What is scripture?

[Guest guest]

 

So if ISKCON devotees are supposed to accept Madhva and Baladeva vidyAbhUSana, then why do they go out of their way to disagree with the ideas promoted by these two exalted scholars? Either they are disagreeing, or they are evasive about the fact that they disagree.

 

 

 

That is a natural outcome of believing that every single word of the guru is, by default, flawless. This is an initial enthusiasm which calms down with time and age as one matures. The point is, that mature and levelheaded persons in ISKCON, gaudiya math etc. are more likely to follow through with the conclusions of madhva and baladeva vidyAbUSNa. I am just presenting a possibility and I do not deny the presence of fanatics in this camp also.

 

 

If these are the supposedly "real" gaudIya vaiSNavas, then I shudder to think about the alternative - the self-proclaimed orthodoxy you referred to.

 

 

 

As a matter of fact, the "orthodoxy" considers itself the "real" gaudIya vaiSNavas and ISKCON (and affiliates) to be modern day renegades.

 

 

But then when it was pointed out the gaudIya view that one should come in one of the four cardinal sampradAyas or else his mantras were useless

 

 

 

The orthodoxy has conveniently accepted the tattva-vAda view that the particular verse in padma purANa is spurious.

While tattva-vAda claims to be the only valid paramparA, the orthodox gaudIya vaiSNavas take the stance to fulfil their own agenda. Thus you don't have to be necessarily affiliated with one of the four vaiSNava paramparAs. Their dIkSA paramparA starts with Caitanya or his associates and they do boast of a stong dIkSA connetion. They will not accept too much closeness with the madhva paramparA, and thus you will find them talking about him casually.

 

 

This is a distinctly ISKCON-flavored argument. "My beliefs are based on faith, so I don't have to justify them with evidence. The fact that I have faith in them makes them true." Sounds like Christianity to me.

 

 

 

To add to the above, the following is also common:

"Even your beliefs are based on faith. You can't prove them. Infact, beliefs have to be necessarily based on faith and no logic can be used to support beliefs. Therefore, I am doing no wrong if I advertise that my guru's agenda is true and they are true because it is based on faith."

[Guest guest]

"This is a distinctly ISKCON-flavored argument. "My beliefs are based on faith, so I don't have to justify them with evidence. The fact that I have faith in them makes them true." Sounds like Christianity to me."

 

and to me it does not sound "ISKCON" at all... in wich dream or nightmare you han received this impression of iskcon? you are saying so much funny things

 

[gHari]

Except those who insist on worrying about what I think. Why would it matter what I think? Is it just an ego thing? Are they worried about me going to hell? What is the urgency? What is the motivation behind the snide battles of words, point counter-point lunge parry thrust parry? I have never found it attractive, never considered it to come from Paramatma, Krsna, God, always watched the pride drag the combatants deeper and deeper into hell. Then the thread gets locked.

 

On our deathbed are we going to care one way or the other? Surely we would hope to have more than words to comfort us as we leave this world. Somehow we will get beyond the mind. Until we do we should not expect that everyone will be as dependent on the mind as we are. It is said that some achieve success by accepting from higher authorities [bG 13.26]; perhaps we can allow those fortunate ones their fortunate faith.

 

Whether they're right or wrong - what does it matter? Indeed, what does it matter to anyone but themselves?

 

Verse alluded to above - Bhagavad-gita 13.26:<BLOCKQUOTE><CENTER><font color="RED">anye tv evam ajAnantaH

zrutvAnyebhya upAsate

te 'pi cAtitaranty eva

mRtyuM zruti-parAyaNAH

</center>

anye--others; tu--but; evam--thus; ajAnantaH--without spiritual knowledge; zrutvA--by hearing; anyebhyaH--from others; upAsate--begin to worship; te--they; api--also; ca--and; atitaranti--transcend; eva--certainly; mRtyum--the path of death; zruti-parAyaNAH--inclined to the process of hearing.

</font>

Again there are those who, although not conversant in spiritual knowledge, begin to worship the Supreme Person upon hearing about Him from others. Because of their tendency to hear from authorities, they also transcend the path of birth and death.

 

Commentary by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

This verse is particularly applicable to modern society because in modern society there is practically no education in spiritual matters. Some of the people may appear to be atheistic or agnostic or philosophical, but actually there is no knowledge of philosophy. As for the common man, if he is a good soul, then there is a chance for advancement by hearing. This hearing process is very important. Lord Caitanya, who preached KRSNa consciousness in the modern world, gave great stress to hearing because if the common man simply hears from authoritative sources he can progress, especially, according to Lord Caitanya, if he hears the transcendental vibration Hare KRSNa, Hare KRSNa, KRSNa KRSNa, Hare Hare/ Hare RAma, Hare RAma, RAma RAma, Hare Hare. It is stated, therefore, that all men should take advantage of hearing from realized souls and gradually become able to understand everything. The worship of the Supreme Lord will then undoubtedly take place. Lord Caitanya has said that in this age no one needs to change his position, but one should give up the endeavor to understand the Absolute Truth by speculative reasoning. One should learn to become the servant of those who are in knowledge of the Supreme Lord. If one is fortunate enough to take shelter of a pure devotee, hear from him about self-realization and follow in his footsteps, one will be gradually elevated to the position of a pure devotee. In this verse particularly, the process of hearing is strongly recommended, and this is very appropriate. Although the common man is often not as capable as so-called philosophers, faithful hearing from an authoritative person will help one transcend this material existence and go back to Godhead, back to home.</blockquote>

 

 

[ancient_paztriot]

Wonderful. I really relished that.

 

This foolish Guest also has faith, but he ignores that.

[Guest guest]

 

That is a natural outcome of believing that every single word of the guru is, by default, flawless. This is an initial enthusiasm which calms down with time and age as one matures. The point is, that mature and levelheaded persons in ISKCON, gaudiya math etc. are more likely to follow through with the conclusions of madhva and baladeva vidyAbUSNa. I am just presenting a possibility and I do not deny the presence of fanatics in this camp also.

 

 

 

Personally, I would like to meet these "mature and levelheaded persons..." in the gaudIya camp, so that I can learn more about the gaudIya tradition and maybe even get into some intersampradAya dialogue. But the way things are going right now, I think I'll probably have better luck finding Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

 

 

The orthodoxy has conveniently accepted the tattva-vAda view that the particular verse in padma purANa is spurious.

 

 

 

And I for one have no problem with the belief that it is spurious. My point is, when gaudIya AcAryas quote the verse, who are the so-called gaudIya "orthodoxy" to then reject it? I personally would never follow a guru whom I knew was guilty of quoting spurious PurAnic shlokas. But I guess the orthodoxy has no problem doing that?

 

 

To add to the above, the following is also common:

"Even your beliefs are based on faith. You can't prove them. Infact, beliefs have to be necessarily based on faith and no logic can be used to support beliefs. Therefore, I am doing no wrong if I advertise that my guru's agenda is true and they are true because it is based on faith."

 

 

Yes, and anyone who disagrees with this view is "foolish,argumentative,duplicitous," etc etc.

 

The bottom line in the iskcon paramparA appears to be that you aren't supposed to think, and if you do, then something is wrong with you.

[Guest guest]

The bottom line in the iskcon paramparA appears to be that you aren't supposed to think, and if you do, then something is wrong with you.

 

so what to do?

[Guest guest]

 

The bottom line in the iskcon paramparA appears to be that you aren't supposed to think, and if you do, then something is wrong with you.

 

so what to do?

 

 

 

 

Nothing. I was just lamenting that what might otherwise have been a very interesting and maybe genuine religious tradition is going the way of the so many other cults in the past.

[Guest guest]

 

Nothing. I was just lamenting that what might otherwise have been a very interesting and maybe genuine religious tradition is going the way of the so many other cults in the past.

 

 

If you see some fault in ISKCON then get up and do something instead of sitting in front of your computer complaining while doing nothing. Go start a genuine religious tradition if thats what you see lacking. Otherwise you should just be quiet and realize you are an armchair complainer, not even an armchair philosopher.

You could sacrifice your comfortable lifestyle and your personal attachments to spread a genuine religious tradition, but that's not the easy way out. The easy way is to sit at your computer and complain about others imperfect sacrifices while having sacrificed nothing yourself. Everyone give a hand of applause to this person for the nothing he has done to help all the devotees.

[Guest guest]

clap.. clap... clap... clap

[Guest guest]

 

If you see some fault in ISKCON then get up and do something instead of sitting in front of your computer complaining while doing nothing.

 

 

Do something.... like, for example, try to correct the wayward ISKCON devotees when they deviate from the path? Well.... we know what happens when you try to gently tell an ISKCON devotee about right and wrong.

 

 

Go start a genuine religious tradition if thats what you see lacking.

 

 

Genuine religious traditions are eternal, not "started." That gets back to the earlier point of this discussion about Veda-aparusheyatva and nityatva.

 

 

Otherwise you should just be quiet and realize you are an armchair complainer, not even an armchair philosopher.

 

 

I disagree. I am actually an "office chair complainer." I don't have enough money to buy an armchair. Besides which, I often complain about my rickety old office chair because it always seems on the verge of falling apart.

 

 

You could sacrifice your comfortable lifestyle

 

 

What makes you think my lifestyle is comfortable? What do you actually know about me? Very little I suspect.

 

 

and your personal attachments to spread a genuine religious tradition, but that's not the easy way out.

 

 

Well, if you know of any genuine religious traditions that aren't too busy shooting themselves in the foot, please refer me. From what I have learned from the ISKCON devotees, even other Vaishnavas are worthy of nothing but ridicule. So what is genuine to them I will never understand.

 

 

The easy way is to sit at your computer and complain about others imperfect sacrifices while having sacrificed nothing yourself.

 

 

What makes you think I have sacrificed nothing? What do you actually know about me? Nothing.

 

To judge, before knowing, is PreJudice. Is it not?

 

 

Everyone give a hand of applause to this person for the nothing he has done to help all the devotees.

 

 

Sometimes help comes in a form that is not readily appreciated. One speaks the truth in order to help others, but when those others are so narrowminded and full of themselves that they cannot see it for what it is, they throw that help back in one's face and accuse him of doing nothing.

 

One can throw a line to a drowning person, but it is up to that person to grab hold.

 

Anyway, don't think about any of this. Just attack me - i'm an evil person who is obviously out to destroy iskcon. Feel good about yourself after publicly denouncing me as such. Keep looking the other way while the gaudIya tradition continues to suffer from ignorant fanaticism and sinks deeper into the mire of intellectual mediocrity.

[Guest guest]

 

Except those who insist on worrying about what I think. Why would it matter what I think? Is it just an ego thing?

 

 

 

It is not about what you think! There are things which are public here. For example, supposedly one orthodox gaudIya lineage claims that it is the *ONLY* valid lineage for mAdhurya rasa and nobody else (nobody else even from the orthodoxy) can receive mAdhurya without taking dIkSA from them. Now what is the basis of that claim? Revelation................

[Guest guest]

 

Personally, I would like to meet these "mature and levelheaded persons..." in the gaudIya camp, so that I can learn more about the gaudIya tradition and maybe even get into some intersampradAya dialogue. But the way things are going right now, I think I'll probably have better luck finding Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

 

 

 

Unfortunate but quite true. However, in some rare ones, one may find an attitude of acquiescence and are actually willing to make use of the weight they carry along on top of their shoulder.

 

 

And I for one have no problem with the belief that it is spurious. My point is, when gaudIya AcAryas quote the verse, who are the so-called gaudIya "orthodoxy" to then reject it? I personally would never follow a guru whom I knew was guilty of quoting spurious PurAnic shlokas. But I guess the orthodoxy has no problem doing that?

 

 

 

Their current engagement, nowadays, is to discover the whole gamut of spurious texts quoted in the sampradAya.

[Guest guest]

 

If you see some fault in ISKCON then get up and do something instead of sitting in front of your computer complaining while doing nothing. Go start a genuine religious tradition if thats what you see lacking. Otherwise you should just be quiet and realize you are an armchair complainer, not even an armchair philosopher.

 

 

 

So, all the sceptics who do not believe in the "new age clairvoyants" should go out and start some "genuine school of clairvoyance".

 

 

You could sacrifice your comfortable lifestyle and your personal attachments to spread a genuine religious tradition, but that's not the easy way out. The easy way is to sit at your computer and complain about others imperfect sacrifices while having sacrificed nothing yourself. Everyone give a hand of applause to this person for the nothing he has done to help all the devotees.

 

 

 

If you care to find out, the followers of a number of these so called new age wiccan and occult gurus have a spartan lifestyle, and that proves nothing.

 

The whole argument was that beliefs must have some basis in rational thinking and logical conclusions. The AcAryas of vedAnta used to present their position on the basis of logic, not "my guru revealed.....". What to speak of vedAnta, even buddhists, jains, chArvAkas do not use "my guru said...." argument. No doubt, baladeva vidyAbhUSaNa wrote a commentary on the nyAya prasthAna. Did you care to read his govinda bhASya? Did you care to go through any of the materials of other vedAnta AcAryas? There is no scarcity of material for what you would like to call a "genuine religious tradition".

[Guest guest]

 

The whole argument was that beliefs must have some basis in rational thinking and logical conclusions. The AcAryas of vedAnta used to present their position on the basis of logic,

 

 

Mental Spekoolator! How dare you use the "L" word! Now you will certainly be thrown out of the temple. You should be hanging your head in shame.

 

Oh yeah, and get your own transliteration system. Mine is patented. ;-)

 

[Guest guest]

 

No doubt, baladeva vidyAbhUSaNa wrote a commentary on the nyAya prasthAna.

 

 

Really? I would be very interested in reading that. Do you have any idea how I could acquire a copy? Do you know what his commentary is called?

 

[Guest guest]

 

Really? I would be very interested in reading that. Do you have any idea how I could acquire a copy? Do you know what his commentary is called?

 

 

 

I think I mentioned it in the very next sentence. It is called govinda bhASya. An English translation by rai bahAdur SrISa chandra vasu is available from Oriental Publishers. More recently another publisher seems to have taken the rights. I saw it in a book exhibition but do not seem to remember the publisher's name. I got the old book and can get you the exact details.

 

Apart from that, the orthodoxy, in spite of all its idiosyncrasies, is doing at least one good job of trying to electronically preserve gaudIya texts. To obtain the sanskrit of govinda bhASya, one can contact those maintaining the granthamandira web site.