The Purpose for Mahaprabhu's Movement?

[tsaneladi]

I find the essay on Mormonism fascinating. And, if we seek to spread the word of KC then we must find a niche other than "weird"- which is how many initial onlookers percieve the Indian dress, etc.

 

So to me the question is, either maintain the integrity of the intial thrust by SP's Mahaprabhu movement or focus on spreading the word by restructuring the approach.Only so many are going to sift through the cultural shock to get the message. It took me over 20 years of approaching and reapproaching the Bhagavad Gita to finally "get it".

 

This is why I have asked on the Dhoti thread why the Indian culture seems to be so intertwined with the KC movement. I am not opposed to it, I just havent heard the reason yet.

 

Is KC not seperable from India and its customs (many of which are actually Muslim addaptations)?

 

Would Mahaprabhu want the message to be twarted by cultural differences? Or would he want the word spread in an uncomprimised manner that was not affected or comnected to cultural apparel or customs.

 

The future of the movement, I believe, lies in these debates.

[Guest guest]

Tilak does not come from India but from Vrindavan. So wearing tilak cannot be considered Indian.

 

Now dhoti is the dress worn by Krishna Himself and it cannot be considered Indian.

 

Saree is worn by Lakshmi and cannot be considered Indian either.

 

However, if one is not able to wear these dresses in rememberance of the spiritual world, then one may wear western dress in rememberance of the Lord -

[Guest guest]

The purpose of mahaprabhu's and all other vaishnava movements is to teach advaitam. By debating advaitam, a devotee is slowly taught advaitam. Also it helps pseudo-advaitins to regain the devotional seed.

[shvu]

 

Ethos,

 

If you will excuse me for saying this, you are being dogmatic yourself. Besides, in my opinion, you missed Gauracandra's point.

 

 

What many devotees are pointing out here is that Lord Caitanya is a unique entity. So are many of the other individuals in Vedic history. Are you seriously comparing Lord Caitanya or Krsna to Jesus Christ for instance?

 

 

This is arrogance, plain and simple. Whether you accept it or not, Krishna is nothing to christians and they will raise a similar argument about how ridiculous it is to compare anyone with Christ. So long as a person thinks he is better than someone else in some way, he will remain arrogant.

 

 

You have certain qualities which cause you to think you're doing better than some but not as well as others. The glories and qualities of Vedic personalities have no comparison in the world. There are a few counterparts, but no comparisons. They are the personalities who imbibed and enunciated the highest spiritual and philosophical truths. But they are no better than Western personalities? Is the Bhagavad-gita just another opinion? Is it just another option?

 

 

Much as it may surprise you, the simple truth is BG is just one of the many options out there. If you are familiar with Indian religion, you must be knowing that the BG is scripture to only one section of Indians. What to say of the whole world?

 

 

There are more mysteries than answers in Western theology. It requires alot of blind faith to adhere to their dogma. And it is dogma. If I just believe I'm saved. They don't know what the soul is, they deny it in lesser creatures, they simply pray for material gains, and they dogmatically insist that everyone should be as ignorant as they are. Now I'm only scratchng the surface here. Becasue of their lack of information and ignorance of higher principles, they are really quite intolerant of anything else.

 

 

Now who is being dogmatic and ignorant? If you pause for a moment and step out of your fairly tale world, you will discover that mysteries and unanswered questions abound in Eastern theology. Pople prefer to forget such discrepancies and like to think their religion is whole, complete and meaningful, unlike other religions. So you are no better than chrisitians or more specifically, you are just as dogmatic and ignorant.

 

 

You have to get beyond Western conditioning to understand Krsna Consciousness. They are still stuck on the body. Many of them think Christ was God and that you can put God on a cross and kill Him.

 

 

If God can be killed by accidentally striking an arrow into his foot, killing him on a cross is certainly possible. What about the same God who was killed on a cross miraculously coming back in 3 days? In my opinion, these are silly arguments.

 

 

I mean come on. Just get off it. Bhagavad-gita begins where other religions end and that's just the ABC's of Vedic literature.

 

 

Time for you to widen your perspective. Here is some free advice...

 

1. A basic quality of a devotee or even a wannabe, is humility. Humility means giving up notions such as, "Religion x is stupid", "My religion is better", "My mantra is better" and so on.

 

2. Respect the opinions and beliefs of people whose views differ from yours. The single reason that they differ from you does not mean they are wrong. Remember that they cherish their own beliefs just as much as you cherish your own. This is tolerance.

 

3. If you still wish to label other religions as dogma, do so privately or within groups of like-minded people, where such statements will be strongly appreciated.

 

4. Try to do a better job of trying to understand what a person is conveying in his post.

 

Good luck

 

[sha]

I believe in the fundamental truth of all great religions of the

world.

 

I believe that they are all God-given and I believe that they were

necessary for the people to whom these religions were revealed.

 

And I believe that if only we could all of us read the scriptures of

the different faiths from the standpoints of the followers of these

faiths, we should find that they were at bottom all one

and were all helpful to one another.

 

~ Mahatma Gandhi

[Guest guest]

We have to accept and respect other people's faith. We also need to be tolerant to some of the excesses as long as it is within limits. But it does not mean that we do not debate and defeat philosophies. Shvu - in this very forum, you have also debated Krishna Consciousness. If Krishna Consciousness can be debated, then the same is true for Islam and Christianity as well. We have to accept the good things in all religions but we should defeat bad things.

 

It is easy to make sweeping generalizations like "Vedas have plenty of defects too". Even people like Ambedkar and Periyar, who were not well-versed in Vedas, could make such statements . But if there are specific issues that can be resolved.

[sha]

Some more interesting verses from "Caitanya Caritamruta", in relation to Lord Krishna's descension and His Raganuga Bhakti (Vraja Prema Rasa), and the path of SPONTANEOUS, selfless Divine LOVE.

 

Adi-lila chapter 4, texts 15-16

 

<font color="red">"The Lord's DESIRE to APPEAR was born from TWO reasons:

 

He wanted to ENJOY the SWEET ESSENCE of the mellows of Love of God, and He WANTED to PROPAGATE DEVOTIONAL service in the world on the PLATFORM of SPONTANEOUS ATTRACTION.

 

Thus HE is known as the Supreme Relisher of Divine Love and as the MOST MERCIFUL to all.</font color>

 

17

 

<font color="blue">"All the universe is filled with CONCEPTION of My MAJESTY,

but LOVE WEAKENED by that SENSE of MAJESTY DOES NOT SATISFY ME!!"</font color>

 

19-20

 

<font color="red">In WHATEVER trancendental mellow My devotees worship Me, I RECIPROCATE with them exactly in the same way.

That is My NATURAL behavior.

 

"In what ever way My devotees SURRENDER unto Me, I REWARD them ACCORDINGLY. EVERYONE follows My path in ALL RESPECTS, O son of Prtha."</font color>

 

(Bg. 4.11)

 

Adi-lila. 4.23

 

<font color="blue">"Devotional service rendered to Me by the living beings revives their eternal life.

O My dear damsels of Vraja,

YOUR SPONTANEOUS AFFECTION FOR ME, is your GOOD FORTUNE,

for IT IS THE ONLY MEANS by which you have obtained MY FAVOR."</font color>

 

(Bhagavatham 10.82.45)

 

27-28

 

<font color="red">"Taking these PURE devotees with Me, I shall SPORT in various WONDERFUL WAYS, UNKNOWN EVEN in Vaikuntha.

I shall BROADCAST such PASTIMES by which even I AM AMAZED!"</font color>

 

31

 

<font color="blue">"PURE ATTACHMENT will UNITE us EVEN at the EXPENSE OF MORAL AND RELIGIOUS DUTIES (DHARMA)."

 

"Destiny will some times bring us together and some times separate us.</font color>

 

33

 

<font color="red">"Then, BY HEARING ABOUT THE PURE LOVE OF THE RESIDENTS OF VRAJA,

 

DEVOTEES will WORSHIP Me on the PATH OF SPONTANEOUS LOVE,

ABANDANING ALL RITUALS of religions and RULES of prescribed conduct."</font color>

 

Lastly, texts 36-37

 

<font color="blue">Just as these DESIRES are the FUNDAMENTAL REASON for Krishna's appearence,

whereas DESTROYING the demons is ONLY AN INCIDENTAL necessity,

 

so for Sri Krishna Caitanya, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, PROMULGATING the DHARMA of the age is INCIDENTAL.</font color>

 

Hari bol!

Radhe, Radhe!

[shvu]

 

Shvu - in this very forum, you have also debated Krishna Consciousness. If Krishna Consciousness can be debated, then the same is true for Islam and Christianity as well.

 

 

There is a difference. Advaitins and iskconites share many common scriptures and hence there is room for debate, room for discussing correct interpretations, etc. On the contrary, no such common ground exists between christians and Indian religions. How can there be a debate? It can only end in criticism and abuse. Moreover, according to Ethos, no western personality should even be compared to what he calls 'Vedic personalities', Western religions are dogmatic, ignorant, etc. Not what I call as debating. This is just being condescending and is the wrong attitude for a devotee.

 

If you desire to market your religion, stick to emphasising your good points, focus on what you think you have to offer, that is lacking in the other religion. Putting on a 'holier-than-thou' attitude and assuming a snooty tone, will fetch you zilch.

 

Cheers

[tsaneladi]

It is a point, but of little consequence that these specifics may not be "Indian". What thye are NOt is western, and that is the crux of the question and the issue.

 

So is it then that the dress is to "remind" one of the spiritually historical past from which they come? This logic seems to rely heavily on the body and physical world being of importance, which I understand is the opposite of KC.

 

Please elaborate

[sha]

Originally posted by shvu:

--------------------------

If you desire to market your religion, stick to emphasising your good points, focus on what you think you have to offer, that is lacking in the other religion. Putting on a 'holier-than-thou' attitude and assuming a snooty tone, will fetch you zilch.

--------------------------

 

<font color="red">" We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us."</font color>

 

-- Mark Twain in Following the Equator

[Guest guest]

Shvu -

 

Quran makes basic mistakes in arithmetic. Do we call it foolish or not ? Bible believes in flat earth at the center of the universe. What is wrong if we call that ignorance ? Religious discussions cannot be based on scriptures unless the common scriptures are accepted. The idea will be to expose the flaws by two ways :

 

1. Go in to their system and show that they are internally inconsistent.

Our rabble rouser genius on board Karthik

does that by showing Bible is self-contradictory about resurrection. This is primary argument.

 

2. Point out flaws based on an external system like Science. Of course, they have to reject that system altogether if they dont want to debate it.

This is what one does pointing out that Quran makes mistakes in kindergarden math. Ofcourse, a muslim can refuse that he would rather go by what Quran says. As per Quran, if we sum up fractions of an it adds up to more than the integer by 30%. So I will lend the muslim nations a trillion dollars and ask them to return it as per Quranic math -

 

[Guest guest]

Sastras describe dhoti as Krishna's dress. Ofcourse, there is 95% of Vedas which are lost and they may describe Krishna in coat and suit. Or just the cow boy dress - the Texas style. We cannot speculate. So we have to rely on what is available as valid information.

 

In the previous yugas Vedas were spread throughout the universe and slowly they died out - India being the last part on earth. So what seems as Indian culture today is actually remnant of universal vedic culture. On what basis can India claim ownership ? Or the west disown just because they went out of sync for a few thousand years ?

 

Wearing dhoti and saree in rememberence of the Lord - because the Lord and devotees wear them - is not the same as doing it as a matter of custom.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I am not impressed with your arguements hereafter. But I respect them. I have addressed them but I find it all very tiring and mostly a waste of time. I will not be participating much in the future.

 

This is arrogance, plain and simple. Whether you accept it or not, Krishna is nothing to christians and they will raise a similar argument about how ridiculous it is to compare anyone with Christ. So long as a person thinks he is better than someone else in some way, he will remain arrogant.

 

No. If that was the case. There could be no correlation between spiritual advancement and humility.

 

If a ssomeone studiously prepares for a test and make better grades than another not so interested, is it by chance that their score was better? And what if their study material was superior. No. We all believe that we are doing better than some and not as well as others and that is by the faith and quality of our existence. I can definately say the this Krsna Consciousness is far superior to anything on this planet.

 

The simple fact that someone claims similar things from opposing views says nothing about the truth of the claims. A Christian may be in deep ignorance as to higher principles and they may be wrong, ultimately arguing against their own self interest.

 

Much as it may surprise you, the simple truth is BG is just one of the many options out there. If you are familiar with Indian religion, you must be knowing that the BG is scripture to only one section of Indians. What to say of the whole world?

 

It is not just another option. It is the best option. It is the essence of life coming from the absolute source.

 

Now who is being dogmatic and ignorant? If you pause for a moment and step out of your fairly tale world, you will discover that mysteries and unanswered questions abound in Eastern theology.

 

You're putting words in my mounth.

 

Pople prefer to forget such discrepancies and like to think their religion is whole, complete and meaningful, unlike other religions. So you are no better than chrisitians or more specifically, you are just as dogmatic and ignorant.

 

The knowledge and richness of historical Indian literature is practically unfathomable. If that is not obvious to you, then you are not qualified to be a suitable candidate for the knowledge.

 

 

If God can be killed by accidentally striking an arrow into his foot, killing him on a cross is certainly possible. What about the same God who was killed on a cross miraculously coming back in 3 days? In my opinion, these are silly arguments.

 

Anyone knows the arrows were a pretext for Krsna's departure just as the various events surround the departure of Krsna's dynasty. That was made emphatically clear by dialogue between Jara and Krsna.

 

Now I'm not aware that Prabhupada accepted Christ as Jesus or even that most Christians do. Rather, he is accepted as a pure devotee preaching to very low class people who in turn killed him. Now Krsna can certainly act in this transcendental way if he wants to, he can act however He wishes. But to talk like Christ was Krsna or you know the secrets of His not so obvious incarnations I think is tantamount to madness. In Vedic literature, the incarnations have almost always descended with entourage and everything manifested. Certainly a few supporting associates.

 

 

Time for you to widen your perspective. Here is some free advice...

 

1. A basic quality of a devotee or even a wannabe, is humility. Humility means giving up notions such as, "Religion x is stupid", "My religion is better", "My mantra is better" and so on.

 

On one level I agree, if you want to make absolute statements I disagree. Some are better than others and Krsna Consciousness is the best. If Prabhupada could only have heard you preach, he might not have bothered to appear in America.

 

2. Respect the opinions and beliefs of people whose views differ from yours. The single reason that they differ from you does not mean they are wrong. Remember that they cherish their own beliefs just as much as you cherish your own. This is tolerance.

 

I do think everyone is on a different level and we are all struggling to understand. But just because one cherishes a belief doesn't make it valid. Alot of Christians cherish eating meat.

 

3. If you still wish to label other religions as dogma, do so privately or within groups of like-minded people, where such statements will be strongly appreciated.

 

Thats exactly what I was doing here. I was praising and defending the highest truths which we as vaisnavas have. I didn't think I was talking to sentimental Christians here. But boy are you sentimental!. And I don't think you represent the consensus here.

 

4. Try to do a better job of trying to understand what a person is conveying in his post.

 

Practice what you preach. <font color="red"> </font color> <font color="red"> </font color> <font color="red"> </font color> <font color="red"> </font color> <font color="red"> </font color> <font color="red"> </font color> <font color="red"> </font color> <font color="red"> </font color> <font color="red"> </font color>

[tsaneladi]

One of the appealing and fascinating (and refreshing) aspects of Ramakrishna was his acceptance of all religions as valid portals to spirituality.

 

Even the Bhagavad Gita seems to indicate this is the case as Krsna speaks to the effect that "all roads lead to Me".

 

Certainly humility is an important factor in becoming one with the faith. An acceptance that others believe equally as strong in their beliefs and respecting that is an important part of humility.

[Guest guest]

Devotee: Prabhupäda? Does Lord Jesus Christ appear in the spiritual sky with the body he manifested on the earth?

 

Prabhupäda: Yes. Otherwise how there can be resurrection? Ordinary body cannot be resurrected. He appeared in his spiritual body, certainly. Bg.Lec. 4.1-6 L.A. Jan.3 1969

[tsaneladi]

Any chance you can offer up some more of that dialogue regarding this highly debatable topic?

[theist]

tsaneladi,Here is something on the nature of Christ's appearance.

 

----

 

 

So here Lord Krsna says that &#8220;When I come, I do not come in this inferior nature.&#8221; It will be a great mistake if somebody thinks that Krsna, or Krsna&#8217;s representative... Just like bona fide representative, Jesus Christ or other great, I mean to say, leaders of the religious faiths, they do not come with the inferior nature. They come with the superior nature of God. That we have to accept. If we have to accept the truth explained in the Bhagavad-gita, then we must accept that, that God and His representative, they do not come, who come directly from the kingdom of God, they do not come, accepting this inferior nature.Bg.4.6-8 Lec. New York July 20, 1966

[theist]

what is with this &#8221? Must just be a bug.

[tsaneladi]

Thank you for the additional commentary.

[ethos]

I'm sorry about the confusing posts and replies. I have had trouble with site recognition. I also posted the response "Re: Mistake" which adressed your dialogue point by point.

 

Shvu, I am now responding to your "Re" above.

 

You posted:

 

There is a difference. Advaitins and iskconites share many common scriptures and hence there is room for debate, room for discussing correct interpretations, etc. On the contrary, no such common ground exists between christians and Indian religions. How can there be a debate? It can only end in criticism and abuse.

 

 

There is always common ground for discussion because we have more in common than differences. The differences are superficial and temporary such as being an American. Different subjective tastes and faiths one manifest in accordance with the body are symptomatic of karma and the soul's sojourn of experience and not representative of eternal truths.

 

 

The common ground that we are souls abandoned in the material world because of selfishness is one of many common truths found in various bona-fide religions. So is the universal aspect of what material nature is comprised of including the field of activity and our senses.

 

 

Now Prabhupada transplanted all of this deeply self-evident pohilosophy in the West where it was non-existent in the minds of men.

 

And he also brought the rich "tapestry" of both the spiritual and material realities to light in remarkable ways relating to modern experience and dogma.

 

 

I wonder if you have ever been to the West. Many devotees here knew "zilch" of spiritual life as you call it before the arrival of the irresistable personality of Prabhupada.

 

 

Moreover, according to Ethos, no western personality should even be compared to what he calls 'Vedic personalities', Western religions are dogmatic, ignorant, etc. Not what I call as debating. This is just being condescending and is the wrong attitude for a devotee.

 

 

Now the evidence for my statements are basically the writings of Prabhupada. I don't know all the names of the various Vedic parts or even if the Gita and Bhagavatam are part of the Vedas. What I do know is the philsophy and scientific approach to religion which "India" offers is unparalleled in the world -- as evidenced by Prabhupada.

 

 

Prabhupada said religion without philosophy is sentiment, and philosophy without religion is mental speculation.

 

 

Now not only did Prabhupada reveal the rich knowledge of "Indian culture," but he was a perfect example. He was a pure devotee who could easily see through the offerings of Maya in the form of modern philosophy, science and religion -- what to speak of social and government commentary.

 

Prabhupada, the man, was made with the ancient knowledge of Vedic tradition - existing nowhere else in the world - and gave us the unprecidented concept that we also could know the quality and purpose of everything by our devotional life.

 

Now if you want to argue as a westerner about anything including religion, you'd better get some help because sentiment won't carry you. Prabhupada gave so much knowledge. Most - if not all - of his disciples can easily defeat the faulty logic of modern dogmas existing around the world.

 

Now it is this wonderful transcendental information that can help us avoid the pitfalls and keep focused on the goal to attain. Why claim that others have the same when they don't?