Guruvani

I think the "idealism" of not engaging in any speculative enterprise is fine and dandy if you have a viable communal economy founded on spiritual culture. Unfortunatly, many "devotees" have found themselves out on the street and struggling in the secular world to make a buck and support themselves and their families they have created. At that point it's "every man for himself" and "survival of the fittest", much like the law of the animal kingdom. The idealistic Vaishnava culture is not a luxury than the majority of "devotees" in the western world can afford. Actually, the majority of "devotees" live outside the sect in the secular world. They have a right to survive and prosper by any means possible. It's the law of the jungle!! Maybe within an institution that is founded on idealism there is some need to stick to the "principles", but when the sect fails the majority and they end up on the streets of the world trying to survive, then why should they try to play by the rules that nobody else recognizes? Without a proper sanctuary to shelter "devotees" and give them facility to live by the ideals they cherish, all we have is wishful thinking and make-believe. That is why the failure of ISKCON is such a horrendous and terrible blow to the international society of devotees. With the failure of ISKCON thousands of sincere devotees ended up on the streets of the world fending for themselves and they have a right to survive by any means possible. In modern society if you don't have retirement, health coverage and real estate you have to live in poverty and scarcity in your old age. My dream is to develop a retirement community for devotees here in Florida where we can come together and support each other in our golden years and help each other die with some semblance of Krishna consciousness. I think a devotee reitrement community with absolutely NO GBC or "guru" interference is vital for the aging devotees in the United States. We need to get past these juvenile tendencies and learn how to live together peacefully without some "guru" or GBC creating a disturbance. Until then........... survival of the fittest is the rule.

"don't ask don't tell".

That's kinda interesting. Just a couple of days ago I was thinking to myself "I wondered what happened to Drstadyumna after he took sannyasa again". I haven't heard much of anything about him since I heard Narayana Maharaja gave him sannyasa again. I was also thinking that Narayana Maharaja shouldn't have given him sannyasa again. It appears my suspicions were correct.

Sannyasis living in Mathas and Mandiras for the sake of preaching and training devotees is not "living and acting like kings". I think your representation of such is a little extreme. There are Swamis living in opulent temples all over India and the world. It's not just an ISKCON phenomenon. Maybe you should revisit Srila Rupa Goswami's idea about yukta-vairagya. Real renunciating is not to walk the forest and streets begging. Real renunciation is finding ways to engage all the achievements of human society in the service of Krishna.

To alot of the old school Prabhupada-era devotees, Narayana Maharaja more-or-less revived the gopi-bhava club that Srila Prabhupada smashed back in the early 70s. He has his own style and his own mood. Anyone that says that his style and mood is the same as Srila Prabhupada is living in an hallucination. He is great in his own way, but he is quite the different flavor from Srila Prabhupada. Not everyone is going to be able to make the transition from the Prabhupada atmosphere to the Narayana Maharaja atmosphere. I don't think that anyone who does not "feel the love" with Narayana Maharaja should be faulted. If they don't have it, they just don't have it. For many devotees the move into the camp or sanga of Narayana Maharaja is just too radical a change from the mood of Srila Prabhupada and how he preached during his era in ISKCON. I think the attempt of his followers to broadcast all over the movement that all of ISKCON needed the sanga and siksha of Narayana Maharaja was a big mistake. I heard plenty of it. These guys and gals talked as if there was no option and that if all the ISKCON devotees did not accept Narayana Maharaja as successor to Prabhupada or at least at siksha-guru to ISKCON, then they were all commiting offense and could never make any advancement without Narayana Maharaja. So, this kind of preaching has been going on for years and is still going on actually. It never accomplished anything positive and it never will. Then when Narayana Maharaja is gone, who are they then going to prop-up as successor to Prabhupada and rightful heir to the leadership of ISKCON? I think they will all suffer from lack of centers and temples, because Narayana Maharaja is not doing much of anything to create temples and communities of his follwers around the world.. After Narayana Maharaja is gone I foresee that his movement is going to crumble into a thousand pieces and his followers are going to regret having burnt their bridges to ISKCON with all their fanatic, extremist attempts to impose Narayana Maharaja on ISKCON and discredit the ISKCON leadership.

Your impersonal conception of Brahman is not the only conception of Brahman. The Vaishnava acharyas have shown that Brahman indicates Krishna and not the impersonal Brahmajyoti. Your impersonal Brahman mukti is considered as a Hell by the Vaishnavas. If you want to go to hell, then that is your choice. Vaishnavas aspire for the eternal varigatedness of the Spiritual planets of Vaikuntha and Goloka. If your religious aspiration is to become a spark of light in the Brahman, then that is your choice. Vaishnavas get eternal, blissfull spiritual bodies in the Vaikuntha world. The Mayavadi impersonalists aspire to lose their individual identity into the oneness of Brahman. Choose you path and be happy with that, but don't expect that the Vaishnavas are going to appreciate your ambitions to merge into eternal hell.

For myself, I have been on this forum 4 years and I have had my belly full of arguing and debating with the followers of Narayana Maharaja. I don't think anyone has been converted to the other side in all these arguments and debates that have gone on. It's an excercise in futility. Personally, I think Srila Prabhupada wanted to dismantle ISKCON after his passing and I think he saw Narayana Maharaja as the man for the job. If it weren't for the childish and fanatic mentality of his followers to force Narayana Maharaja on ISKCON and the Krishna consciousness movement, I think Narayana Maharaja would have enjoyed immense success beyond his already noteworthy preaching accomplishments. If the followers of Narayana Maharaja had been humble and gentle and just taking a back seat with their own guru and been happy with that, then I think lot more devotees would have been drawn to him. I think that fanatic followers of Narayana Maharaja who came on forums years ago and have tried to cram him down the throats of everyone have done the greatest disservice to him. If they would have just been happy to have a seperate society from ISKCON and not tired to impose Narayana Maharaja on ISKCON, then I think that would have worked a lot better than all this feverish fanaticism to try and promote that if ISKCON or the followers of Srila Prabhupada did not accept Narayana Maharaja as the universal siksha guru and mandatory sadhu sanga they were all big offenders. Narayana Maharaja enjoyed a respectable position with ISKCON devotees until his follwers came out like little brats trying to cram him down the throat of ISKCON. So, you guys have pissed your own bed and now you have to lay in it. I went to the camp of Sridhar Maharaja in about 1981 and I was a close associate of Bhakti Sudhir Maharaja, but I don't ever remember the kind of fanatic, holier-than-thou fanaticism from that camp that I have seen from the camp of Narayana Maharaja. Actually, I mostly admired Narayana Maharaja before his followers turned me off. But, I am not so sure that Narayana Maharaja didn't have something to do with the fanatic extremism that most all his followers have been spreading around the world since ISKCON devotees starting turning to him for guidance. It appears that he has had something to do with the phenomenon.

Teachings of Swami Sivananda

Teachings of Swami Shivananda:

Thats typical rant from a sentimental Shaiva who is in fact ignorant about the essence of Vedanta. It's obvious your are ignorant of Vedic siddhanta and are stuck in a sentimental religious faith meant for meterial gain that is actually against Sanatan Dharma. People like you can't be reasoned with because you don't accept any Vedic authority except a couple of Shaiva books that can't stand up against the conclusions of Mahabharata, Ramayana, Bhagavad-gita, Srimad Bhagavat and the suddha-sattva Vaishnava siddhanta. The compiler of the Vedas, Vyasadeva and his son Sukadeva Goswami have made it clear that Krishna and Vishnu are supreme above all other Gods including Lord Siva. The idea that Shiva is supreme above Vishnu or Krishna is false. This conclusion is the sentimental belief of Shaivas, but it cannot be established as an objective fact on the basis of proper Vedic authority.

No, it was Sri Chaitanyadeva who said that Bhagavat Purana was spotless. Siva Purana is about cheating religion. Worshiping Shiva is mosty a cheating religion because worshiping Shiva is done for material benedictions. Worshipers of Shiva are not seeking love of God, but they are seeking, wealth, prosperity or some mystic siddhi. So, worship of Shiva is a cheating religion because it does not aim at love of God and the highest ecstacy of prema. We see always that people go to the Shiva temple to pray and ask for material things. This is a cheating religion. The Bhagavat Purana and the Vaishnava religion is not about material blessings, wealth, fame or mystic siddhi. You don't find that in the Shiva worship. It's about about material benedictions. Kaitava Dharma. There is no eternal salvation in worship of Shiva. Worship of Shiva is for temporary material things. Even the Mukti one gets from Shiva worship is not nitya. Again they fall down from that mukti because they have no service to the eternal Lord Vishnu. The wife of Shiva is Durgadevi, she is Goddess of material world. The wife of Vishnu is Laxsmi, she is Goddess of spiritual world.

It's a little curious that in the Bhagavatam verse above that the Brahmana, who represents the Paramatma is telling Vidarbhi that "you gave up my company", as opposed to "you gave up my service" and "took a position in this material world". So, the innumerable jivas that are of the Brahmajyoti effulgence of the Lord are in the "company" of the Lord, yet they are not actually in service in the proper sense of loving devotion. So, a fallen jiva "gives up the company" of the Paramatma and takes the position of a sense enjoyer in the material world imitating Krishna - the one and only spiritual sense enjoyer. Because Krishna is a sense enjoyer, it is in our nature to have a similar instinct to enjoy the senses, but the problem is that if we try to enjoy the senses apart from pleasing the senses of the Lord, then we get implicated in samsara. Krishna has well established that only HE is the sense enjoyer and that all living entities are meant to contribute to the sense enjoyment of Krishna.

We hear these kinds of wild claims in the forum quite regularly, but what we don't see is any proper references from shastra to support such wild claims. In India there are millions of sects and cults that have all sorts of varied beliefs that they were brought up with or that they learn from some guru. Everybody can't be right. Somebody has to be wrong. The Siva Purana was written by Romaharshana, a student of Vyasadeva. So, knowing that, wouldn't it be prudent to in turn research the shastra that Vyasadeva himself wrote? Srimad Bhagavat was written by Vyasadeva. Siva Purana was written by Romaharshana who was at one time a student of Vyasadev. In Vedic tradition Vyasadeva is said to be the incarnation of the Lord. The texts of Vyasadeva stand as the topmost authoritative writings. Vyasadeva wrote Srimad Bhagavat as his final commentary on Vedanta sutra. Therefore, Srimad Bhagavat stands as topmost of all the Puranas, because it has eliminated all cheating religious systems and propounded the highest truth and the essence of the Vedic knowledge. So, Siva Purana is not the topmost Purana. According to Vyasadeva himself, the Bhagavat Purana is the spotless Purana that has eliminated any and all cheating processes of religion that can be found in some of the other Puranas. So, in Vaishnava thought, Srimad Bhagavat is the topmost authority on siddhanta and the Vedic conclusions. Siva Purana was compiled by Romaharshana. In Bhagavat Purana this Romaharshana was killed by Lord Balaram for being falsely proud of his prestige as a rishi. So, the Vaishnava does not put so much credibility on certain Puranas that were not compiled by Vyasadev. Vaishnavas accept the conclusion of Vyasadeva that Srimad Bhagavat and it's conclusions are the essence of Vedanta. Siva Purana does not enjoy that kind of distinction amongst the Puranas. Vaishnavas do not follow the Siva Purana of Romaharshana, nor do they accept it's attempts to promote Lord Siva as being supreme above Krishna or Vishnu. Lord Balarama killed this Romaharshana with a blade of grass while he was sitting on the elevated seat in an assembly of sages.

We hear these kinds of wild claims in the forum quite regularly, but what we don't see is any proper references from shastra to support such wild claims. In India there are millions of sects and cults that have all sorts of varied beliefs that they were brought up with or that they learn from some guru. Everybody can't be right. Somebody has to be wrong. The Siva Purana was written by Romaharshana, a student of Vyasadeva. So, knowing that, wouldn't it be prudent to in turn research the shastra that Vyasadeva himself wrote? Srimad Bhagavat was written by Vyasadeva. Siva Purana was written by Romaharshana who was at one time a student of Vyasadev. In Vedic tradition Vyasadeva is said to be the incarnation of the Lord. The texts of Vyasadeva stand as the topmost authoritative writings. Vyasadeva wrote Srimad Bhagavat as his final commentary on Vedanta sutra. Therefore, Srimad Bhagavat stands as topmost of all the Puranas, because it has eliminated all cheating religious systems and propounded the highest truth and the essence of the Vedic knowledge. So, Siva Purana is not the topmost Purana. According to Vyasadeva himself, the Bhagavat Purana is the spotless Purana that has eliminated any and all cheating processes of religion that can be found in some of the other Puranas. So, in Vaishnava thought, Srimad Bhagavat is the topmost authority on siddhanta and the Vedic conclusions. Siva Purana was compiled by Romaharshana. In Bhagavat Purana this Romaharshana was killed by Lord Balaram for being falsely proud of his prestige as a rishi. So, the Vaishnava does not put so much credibility on certain Puranas that were not compiled by Vyasadev. Vaishnavas accept the conclusion of Vyasadeva that Srimad Bhagavat and it's conclusions are the essence of Vedanta. Siva Purana does not enjoy that kind of distinction amongst the Puranas. Vaishnavas do not follow the Siva Purana of Romaharshana, nor do they accept it's attempts to promote Lord Siva as being supreme above Krishna or Vishnu. Lord Balarama killed this Romaharshana with a blade of grass while he was sitting on the elevated seat in an assembly of sages.

In the allegory of the story we find out that this Brahman who is preaching to Vidarbhi is representing the Paramatma. This Brahmana continues: This is a very instructive purport on the matter of the fall of the jiva. Srila Prabhupada writes: so, here in this fable of Srimad Bhagavatam we find some similar concept to the fall from Goloka idea. But, in the purport Srila Prabhupada gives some illimination and explains things more practically.

What I find a little peculiar is that Varnashrama culture was traditionally, under Vedic principles, implemented by a King or a Rajarsi. A powerful and wealthy Rajarsi can set-up a Varnashram culture in his Kingdom. I would never encourage or recommend that any Varnashram community be administered by the defunct ISKCON GBC. The Vedic way of Varnashrama requires a powerful, wealthy Ksatriya to implement. Unless and until some powerful, wealthy Kingly type person comes forward to establish a Varnashrama village, I don't see how is is possible. I think any suggestion that a Varnashrama society be administrated by the ISKCON GBC is lunacy. The future of the Krishna consciousness movement is very bleak unless and until some really viable alternative to ISKCON can be developed. The GBC is holding back the movement like shackles and chains.

In the parable of King Puranjana, Narada Muni narrates to King Pracinabarhisat how this Puranjana died thinking of his lovely wife and in turn took birth as a woman in his next life as the daughter of King Vidarbha. This daughter of King Vidarbha was then given in marriage to the powerful King Malayadvaja who became a Paramatma realized yogi. After the husband of Vidarbhi, King Malayadvaja, had left his body one day in a yogic trance, Vidarbhi began to arrange for his cremation. She was very devastated by the loss of her husband. Then, as Vidarbhi grieved and suffered the loss of her husband and began arranging for the cremation with a heavy heart, an old brahmana friend of King Puranjana came on the scene and started to minister to Vidarbhi with words of wisdom and faith. the Brahmana said: Srila Prabhupada writes in purport: to be continued..........................

Originally, I started this topic to deal with the issue of the fall of jiva and how the shastra and Srila Prabhupada speak in parables or fables to illustrate how the living entity has fallen into this conditioned existance in the material body. As I mentioned earlier, there are certain parables and fables that have admittadly been used in shastra and the teachings of Srila Prabhupada in order to illustrate a concept in as simple terms as possible to give the conditioned mind a chance to grasp an understanding of how our existence in the material world is based upon an unhealthy aversion to the loving service of the Lord. In the allegorical story, the fable, the parable of King Puranjana as narrated by Narada Muni to King Pracinabarhisat, we find a very similar concept to the "back to Godhead" theme and the fall of the living entity from the service of the Lord. I will present in subsequent posts some verses to demonstrate that this "back to Godhead" idea and the "fall from Goloka" theory are somewhat enocuraged in this fable of Srimad Bhagavatam. But, before we go any further we need to understand that we are hearing a "fable" a parable of Narada Muni that he teaches for the purpose of enlightening the living entity (King Pracinabarhisat) about his fallen conditon and what his proper healthy spiritual condition should be.

I can't remember exactly where, but I remember a place in the books where Srila Prabhupada explains in the purport that there are two basic issues that I would say can be at the bottom of so many sincere devotes falling down. 1. Weakness of heart 2. Attachment to matter So, I think these two categories can cover the reasons why most apparently sincere devotees fall down. As far as the ISKCON failure rate is concerened, I think a lot can be blamed on the fact that ISKCON never really became a utopia like it could have and instead became a top-heavy society with a political bureaucracy clogging up the drain pipe. Many devotees left ISKCON and fell away because they were just turned-off by the repulsive nature of the GBC. If ISKCON could have actually created some utopian sanctuaries where devotees could live together without a political bureaucracy dominating everything and casting a cloud over the atmosphere, then I think ISKCON could have have much grander success. Personally. I am just very turned off to the way ISKCON has evolved and I don't see a really great model of a utopian village or community of devotees where I would really feel inspired and motivated. I think the whole GBC concept should be scrapped. It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a GBC is not ultimately a long term solution to anything. I think devotional communities centered around genuine sincere spiritual leadership is what is needed. I don't think ISKCON with it's GBC is EVER going to fulfill the dream of Srila Prabhupada. I think that in order for the dream of Srila Prabhupada to be realized an alternative to ISKCON is going rise up from the ashes. After all, in case nobody has noticed, Srila Prabhupada never mentioned "GBC" one time in his books.

This forum needs some moderation over how many topics a member can start each day. I think one topic a day would be plenty. Personally, I think that two topics a week per member would be plenty. Right now the flood gates are open and we are getting way too many topics coming way too fast. I have seen busy topics get buried with a flood of topics that get virtually no participation. At least, I think hot topics should get sticky status and not be allowed to get buried with a flood of topics that get no participation. If you have one member who has started more topics than all the other members combined, then I think something has to be done. If every one of us made topics out of every whim that popped in our head, the forum would just be absolute mayhem.

I am not so sure we can say that. We can understand Siva quite properly in the Bhagavat and in how the great Vaishnava acharyas have described him. We cannot understand Siva by speculating. We can understand as much about Siva as we are told in the shastra and the theology of the Bhagavat. One thing that Srila Prabhupada points out in his books is that most often Siva is portrayed as being white, but Srila Prabhupada points out in the Bhagavat purport the verse that describes Lord Siva as golden colored, I guess much like Mahaprabhu. So, the Shaivities might not accept that, but in the Bhagavat Lord Siva is described as being of a golden color, not white.

Siva Samhita was spoken by Romaharsana - the student of Vyasadeva. Of course the devotees of Siva are going to portray him as supreme. I don't have access to any genuine translation of Siva Samhita, so I cannot really read and judge for myself what it says. As well, any translation of Siva Samhita would have to be done by expert and qualified spiritual master. Gaudiyas follow the conclusions of Mahaprabhu. Mahaprabhu promoted Srimad Bhagavat as the topmost Purana. In Bhagavat Purana we find prayers of Siva worshiping his Lord and God Sri Vishnu. So, the Gaudiyas are not going to necessarily accept conclusions that have not been endorsed by Mahaprabhu. The realm of Lord Shambu is his planet that is situated in the Viraja or the marginal plane that is between the Vaikuntha world and the Maha-tattva. So, the planet of Lord Siva is not actually in the Vaikuntha realm. It is lower than that in Viraja - the realm situated not in the Mahat-tattva and not in the Vaikuntha sky. So, Siva cannot be supreme because the shastra describes Vaikuntha as even beyond the Viraja. Viraja is the buffer zone between the material world and the spiritual world. so, Sivaloka is not part of the spiritual sky of Vaikuntha where Narayana is God. More important than what is spoken about Siva in some Purana is what do we find Siva himself saying and how is he praying where we find him in the topmost Purana as told my Mahaprabhu Sri Chaitanya? Siva devotees can exaggerate about Siva, so we cannot truly depend on them. We must trace out the prayers and the teachings of Siva we find in shastra and then we can know what Siva himself is saying, not what his devotess are saying about him. So, Gaudiyas accept the Bhagavat Purana as the topmost Purana according to Mahaprabhu and the Gaudiyas are going accept Siva for how he is portrayed and how he prays and teaches in the Bhagavat Purana. Many Puranas deal with compromise religions and the gunas of raja and tama. So, in many other Puranas we can find so many things for worhsip of many demigods including Siva. But Sri Chaitanyadeva has given Bhagavat Purana as the topmost spotless Purana and so the Gaudiyas are going to get their knowledge of Siva as it comes from Bhagavat Purana. Padma Purana also has prayers of Siva and he prays to Supreme Lord Vishnu. So, the Siva Purana is not fairly objective and deals with stories about Siva and not so much as his teachings as we find him teaching the Pracetas in Bhagavat Purana and teaching them about supremecy of Vishnu and how to pray to Lord Vishnu.

Well, if you want to get technical, even if a vaisya merchant buys a load of mangos to sell in his market at the bazaar he is in a sense "speculating" that he will be able to in turn sell enough of those mangos at a profit that he can make some profit. Most all "business" requires some degree of speculative investment in the buy and sell world of business. The stock market is just a step up from that buy wholesale/sell retail enterprise. So, I am not so sure that the stock market is "gambling" in the strict sense. If it is, then so is retail marketing and buying wholesale. Most all business has some degree of speculative element to it. Being a merchant is speculation on what you can buy wholesale and sell retail. I have seen merchants lose money on wholesale investements. So, if we totally eliminate all speculative enterprise then we must elimate all forms of business. Even a farmer who grows a crop to sell at the market is "speculating" on that investment that there will be buyers at the market. So, I think wise investing in the stock market is no worse than farming or retail merchandising. It's a proven fact that over the last half century that stock market investing has proven to overall be more lucrative than the highly acclaimed real estate investing. A smart stock market investor can make a fortune. Smart day traders can make big profits. But, many people have lost their life savings on the stock market. So, it has it's risks for sure. If I had money to invest I wouldn't hesitate to find some good stocks to invest in. This is America in the 21st century. We can't play by the rules of ancient India when it comes to financial necessities. I heard that Corning was a good investment for the next few years. I guess they are into fiber optics.

In Siva Gita, Lord Siva is praying and offering prayers. Who is he praying to? Himself? If you know anything about the Siva Gita you will find he is offering prayers. Rama did worship Siva. The Gopis worshiped Siva and Durga. But, Rama worshiped Siva as being a great devotee of the Lord, not as being Supreme above Sankarshan or Vishnu. Study the prayers of Siva in Padma Purana and Bhagavat Purana etc. and you will find Siva is offering prayers to his ishta Devata - not unto himself. Mahaprabhu worshiped Hanuman. Did he worship him as god or as a great devotee? Same thing if Rama worships Siva. In the Puranas Siva is always praying to Lord Pradyumna, Lord Sankarshan or some other from of Vishna. Read this chapter of Bhagavat Purana and hear how Lord Siva prays unto the Lord. http://bvml.org/books/SB/04/24.html

then if a vaishnava is committing offense he is not guru or Guru?