Sanskrit Veda

[Guest guest]

 

but because Guest number one has demonstrated a crooked and devious personality

 

 

How, praytell, have I "demonstrated" any such thing? Why am I suddenly "crooked" and "devious?"

 

Is it because I don't tow the ISKCON party line?

 

Because I don't blindly accept your sentiments as logic?

 

Because I don't accept your opinions as being on par with sAstra?

 

 

Or is there actually some substantial basis for these harsh words?

 

It seems to me that unless one blatantly debases himself and worships ISKCON devotees, he can at best expect to be treated as a "crooked and deviant" individual by them. I wish we could see more substance to these discussions and less flaming.

 

(if the ISKCON pattern holds true, then probably someone will step forward and casually inform me that actually I started all of this, accusing me of flaming, being disrespectful, etc, though they won't actually quote anything I said)

 

Oh well. I guess this is ISKCON philosophy: two wrongs make a right. So if I'm a bad person, just be bad to me. Viva la pure devotion! Step on the detractor, and guarantee your way to Vaikuntha! Yes siree....

 

 

The guest lacks objectivity, to say the least. I seriously doubt that he has accurately paraphrased this theory if it is indeed from an ISKCON spiritual master.

 

 

 

So on one hand, I lack objectivity. Yet, you who are "objective," doubt what I say without even knowing who I am talking about. Since you don't know who I am talking about, how can you have any opinion about it - doubtful or believing? Unless of course, you aren't objective in the first place.

 

 

These games do not come from Supersoul. Such is the way of the crocodile or scorpion or especially the weasel. The guest should take responsibility for conquering his own crocodiles that infest the mind, but we will offer help if that is the request here.

 

 

 

So I have qualities of a crocodile, a scorpion, a weasel, etc. Do you think calling me names is going to inspire me to have respect for you? Are you really so deluded as to think that offering an insulting metaphor is going to make *anyone* think you are some kind of spiritually gifted person?

 

 

So Gajendra Guest, do we have a name and a website or text?

Or will it all be unsubstantiated rumour, gossip and irresponsible wives' tales?

 

 

 

I saw the e-mails first hand. I know exactly who and what I'm talking about.

 

But why is it you suddenly want a name, when you have already indicated that you won't believe what I say regardless of who I name? Perhaps it's better to let the matter drop. I raised the subject hoping to see some evidence of loyalty on the part of ISKCON types to the broader vedAntic tradition. Instead, what I'm already seeing is more evidence of the same old cultish spiel.... "oh, this is mental speculation, unless one of OUR gurus taught it.... then it's ok."

 

Ghari, are you REALLY prepared to object to the ISKCON mental speculator (who also happens to be an initiating guru, Prabhupada disciple, sannyasi, and senior devotee with a lot more experience than you) who is promoting this theory? I see no evidence that you are. It is far more likely that you will try to become this individual's apologist, that you will try to argue that he didn't mean what he said, or that he can be forgiven because of "time, place, and circumstance," or something else similarly inane.

 

If I mention who this person is, I suspect that you and many other people in ISKCON will change your minds and try to defend his "theory," despite it being utter and complete rubbish. Given that, I'd probably be doing more harm even mentioning it.

I tell you what, Ghari. You show some evidence of objectivity by agreeing to email this individual and his disciple (who I will also name) and request clarification from them about their misguided "theory." Then and only then will I provide you with the names. The guru might try to ignore you rather than reveal his mind on this subject. After all, he does not want to anger the GBC. But I know his disciple has no such inhibitions. She will tell you quite proudly how the Vedas used to be in some "proto-IndoEuropean" language and, if you get her fired up, will even be condescending to you if you suggest taking into account the opinions of the Gosvamis.

 

At least, when I observed this debate 2 years ago, that was her attitude then, which she displayed quite boldly in front of her own guru, without being corrected by him in any way. At first, I thought maybe he didn't agree with her, but then he fired off an e-mail or two trying to defend this primeval "non-Sanskrit Veda" theory.

 

Do you agree to these conditions or not?

[gHari]

But you act like a weasel. What's up with that? You acted like an idiot yet now you seem not. You were behaving exactly like the Muslim morons and Christian convert psychos do here; so obviously treacherous and slippery.

 

Really, who gives a damn? Is he your guru? Is he your daughter's guru? Who gives a damn? You should ask yourself honestly, why do you give a damn. And don't cheat yourself with some noble champion of truth nonsense.

 

Time to kill that crocodile and move on.

 

Anyway, you've destroyed your image as a witness, and it seems you are the only witness. If you had not started out as a slippery treacherous weasel, maybe your testimony could be meaningful. You just don't seem rational enough to me to risk offending a devotee. I remember when the global village idiots were spreading rumours about one of Prabhupada's God-brothers. I was new to the internet and believed them, until I saw a transcript of the real words. I now know that idiots abound in religious circles.

 

You may not be an idiot of course, but you sure made a good impersonation of one in this thread, addressing us as though we were morons, wasting our time as though it was meaningless. You have some major apologizing and growing up to do. That is far more relevant to your success with Sri Krsna than the validity of Dhoti ABC's professed WXY theory. Nobody really gives a damn about it.

 

I learned as a kid to avoid the "let's you and him fight" kids. I just reread the previous post (well, actually read parts of it for the first time; it was even worse than I expected). You must be very very very dull or very insincere if you honestly claim to not see a crooked path in this thread. I have no time for such people; you will have to find another court for your kangaroo trial.

 

[gHari]

Thousands upon thousands of ISKCON followers will say that sanskrit is the original language of the Vedas in every universe in every material manifestation that has ever existed, currently exists or will ever appear in the future.

 

But we think that maybe one will say something different. Why are we so upset about this one opinion? Is that not psychotic?

 

Is this a personal vendetta? I think we need to develop some perspective and get on with our lives.

 

[gHari]

First we say someone is promoting the theory, then a few sentences later we say they would be quiet so as not to be in trouble with the GBC. Which is it?

 

Why do we care? Why do you care? What the hell is going on here? Are you in ISKCON? What is your motivation for all this offense? You had better get it under control before you self-destruct.

 

I couldn't believe a word you say now. It may well be true, but I cannot trust someone so insincere, who behaves like that. The irrational behaviour, poor comprehension and projection of falsehoods here suggest that those same flaws may well be at the source of this whole mix-up.

 

And besides, who gives a damn, anyway?

 

[gHari]

If your impression is true and we are all yes-men with no integrity, would we not hang tough with the opinion of the GBC and the hundred other gurus against the rogue theory of the alleged renegade swami out in left field?

 

There are just too many of these inconsistencies in your tirade. Krsna never sponsors such trash! Who is steering your chariot anyway? Whoever he is, I don't like him, and neither should you. Kick him out of the chariot and let Krsna take over.

 

[Guest guest]

Hmmm. Well, what can I say? I'm really not sure if you are yelling at me because I didn't give you the specifics, or because you want the specifics and I have not given them to you yet. You earlier demanded the information, but now you wonder why anyone would give a ****.

 

I'm really not sure what it is you want from me... there being a four-to-one ratio of your responses to my postings. Given your claims to disinterest in discussion with me, would there have been 8 postings had it been otherwise?

 

Well, I tried to extract the sense of your posting by cutting out the fluff and looking at the trends in your writings. Here is what I ended up with:

 

 

"you act like a weasel"

"You acted like an idiot "

"You were behaving exactly like the Muslim morons and Christian convert psychos "

"so obviously treacherous and slippery"

"who gives a damn?"

"Who gives a damn?"

"you had not started out as a slippery treacherous weasel"

"I remember when the global village idiots..."

"I now know that idiots abound in religious circles"

"Nobody really gives a damn about it"

"You must be very very very dull "

"What the hell is going on here?"

"I cannot trust someone so insincere"

"And besides, who gives a damn, anyway?"

"Krsna never sponsors such trash!"

 

 

 

Well, I am just experiencing all kinds of warm fuzzies inside right now. Ahh, the benefits of associating with devotees....

 

Anyway, I remain steadfast in my offer, which I will repeat here, lest it be lost in a sea of inflammatory mud-slinging by "sincere" and "rational" individuals like your good self:

 

I tell you what, Ghari. You show some evidence of objectivity by agreeing to email this individual and his disciple (who I will also name) and request clarification from them about their misguided "theory." Then and only then will I provide you with the names.

 

Please therefore decide if you have any interest in following up on the information, or if you have already decided that what ever I say is predestined to be wrong. If the latter is the case, then no response is necessary. If you really have the integrity and objectivity you imply that you have, then you shouldn't feel threatened by this information at all.

 

 

 

 

[gHari]

At least you should be given credit for extracting the essence of this thread.

 

You don't know why you're here. If you knew you'd be too embarrassed to continue; just as you are too embarrassed to answer any of the questions asked of you. Take your vendetta where it belongs. You have the e-mail addresses. Why should your fixation become mine?

 

These words that upset you, describe your behaviour perfectly. You can learn and humbly apologize and change, or you can continue to arrogantly whine about me holding up the mirror to your face, and still continue treating us like morons to be dealt with, to be used and manipulated, used to fight your vendetta for you.

 

I don't know why you care about the language of the Vedas, since your behaviour here clearly demonstrates that you have no interest in their message. "Krsna never sponsors such trash!"

 

[ancient_paztriot]

Ditto that. I hope the admins force him out.

 

This particular Guest obviously hasn't any interest in the subjects of this forum. Nor does he have anything to offer.

 

He is simply disturbing the devotees with malicious intent.

[Guest guest]

 

Vedas used to be in some "proto-IndoEuropean" language

 

 

 

That is the unfortunate consequence of an upbringing that hands an impressionable mind of a child with the bible on one hand and the "origin of species" on the other.

[Guest guest]

 

But we think that maybe one will say something different. Why are we so upset about this one opinion? Is that not psychotic?

 

 

 

Pardon me for barging in! But what is being said is akin to what the situation in ISKCON would be if it was found that a responsible authority in ISKCON is promulgating the view that "Krishna is NOT the Supreme Personality of Godhead".

 

Therefore, there are people who are genuinely concerned that the sacrosanct nature of the veda is being compromised by some speculation, and which can only lead to chaos.

[gHari]

Why not do something about it? Nothing will happen here; we are a couple dozen folks with really no formal ties to the institution, and likely none of us knows the persons under attack.

 

BTW, I personally find not accepting Sri Krsna as God to be on a different level than this rumour. If the rumour is true, then a simple letter to the GBC should get an investigation going. For all we know this could have already been resolved.

 

After two years, I think the words "genuine concern" sound a little hollow.

 

[Guest guest]

 

Pardon me for barging in! But what is being said is akin to what the situation in ISKCON would be if it was found that a responsible authority in ISKCON is promulgating the view that "Krishna is NOT the Supreme Personality of Godhead".

 

Therefore, there are people who are genuinely concerned that the sacrosanct nature of the veda is being compromised by some speculation, and which can only lead to chaos.

 

 

 

I'm glad someone understands. Yes, one really can't imagine any greater blasphemy in the Vedic tradition than for someone to attempt to cut at the very nature of the Vedas, i.e. by suggesting that the changeless Veda has in fact been changed, and using one's status as a "Vaishnava" to lend such a theory any semblance of "traditional" approval in the circles of University Indology.

 

One point of bringing it up here is to "test the waters," so to speak. Will ISKCON devotees react with concern upon hearing that one of their senior devotees has deviated from tradition, or will they instead choose to shoot the messenger? Based on the responses I have seen so far, I have noted very little concern about the former possibility; rather it is more the case that there is an overwhelming desire to instead attack the character of the messenger.... for reasons that remain difficult for any thinking individual to appreciate. I think we can therefore see where the ISKCON priorities are.

 

Another reason for bringing it up, is that certain fanatics on this forum have demonstrated a very disturbing tendency to refuse to consider scriptural evidence, and instead just blindly follow the party line advocated by their particular guru. They even attack anyone as a "speculator" who suggests that one should base one's understanding of truth on primary evidence (scripture), instead of unquestioning faith in a particular individual labelled as "guru." These same individuals very proudly attack anyone who disagrees with them as Offensive, Envious, Insincere, etc.

 

So, I was curious to know what would happen if we demonstrated the fallacy of this "blind faith in guru arbitrarily designated as pure devotee" logic by bringing up an obvious case of a senior guru in good standing who has violated Vedic tradition. Will the fanatics then embrace the deviation as truth? Or will they then reject the guru? If they reject the guru, then what of their faith in his "pure devotion?" If such faith is changing, then why rest one's concept of reality on it?

 

The answer of course, is that one should follow a guru based on his being a faithful representative of sAstra. Well, this is obvious to most of us in the Vaishnava world, but gaudIya Vaishnavas don't seem to like this idea.

 

BTW, I did see a very determined attempt by some individuals to "do something about it." Specifically, in the forum in which this discussion took place, there was a very lively attempt by certain parties to refute this "pre-Sanskrit Veda" theory using logic, sAstra, and even the opinions of gaudIya AcAryas! Despite this, the speculators stood fast to their speculation. All this took place in an ISKCON "intellectuals" forum where several individuals whom I could identify as "senior devotees" looked on and said or did absolutely nothing.

 

I was shocked. Seeing this attack on the sacred Veda, was like remembering the story of how Draupadi was dragged into the court of Duryodhana and insulted while elders like Drona, BhIshma, etc looked on and did nothing.

 

[Guest guest]

 

The answer of course, is that one should follow a guru based on his being a faithful representative of sAstra. Well, this is obvious to most of us in the Vaishnava world, but gaudIya Vaishnavas don't seem to like this idea.

 

 

 

Actually this "pre-Sanskrit ...." spaghetti is a recent phenomenon imported from the west. Yesterdeay only, I was listening to a saint considered to be a braj rasik -- establising the authority of the veda unequivocally at the very beginning of the speech.

 

In my humble opinion, it would be too harsh to include all gaudIya vaishnavas as being confused. In fact, one of the major offences against the Holy Name of Krishna is described as:

 

Sruti SAstra nindanam

[gHari]

Then perhaps you have learned one thing here: do not treat us like morons to be dealt with, people you have to play games with, people whose time you can waste writing responses to non-existent situations. Nobody likes such a pompous twit.

 

If you are going to serve the Vaishnavas and the Vedas in your quest, then let it be with style, with Krsna and not with your ego and prejudices. I wish you all success in resolving this situation to Krsna's satisfaction.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

non-existent situations

 

 

 

That is not definitely not the case. I don't know about the ISKCON one, but the traditional party is definitely confused about the veda!!! -- their rational approach to modernization, helping mahAprabhu's mission (by helping the speculators ;-)

[gHari]

This referred to the game-playing at the beginning of the thread where the poster assumed we had no integrity and therefore he could not tell us what the thread was really about. He was asking questions but had no interest in the answers except to catch us later if we changed our cheating party minds. For that offense against the assembled devotees, the arrogant offender has been roasted and rejected.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

One point of bringing it up here is to "test the waters," so to speak. Will ISKCON devotees react with concern upon hearing that one of their senior devotees has deviated from tradition, or will they instead choose to shoot the messenger?

 

 

If a senior ISKCON guru has actually stated this, then the evidence should be presented (i.e. an article by the ISKCON guru, an email from the ISKCON guru, a post to some forum by the ISKCON guru, etc.). Otherwise this thread is really meaningless and will probably be closed.

 

 

All this took place in an ISKCON "intellectuals" forum where several individuals whom I could identify as "senior devotees" looked on and said or did absolutely nothing.

 

 

Did the ISKCON guru actually say something, as has been accused before, or did the ISKCON guru "say absolutely nothing" while someone else said this. There is quite a big difference between the two.

 

For example, this is a public forum. Someone may say Sai Baba is god. If I don't reply and refute this does it mean that I have said Sai Baba is God?

 

One may say that silence is acceptance, but the reality is someone may not have time to comment on (or even read) everything said by everyone.

[Guest guest]

 

If a senior ISKCON guru has actually stated this, then the evidence should be presented (i.e. an article by the ISKCON guru, an email from the ISKCON guru, a post to some forum by the ISKCON guru, etc.).

 

 

Since the evidence was on an e-mail forum that is closed to outside participants, I was reluctant to do this initially. Besides which, I did not want to get the person who forwarded these messages to me into trouble.

 

However, I was prepared to submit the names and let ghari or anyone else followup on it. These individuals didn't sound too embarassed with their speculations, so they would probably admit it if confronted. At least, I'm sure the disciple will, judging from her audacity in that e-mail discussion.

 

 

Did the ISKCON guru actually say something, as has been accused before, or did the ISKCON guru "say absolutely nothing" while someone else said this. There is quite a big difference between the two.

 

 

 

The ISKCON disciple promoted the view that the Vedas were originally in some other language besides Sanskrit. She played down all evidence to the contrary with the same haughtiness I have come to associate with University Indologists. Her guru, also a member of that forum, and a senior ISKCON devotee who is well regarded in that movement, briefly defended this theory and also said there was no reason why the Vedas couldn't have existed in some other language before Sanskrit. The guru took no steps to publicly correct his position or that of his disciple's, even after overwhelming evidence was brought to the contrary of their position.

 

Neither of these individuals could come up with any evidence of a language older than Sanskrit, what to speak of evidence of a Veda which existed in such a language. Nevertheless, they continued to promote their theory and ignored all evidence and arguments to the contrary.

 

There were other ISKCON "senior" devotees on that list who have a history of participating in discussions, but they said little if anything in regards to this discussion. Like I said, it just had the feeling of the meeting hall of the Kurus all over again.

 

 

For example, this is a public forum. Someone may say Sai Baba is god. If I don't reply and refute this does it mean that I have said Sai Baba is God?

 

One may say that silence is acceptance, but the reality is someone may not have time to comment on (or even read) everything said by everyone.

 

 

That's true. But *this* forum is very high volume, while *that* forum is extremely low volume. The dynamics are much different.

 

Anyway, one would think that some issues would merit enough concern to make even a normally silent individual say something. If even senior devotees aren't interested enough in the issue to "do something about," then what hope for an outsider like me, who, more likely than not, will be labelled "Offensive" for trying to bring this issue up, however politely?

 

 

 

 

 

[gHari]

I thought I quite plainly declined the nomination a number of times in a number of ways. It's like, not my karma, dude. I never win nothin' good.

[Guest guest]

 

hi

 

ehm.. perhaps the community remember me from that ol' bombey message from early october.

 

The construction of breathing and healty matrixes is the most rewarding science there is.

 

All the people you meet in you life leave a memory on the astral plane. The link forged from my message on the seventh of october 2003 is an enormous income for me and I hope you all enjoyed that version of real life.

 

 

Meistro jndas

 

If you have the time and interest to sum up some wordS of wisdom concerning the world events I would be most grateful.

 

 

Erik (Sam)