jeffster

Yes, Bija, so true, and didn't Prabhupad and Srila Sridhara Maharaj suggest that monists sometimes fall out of Brahman because there's no juice, no reciprocation there, it is pure, but a bit on the dry side, so to speak, so they fall out and come back. And Prabhupad would suggest "Until they perfect their knowledge of Krishna." Krishna says He can only be understood as He is through bhakti, not through karma, jnana or yoga. Pranams, jeffster/AMdas

Sorry, but I must disagree with Radhika's statement " it forsakes its thoughts and its ego and leaves the causal to merge with the Infinite." Or rather I must disagree only with the last part of the statement - "and leaves the causal to merge with the Infinite." Again, this is the classic monist stance, always wanting to "merge with the Infinite." For a Vaishnava, this is not our goal. This, to us, is tantamount to spiritual suicide. Again, I had to look at Gita for clarification and found it in 18:55: "bhatya mam abhijanati yavan yas casmi tattvatah tato mam tattvato jnatva visate tad-anantaram" A.C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupad's translation into English is: " One can understand the Supreme Personality as He is only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of the Supreme Lord by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God." I think everyone here will agree with the translation of the first sentence, although some here may disagree with the translation of the 2nd sentence. I am not learned in Sanskrit to translate it any better, nor would I jump over the head of my Gurudev in an attempt to do so. But the purport here is very illuminating and following is the 2nd paragraph of it - " One who is fully conversant with the Krishna science becomes eligible to enter into the spiritual kingdom, the abode of Krishna. Becoming Brahman does not mean that one loses his identity. Devotional service is there, and as long as devotional service exists, there must be God, the devotee, and the process of devotional service. Such knowledge is never vanquished, even after liberation. Liberation involves getting free from the concept of material life; in spiritual life the same distinction is there, the same individuality is there, but in pure Krishna consciousness. One should not misunderstand that the word "visate,enters into Me," supports the monist theory that one becomes homogenous with the impersonal Brahman. No. "Visate" means that one can enter into the abode of the Supreme Lord in his individuality to engage in His association and render service unto Him. For instance, a green bird enters a green tree not to become one with the tree but to enjoy the fruits of the tree. Impersonalists generally give the example of a river flowing into the ocean and merging. This may be a source of happiness for the impersonalist, but the personalist keeps his personal individuality like an aquatic in the ocean. We find so many living entities within the ocean, if we go deep. Surface acquaintance with the ocean is not sufficient; one must have complete knowledge of the aquatics living in the ocean depths." Regards, jeffster/AMdas

Hello again dear Srikanth, Nice discussion and we are keeping it civil, as gentlemen. The verse has the "M" in Myself capitilized. Krishna is referring specifically to Himself, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. If the verse were referring to jivas, it would have a small "m." Krishna pervades and supports the entire universe, I don't. I am certainly not all pervasive, and generally not even particularly supportive. I can't even control my own body, what to speak of something like the universe. Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy, as has been posted here already, is "acintya bheda, bheda tattva," or "acintya bheda, abheda tattva," sorry I am writing this from memory, without looking up the exact Sanskrit, as I probably should, so I may not have the Sanskrit exactly correct. But it means, "simultaneous oneness and difference." This means that although the jiva is certainly one in quality with Krishna, fully spiritual, there is a vast difference in quantity. Krishna is great; we are small. Krishna can do things like support the entire universe. I, as a jiva, can do things like support my entire household. Regards, Jeffster/AMdas

Hello again Srikanth, In answer to your question, what sustains the existence of all these lokas?, I had to look to Gita, and found it in Gita 10:41 and 42: "Know that all beautiful, glorious, and mighty creations spring from but a spark of My splendor. But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge ? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe." Regards, jeffster/AMdas

Hello Srikant, There are the gods, generally jivas who act as deputed agents (demigods) of the Supreme, and then there is the God of the Gods, I forgot the Sanskrit for this. We need not be confused, Krishna's position as God of the gods is clearly superior to that of any of the demigods. The paths are different, thereby leading to different destinations. Generally, merging into Brahman for monists; going to Vaikuntha, Krishnaloka (Vrndaban, Dwarka or Mathura), Ram loka, etc. for Vaishnavas. Pranams, Jeffster/AMdas

Hello again, Srikant & other monists in this debate. It is likely that I cannot convince you of the personalist stance, as my ability to convey in totality the Vaishnava conception is, unfortunately, not mature enough, my knowledge of scripture being somewhat lacking, although I have firm faith in the Vaishnava conception and conclusions. Re: Brahma-samhita, it would behoove some of you there in India or some other learned investigators there to visit the Adi-kesava temple, inquire from the administrators or pujaris some history of the temple, and see if they can shed some light on the issue of Brahma-samhita. As far as the Ishopanishad goes, Prabhupad translated this book because it serves as a bridge between the monist and Vaishnava conceptions. Re: verse 8, if it were simply attempting to establish Divinity as an impersonal absolute (brahman), it would have been enough to call it unembodied and leave it at that. End of story. But the verse clearly states "kavir manishi" meaning omniscient philosopher. Brahman is not capable of speaking as it has no senses and also you cannot speak to it. But you CAN speak to a philosopher and a philosopher can speak to you. You can speak to Krishna and Krishna can speak to you, and He gives His supreme philosophy in Gita. Therefore, the text is bridging the gap between impersonal monism and a personal Vaishnava conception. You may say that I am interpreting the text, but I would say that I am interpreting the text correctly and attempting to make this subtle point. Vaishnavas accept Divinity in 3 parts: Brahman, Paramatma, Bhagavan. They represent being, knowledge and bliss. Generally monists only accept brahman, yogis generally are attuned to Paramatma, Vaishnavas accept all three but perceive (through practice, consisting of bhakti and surrender) the sweetness of Bhagavan. You state that "...any form is confined to boundaries. So it cannot cover the entire cosmos." But it was the incarnation Vamana, as a dwarf brahmana, who covered the entire universe in just 3 steps, demonstrating that He could do what no jiva could, thereby proving His divinity. You are making a mistake thinking that the body of the Divine Person, Sri Krishna, is somehow limited. There is nothing limited about Krishna in any respect. If you read about Krishna lila in Dwarka, Krishna had, what, over 16,000 (?)queens, right there demonstrating His divinity, as no jiva earthly king has likely ever had over 200 wives, and He expanded into a separate form for each wife. In fact each wife, covered by maha-maya, thought that only she was married to Krishna. Then when Krishna left the palaces to go to the assembly hall, His forms merged into one, and He then entered the assembly hall as one Divine Person. Only Narada knew of this little Divine trick. Pranams to all, jeffster/AMdas

Hello Srikanthdk71, My understanding from the introduction to my copy of Brahma-samhita is that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu found the Brahma Samhita in the manuscript library of the Adi-kesava temple in what is now Kerala, before called Travancore state. Actually he found 1 chapter, although it is believed that there were 100 chapters. But the point is that the text was already extant before Mahaprabhu discovered it. Text 8 of Ishopanishad does state that the Supreme is unembodied, but is suggesting that the Supreme has no physical body as we know it because it also states that the Supreme has no veins. It would not be necessary to suggest that the Supreme has no veins if it has already been stated that He has no body. The statement that the Supreme has no veins suggests the fact that the Supreme has an entirely spiritual body devoid of veins, a transcendental body. jeffster/AMdas

A brilliant exposition by Dark Warrior. The only tiny thing I would add is from verse 8 of Sri Ishopanishad where, in the purport, Prabhupad says, "In the Brahma-samhita (5.32) it is further stated that with each and every part of His body He can do the work of the other senses. This means that the Lord can walk with His hands, accept things with His legs, see with His hands and feet, eat with His eyes, etc. ..." jeffster/AMdas

Theist, Nice read. I am only hanging on by causeless mercy, certainly not because of anything I am doing. jeffster/I.M. Faulty/ AMdas

Hello again, theist, Yes, I need to be involved here, if the members will have me. I need to learn to give again, after 22 years of doing mostly business. The business was mostly taking, so it is time for me to learn to give. I.M. Faulty/jeffster/AMdas

It was my idea for a standard for the non-standard homosexuals. Sort of an interim standard, for the many of them who can't rise to the full standard that Srila Prabhupad encouraged. Just an idea... My book went live yesterday on Amazon Kindle. Kindle is their fairly new book downloader and display device. In other words, the book is in electronic format only, at this time, although I will be selling hard copies at San Francisco Rathayatra for anyone who is interested. I haven't yet been able to upload my product image, which is a pic of the front cover of the book. At least now there is something on Kindle outside of the usual pap, even though, in a disclaimer, I don't claim to represent any Vaishnava ecclesiastical organization. Everything is just the "opinion of the author." jeffster/AMdas

My thinking was that monogamy is superior to promiscuity. At least there would be some standard, rather than no standard. But, I personally agree that homosexual behavior would be better if given up entirely.

But some people can't give it up, any more than heterosexuals can give it up. Of course, we know that heterosexuals can legitimize it through having progeny that hopefully they raise in KC. But does that mean that you wouldn't allow a homosexual with a homosexual partner to even be a congregational member ? On the other hand, in most cases, homosexuals, because of their tendency to this type of sin, wouldn't be interested in KC anyway, but what of the few who are ?

Yes, if Prabhupad were here preaching today, he would find a clever way to engage homosexuals. But he is not here, he left the responsibility to us, as faulty as we (I) still are, to attempt to carry on. Prabhupad saw beyond all the designations that we are still attached to, such as homosexual and heterosexual, and he simply encouraged us to engage in service and chant, knowing that if we did so, we would eventually become purified and become free from our bodily designations. I feel that anyone who is sincere enough to want to practice KC should be encouraged, and this, from my book: "...he should also be encouraged to give up homosexual behavior altogether or, if unable to do so, remain loyal to one partner." The rest of it is similar to what I have stated above in the reply to Amara das. Homosexuals should be allowed to be congregational members, at least, but certainly never allowed into a brahmacari or brahmacarini ashram, for sure. But celibacy would still be the safest position for a person with homosexual tendencies, because that would mean that he/she is not acting on those tendencies. But, again, from a strictly transcendental viewpoint, the same could be said for heterosexuals, as well. Sexual desire, separate desire has to be given up regardless of who we are. It's difficult to walk the walk, that's for sure, but necessary. jeffster/AMdas

I am just now publishing my own first book: Vaishnava Viewpoint: Journey to Ecstasy, copyright 2008, by JR, with a simple self-published hard copy for now, as well as another version that I can't speak about just yet. Isn't he the same Siddha Svarup who is in Hawaii ? He left Iskcon early on or something like that ? Where can his books be obtained ? jeffster/AMdas

Thanks again, theist. Yes, I am looking forward to posting some of my ideas here and hopefully cooperating with your good self and others here. jeffster/AMdas

Thanks again, Theist. I have been trying to write little essays on current events from a Vaishnava perspective. I have essays on race, Buddhism, religious conversions and of course the one posted here on homosexuality. Pranams, jeffster (AMdas)

Thanks theist for your support. Yes, the postings were on Chakra. I had several email exchanges with Madhusudani dd, who is apparently the moderator. She let me put up 1 or 2 posts, but not the one I will post here below. I am a little heavy and harsh at times, and for that I apologize. I am working on being more noble and inclusive, but Krishna consciousness is a very gradual process for me, so the good qualities manifest very, very slowly, if at all. "A Response to Amara das' article in Chakra.org, "Understanding Gay Devotees" by AM das " I appreciate Amara das' rebuttal of my article, "Response to Amara." His arguments are well-presented and it is plain to see that he is a sincere devotee. However, although his arguments seem logical, there are some basic flaws in his premises, which I will attempt to address here. Before doing so, however, I would preface my comments by stating that both heterosexual and homosexual devotees are beset with sexual desire. Sex desire is the primary symptom of separateness from Krishna, i.e. mundane selfish desire. So, from a strictly transcendental perspective, there is not a great deal of difference between and heterosexual and homosexual. However, we shall see that in the practice of Krishna consciousness (sadhana-bhakti) there is a fundamental difference which can ultimately lead to either liberation or bondage. The first flaw in Amara das' logic is that in his article of 17 May, '08, "Gay Vaishnavas Welcome CA Supreme Court Ruling," he waxes enthusiastic over the CA ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. He doesn't mention that this issue will be put to CA voters in the November election and likely overturned by the general populace. What is more disturbing, however, is the fact that he is enthusiastic over the decision of a secular body. My dictionary defines "secular" as "of or relating to the worldly or temporal" and also "not bound by monastic vows or rules." In older times when there was little or no division of church and state, laws were passed which upheld religious mores. Now, in this age of separation of church and state, laws are passed that promote or at least tolerate sinful activities and sense gratification. More on "sin" later. In other words, in devotee parlance, the secular authorities are in "maya." Why should we listen to them or want to follow their illusory edicts ? Sorry if my statement that "there is no sanction in any known religious system" wasn't accurate. But even if we accept the fact that some of the world's indigenous religions accommodated homosexuality, should we as Vaishnavas accept this ? Amara das himself said that "Vaishnavas may not agree with these beliefs." What great contributions have any of the indigeneous religions made to the world? What was their standard ? What is the Vaishnava standard ? Compare their standard to the Vaishnava standard and to our sublime goal of cent percent surrender and service to Lord Krishna, and we can see that this is not an acceptable argument for acceptance of homosexuality. If anything, all that these religions could do was sanction activities that they couldn't manage. I also stand behind my statement that "homosexuality is perhaps a denser form of entanglement (conditioning)." In fact, I shall confidently remove the word "perhaps" altogether. Let's compare apples with apples here. I am not comparing a celibate gay man with a heterosexual rapist. But is is fair to compare a sexually active gay couple with a sexually active heterosexual couple. For the sake of our argument, let us consider that both couples are attempting to become Krishna conscious. Our Vaishnava prohibition is that there is no sex outside of marriage and sex within marriage only for the purpose of procreation. Firstly, the gay couples are prohibited from marriage altogether. Heterosexual devotees can at least legitimize their sex desire through marriage by having children whom they can raise in Krishna consciousness. Homosexuals have no way to legitimize their sexual desire, as it is for sense gratification only. Homosexuality, therefore, falls completely outside of the purview of the householder ashram. In fact, it falls within the category of sinful activity. I define sin as that which is contrary to self and God realization. But perhaps my definition is not valid or bonafide enough; my dictionary defines sin as "1.)an offense against God, 2.) transgression of the law of God, 3.) a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God." Perhaps the fact of nature's arrangement has been lost on homosexual men... The most powerful attraction IS between man and woman and it was designed that way to perpetuate the human race. What is Amara suggesting here ? That we should become gay because it is somehow less entangling than a man/woman relationship ? This is a dangerous argument and subtly promotes values of sinfulness. I also maintain that these so-called Christian denominations have only succeeded in watering down the principles of bonafide religion in order to increase the numbers in their congregation by allowing non-standard (homosexual) members to marry. I do not believe that Christ would have sanctioned it. Perhaps one of our readers can find a scriptural reference on what Jesus said, if anything, about homosexuality. Again, after having said all that, I feel that homosexual devotees should certainly be accepted and encouraged as devotees, but never given sanction through marriage. Rather they should maintain a low profile and not let their "gay pride" go to their heads. In the purport to Bhagavad-gita 15.5, Prabhupad states "The surrendering process is described here very nicely. The first qualification is that one should not be deluded by pride." And I would give that same advice to myself or any other practicing Vaishnava. We are all fallen, we are all beset by sex desire and we all have a greater or lesser degree of false pride. With good faith, let us encourage each other to chant Hare Krishna and serve. There is hope for all of us." After having some time to give this article more thought, I also realized that the position of the gay apologists is that they were "born" with the tendency, as if to say, "We can't help it." We all have free will, so somewhere along the journey homosexuals came up with their desire to be gay and it has now fructified so that they were born with this tendency in this life. Since it all has to do with desire, isn't it is time that they began to clean up their desires and get back on track, and not use the excuse that it is an inborn tendency in an attempt to rationalize their gaydom ? jeffster / AMdas

The original post by Ramachandra Gosvami was, I believe, posted on a devotee web sight, not a forum actually - your posts all must be approved by the moderator - that is favorable to openly feminist women devotees as well as gay devotees. Please don't misunderstand me. I believe that gay devotees should be part of the congregation. However, I had a couple of exchanges on the site with Amara das, a homosexual devotee, who, incidentally, is a sincere devotee, but my last refutation of his obvious gay pride was never put on the site, thus making it appear that gayness had won the day. I am not sure if I am allowed to post the name of that other website here; I already have forum trauma and am a little reluctant to be too open about this. However, if anyone is interested in my refutation of gay devotee pride, I will be happy to repost it here for you. Pranams, AMd