon sannyasi's say about sex.I prefer to hear from SP's tapes.He said "Who you hear from, that is your guru", so I'm more than a little cautious.

 

I remember hearing an early lecture tape where SP was telling his students not to preach the four reg's., but rather to induce people to chant Hare Krishna and take prasadam.The point was by connecting the consciousness, through the senses,to Krishna,one would become more and more attracted, as He is the All-attractive. The other things follow along more naturally.

 

Anyway this is a Sankaracarya thread so let me ask anyone what he taught on celibacy and the like.

 

theist

[Rati]

The characterizations that have been made hear about the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition really only apply to Gaudiya Math and ISKCON, which diverged from the tradition and even Bhaktivinode's teachings to the point where they now claim an independent sampradaya called the 'Sarasvata Sampradaya'. So, to be accurate you need to speak either of the actual Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition or the Sarasvata tradition. Otherwise you are literally comparing apples and oranges. It is the Sarasvata Vaishnavas that are declaring war on the Shankarites, not the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. The Gaudiya's may point out the differences from a doctrinal standpoint, but you do not find them deriding Advaitins. Certainly they do not adhere to monistic philosophy and stress instead Bhagavan realization over Brahman realization, but that does not mean there are actual hostilities. Neither do they butt heads with the other Vaishnava lines such as the Sri Sampradaya (only the Sarasvata followers engage in that). I attended a cari sampradaya festival (open to all Vaishnava sampradayas from the four major lines) in Vrindavan twenty years ago and there were also Gaudiya Babajis and householders present, and eveyone got along fine and had prasadam and kirtan together joyfully. Of course there were no ISKCON or Gaudiya Math followers present (perhaps they were not invited for a reason).

[Rati]

As Dr. Kapoor points out in his book "The Philosophy and Religion of Sri Caitanya" (Chapter III) - Thakura Vrndavana Dasa explains that Sri Caitanya gave diksa to Kesava Bharati instead of the other way around. This is confirmed in the biography of Murari Gupta (who was a contemporary of Sri Caitanya and was giving a first hand account), so that would not be a later interpolation (since Jijaji is suspicious of later biographers fabricating evidence after the fact, I thought I should point this out). Dr. Kapoor also elaborates on this: "That Mahaprabhu's Sannyasa diksa by Kesava Bharati was only apparent is also proved by the fact that Kesava Bharati did not give him the title 'Bharati' but only the name 'Sri Krsna Caitanya', which was against the usual practice of his Sampradaya." ... "It is significant that Sri Caitanya did not behave like this towards his mantra guru Isvara Puri."

 

At any rate the supposed connection with the Madhvaites is not substantiated by any of the textual or historical evidence, and certainly not in doctrine.

[abhi_the_great]

Gee...when the milk is churned butter is separated!!

shvu

Krishna has in his Geeta talked abt mukti and bhakti. And he has clearly said that bhakti pleases him more (12 chapter). There is no scope for further argument bcos this is the point where Arjuna asks Krishna to come out clearly in black and white. Krishna has given his clear verdict, on what pleases him most. Admitted that the others also reach their destiny after considerable stuggle.

 

The purpose of preaching and style of preaching of Gaudiyas, is for bringing bhakti, Krishna's darling, to the forefront. For this purpose Gaudiyas have adopted different tactics.

 

Ultimately, there is only one way (sarva dharman prityaja mam ekam saranam vraja), but inbetween there are many steps. In that spirit karma, dhyana, jnana, mukti are all respectful. All these lead to the complete surrender to the lotus feet of Krishna, ultimately.

 

It is best to learn all shastras(shruti & smrti), but if one can only repeat the words of Mahaprabhu without false interpretation, he is also learned and he is dear to the Lord.

 

Srila Prabhupad has followed this simple principle, so that his discples do not get too entangled by the details and miss the gist. Srila Prabhupad was not against learning the Sruthi. But since Srimad Bhagavatam was considered by Mahaprabhu as the natural commentary to Vedanta, he did not find it necessary to go thru all the Vedas and Upanishads. Even if we want to thoroughly learn them all, one life is not enough, and today many of the brahmanas which were originally present in Vedas are not present.

 

Talking abt fanaticism, its better to see what Yadava Prakash, the fanatic Guru of Ramanuja tried to do to him. Instead of arguing and defeating, he simply tried to kill him. If Gaudiyas are talking heavily against Adhvaita, I do not see it as much offendable as murdering Ramanuja.

 

Sri Caithanya never killed any Advaitha-vadis, he preached to them and convinced them abt the Acintya philosophy. Sri Chaitanya only said kaivalya is hellish, since there is no service to the Lord. If we check why there is such a rhetoric, we can understand that its bcos, there is lack of bhakti. In bhakti only the mood is important - its just the mood - that's it.

 

Externally Sridhara Swami might be an advaithin, even Madhavendra and Isvara puri might be an advaithin, by their sampradaya, by their sannyasa dhanda, by there vibhuti, but internally who can understand??? ONLY VISHNU, ONLY MAHAPRABHU. How can we speculate what kind of relationship they actually shared? Certainly not a scholar like De. Only the Supreme loving father can understand the mood of each of his children. And he reciprocates accordingly. If they were not pure devotees completely immersed in the mood of loving servitude, the supreme wd have never been so merciful to them.

 

The only reason why the Lord had accepted Puris and Bharathis and Saraswathis, is bcos of their special love for him and His special love for them. If the Lord has accepted them, the natural conclusion is they were devotees of the highest order.

 

jijaji

Open ended questions are good to bring doubt in the minds of the faithless or semi-faithful, but those who have closely studied the actions of the Lord know, that all his actions are for giving pleasure to his devotees."Paritranaya sadhunam".

 

[Avinash]

One who restrains the senses and organs of action, but whose mind dwells on sense objects, certainly deludes himself and is called a pretender. (Bhagwad Gita 3.6)

 

[sha]

Originally posted by Avinash:

One who restrains the senses and organs of action, but whose mind dwells on sense objects, certainly deludes himself and is called a pretender. (Bhagwad Gita 3.6)

 

[This message has been edited by sha (edited 04-26-2002).]

[abhi_the_great]

Originally posted by Avinash:

One who restrains the senses and organs of action, but whose mind dwells on sense objects, certainly deludes himself and is called a pretender. (Bhagwad Gita 3.6)

Not me, not me!!! Krishna, pls reveal my exalted position to Avinash. KRISHNAAAAAA!!!

 

I am the best, I am the best, no one can be greater than me!! No, I will not allow it. RAMAAAAAAAAA!!!

 

[Avinash]

I am the best, I am the best, no one can be greater than me!!

 

Should you not use "Me" rather than "me"?