Bhaktavasya
-
Content Count
386 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Bhaktavasya
-
-
Originally posted by talasiga:
by the way, Bhaktavasya,
I have very close friends
who eat MEAT !
I am secretly pained by this
They do not know all my secrets
That is their punishment !
Did you not read my p.s. at the end of the article? I made it very clear that I wished to be counted out of any hypothetical Krsna-conscious (read vedic) kingdom where those who eat meat are punished. Also that I believe such a RELIGIOUS law would be in direct contradiction to the teachings of Sri Caitanya and his associates.
Most of my close friends and family members eat meat and are honest, caring people who are straight forward in their dealings with others, have many devotional qualities, and I've met both vegetarians and meat-eaters who lie, deceive, and cannot be trusted. I'm with Christ when he (purportedly) said, "It's notimportant what goes into the mouth, but what comes out of it."
-
from Back to Godhead volumne 12 no.9 1977
Srila Prabhupad Speaks Out
On Absolute Authority
The following conversation between HDG A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad and one of his disciples took place in Bhuvanesvara, India
Devotee: Srila Prabhupada, one criticism against our Krsna consciousness movement is that we are foloowing absolute authority. People are critical because we rigidly adhere to your authority and to the authority of the scriptures. They say this is not a healthy psychology.
Srila Prabhupad: Their criticism is a contradiction. If they say authority is not good, then why are they criticizing us? They are trying to impose their own authority on us.
Devotee (in the role of an antagonist): I don't say you have to accept me as an authority.
SP: Then you are talking nonsense. You are like a merchant selling his wares, but telling the customer, "You don't have to buy from me." What is the use of his selling? And what is the use of your instruction, if I don't have to accept you as an authority?
Devotee: Well, everyone has his own life to live, so each person should take the best from many authorities. I might accept some ideas from your philosophly and some from various other philosophies as well. I can take whatever I think is best for me.
SP: But if you find the best of everything all in one place, then why should you run here and there?
Devotee: Well, history teaches us that whenever thre is absolute authority, it isn't healthy- like Hitler's Germany, for example.
SP: Absolute authority is bad when the authority is wrong. But if the authority is right, then it is good- because you can submit to one quthority and receive all knowledge. It's like going to a supermarket; we can get everything there in one place.
Devotee: But people often confuse our allegiance to scriptural authority with totalitarianism. One professor told me that if the Krsna consciousness movement ever became powerful, we would probably be intolerant towards all other religions.
SP: That means he does not understand us.
Devotee: Suppose someone didn't want to be a devotee in a society with a Krsna-conscious king or president. What would happen to him?
AP: The king must chastise him- he has that power. For example, if a child says, "Father, I don't believe in education;let me play," the father will never allow it. The king's duty is to guide the citizens like that.
Devotee: But if someone wanted to be a Christian in a society governed by a Krsna-conscius leader, would that person be chastised?
SP: The father doesnot chastise always, but only when his son does something wrong. To practice the Christian religion means to believe in God and abide by His orders. A faithful Christian would not be persecuted in a society with Krsna-conscious leadership.
Devotee: So the Christians would be allowed to follow the Bible?
SP: Yes. To follow the Bible is certainly religion. But the Christians today do not follow their scripture. The Bible says, 'Thou shalt not kill," but they are killing millions of cows and eating their flesh. What kind of Christianity is that?
Devotee: So they should be chastised.
SP: Yes, they should be punished. That is the duty of the kinlg. You mkay follow any bonefide religion and receive all protection by the Krsna-conscious government. But if you don't follow your own religion faithfully, then you must be corrected. That is the king's duty. A king cannot dictate that you must follow one particular religious faith, but he can order that you follow some religion. If you have no relgion, then you are an animal, and you must be chastised. Religion means the instruction given by God. And to be religious means to obey God and to love Him, So it doesn't matter through what religious process you have understood God. The important thing is that you love God and abide by His orders. Then you are religious. But if you do not know God- or if you have some imaginary god- then you must learn who God actually is. And if you refuse to learn then you must be punished.
Devotee: If someone says, "I know God" what is the test to see if he really does?
SP: The test is that he must be able to explain about God to others. ASk him, "Can you say what God is?"
Devotee: "God is the force moving the universe".
SP: So that means you do now know God. Who is behing the force? Whenever there is force, there must be a person who is forceful- who if forcing. Who is that?"
Devotee: I don't have such a vision.
SP: Then learn about God from me. And if you refuse, then you must be punished. You see, the king has to see that the citizens are God conscious. That is his duty.
Devotee: Then a Krsna-conscious leader has to be like a father?
SP: Yes. That quality was personally exhibited by Lord Ramacandra. He treated His subjects like His own sons, and they treated Lord Rama as their father. The relationship between the king and the citizens should be like that between a father and his sons.
Devotee: The chastisement tha the king gives...
SP: That is out of love, not enviousness. Chastisement means correction. If a citizen is accting wrongly, he has to be corrected. This is actually Krsna's business in human socity: to chastise the miscreants, to give protection to the godly personls, and to establish the true principals of religion. This is the mission of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the world and we have to execute His mission. Gradually, Krsna conscious devotees have to take the posts of leadership and correct the whole human society.
end of article
p.s SP brought Lord Chaitanya's teaching to the west, which this article appears to be inl contradiciton of. Native American indigenous people, and other religions, do not consider meat eating sinful. Would they be 'punished' in a hypothetical Krshna-conscious kingdom? If so, count me and 99% of the population out. In other words, it would never happen.
Another footnote, as I typed this out, the other people at the computer lab began freaking out over the destruction of the World Trade Centre in New York and the pentagan in Washington, DC.
-
jndas; again, why lump 'the swami Toms' in with the pedophiles? That is more than unfair, it is concocting hatred towards a devotee of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Radha and Krishna. Why are you pesisting in this way?
-
Must be my mistake, the previous post combines my reply to BB with his comments.
reply to BB in regards to the boyfriend with the lost head:
You have obsessed about Jayatirtha's murder and my ingesting into my body whatever I please, since the Chakra forums, in vnn, dharma mela and now here. Be careful, "Whatever and wherever the mind is at the time of death, that state he/she will attain without fail."
Just some friendly advise, not meant to sound mean-spirited at all. Peace in our time is my motto these days.
-
Originally posted by rand0M aXiS:
If you would put your bong down for a few days and sober up BV, then perhaps you could read this thread properly.
For starters, I do not smoke from a bong, preferring small hand-rolled joints that can be extinguished after 2 or 3 tokes, for medicinal purposes of course. Secondly, the highest siddhanta is found in Lord Chaitanya's sikshastakam, which supersedes all other vedic conclusions, what to speak of your personal conclusions.
No one is stopping anyone from receiving Mahaprabhu's mercy. The criticism is about those who want to change the siddhanta to justify their anarthas. Kinda like your boyfriend who lost his head.
-
I took the tour and I just have to ask; "What did he say?" Surely there was at least one memorable quote that could have been included in the presentation.
-
I took the tour and I just have to ask; "What did he say?" Surely there was at least one memorable quote that could have been included in the presentation.
-
The only thing wrong with being a gay person is that you draw a bunch of heterosexual (mentally, although they're probably not getting much action in real life, and not necessarily because of vows of celibacy) men who want to verbally boot-kick those who are different.
This topic came up on vnn a year ago, with BB and MC jumping in with the same arguments. I offer the same response; it's Mahaprabhu's vast loving network that is designed to insure that as many souls as are willing to take up the mercy get to receive it. What is with some of you men playing gatekeepers, deciding who gets the mercy of god and who doesn't, instead of following in the footsteps of the Lord Chaitanya; "Here is the Mercy, please just take it!"
-
Could someone print one piece of evidence (letter, direct quote) where Jayasriradhe/Cintamani das blastphemed or directly criticized AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada or Bhaktisiddhanta Swami Prabhupad? I must refrain from joining in a spiritual fellowship that censors and banns a person on flimsy evidence or because another individual just doesn't like the banned person for personal reasons.
-
Originally posted by amanpeter:
From Bhaktavasya prabhu:
Not meaning to make fun, but just got a strangely comic picture of an enormous wrestling ring filled with diverse passionate personalities in extreme costumes, running about, frantically grappling with each other. More are climbing over the ropes on all sides, desperately struggling to join the fracas, while Bhaktavasya in a flashy referee outfit is swinging one of the rowdier participants over her head before flinging his screaming body into the raucous crowd of spectators!!!
Valaya, that part was spoken in as a comedic vein, as three different forums have been shut down due to infighting that sometimes inevitable take place (Chakra, VNN, Dharma Mela). I have no intention of referring any fights. As I indicated, battles are not spiritual instructions, that's why I suggested another forum for those who are intent on getting into a heated argument.
And why focus on that one and not the main body of the suggestions anyway?
-
JRdd; these were just suggestions.
Originally posted by JRdd:
Here are some suggestions on how we can excersize freedom of speech, which is vital to the pursuit of truth.
1) We shall retain the right to disagree with any statement, belief or religious doctrine and to express our own views, in the spirit of friendly discourse.
"...in the spirit of FRIENDLY discourse" being the key phrase here, the rest being a given.
3) In the event of a discourse erupting into a battle, the rules of engagement are one on one, and that it be 'taken outside' the spiritual discussion forum and hashed on on the test forum. Suggestion 1) can be formatted to allow for spontaneity, with some restrictions applying.
How do you FORMAT and RESTRICT SPONTANEITY though? And isn't that a bit controlling, to decide that there must be spontaneity? How could one be spontaneous in such a format? And why would want even want to, necessarily? Seems like thoughtfulness might work just as good if not better, in such situtations. Whichever works at the time.
For example, someone may refer to their 'opponent' (and not the opponent's guru) as a jerk or a b**ch, but calling someone a f**khead would not be allowed.
Now who got to decide that you could use "jerk" and "b**ch", but not "*uc*head"? And would this be the same person we go to to find out if "p*ssears" is acceptable but not "sh**shoes"?
If the heat of the battle becomes too intense,
(to everyone else's immense pleasure)
the moderator can intervene by imposing a cool-out period for both forum members.
Ooooo, more fun, jndas! A step up from the garbage man! Now you get to be referee! Whee!
4) We acknowledge that our views, while different, may not be the highest truth, due to incomplete knowledge, faulty receptors, and personal basis.
True. But there's lots of things we may acknowledge, for the benefit of all. We don't need all these rules about all this, although I think that you make some very good points. Just basic respect, sensitvity, and consideration would solve it all. In fact, it wouldn't happen in the first place if some were more careful with how they speak. There really and truly are basic tenents written in the books of truth at our disposal, which clearly state where one is crossing the line as regards attitudes toward exalted souls (and it should, for safety's measure, include the assumption that ANY Vaisnava is an exalted soul, one way or the other, on some level or other), and anyone who is aware of these tenets is dutybound or morallybound or compassionatelybound--in some way bound or inclined--to speak of this truth. We are all in the position of being a teacher at some point. Sometimes it's you teaching me, and sometimes it's me teaching you. There is nothing arrogant or wrong in pointing out where there is some serious or near serious aparadh, and asking for the offender to reconsider his/her words or, if it gets really out of hand and the person is incommunicado, to simply ignore the person and also see to it that anything that is truly poisonous to the heart of a loving disciple be removed from the place where it fouls. That's why the umpire cries "Foul!". Someone's gotta keep things flowing along. But we can make his job less time-consuming by honoring the basics of respectful dealings, and oh, run like anything from any crazy thoughts that spring to mind about speaking loosely about the Mahabhagavats.
Now as Vaisnavas there WILL also be times when we will hear Avaisnava attitudes being propounded, impersonal acaryas quoted, etc. One has the right to state clearly that it is avaisnava, etc., and if the material gets too voluminous or or inappropriate or offensive to justify its presence on a Vaisnava forum, calling the moderator's attention to this would be perfectly in order, and not at all oppressive or repressive. There is always too much discussion after someone gets banned by a moderator, simply because someone still doesn't understand what constitutes serious offenses.
5) We recognize that freedom from illusion comes from Divine Grace. Once freed, no-one's former illusion/delusion may be brought up and used against him/her.
Right on. You know, reading this last bit I realise you are not necessarily writing a charter but are simply putting food out for thought? Well, it's been a very good meal, thank you, and I hope an enjoyable discussion follows, if this thread continues. I think this last point about not bringing up one's past is vitally important. It is so irrelevant, and so contrary to the basics of our philosophy to bring up one's past, and the person who does this clearly engages in breaking the principle of mental speculation. How many lifetimes would we have to go back, anyway? We are not God that we can judge when someone has left their past behind, anymore than we can even know a smidgen of the other person's past. Nor is it our job to point the finger outward. If we could use more "I" statements, and avoid the "you" statements, always keeping in mind that I am expressing how I feel, what I think, etc., and not speculating about or accusating another person, we may find ourselves talking about something mutual, something central, outside ourselves, you and me. The ego is such an embarressing thing I would rather hide it anyway when I come here, and behave AS IF I were free from it. Wow if we all did, that imagine what this place would be like! Actually I just read today that the person with their moon in Libra (as mine is) always wants harmony in every dealing, big or small, business, family, friends, and that when there is harmony this person is in Paradise. But don't we all feel that way?
Along with these suggestions, I propose that we wipe the slate clean and invite banned members such as Jayasriradhe back into the forums.
I don't agree with this one at all. And I agree with Janus who said she has plenty of places where she expresses herself on the internet, I have seen it myself. And I would like just one place I know I can go where I don't have to hear my spiritual master and others' spiritual master grossly offensively put down. It is dangerous for any creeper of love, and it is also a hundred times more distasteful than quinine, for the one who tastes the sweetness of the pure and gentle devotee of the Lord.
Thanks, Jayaradhe
P.S. I won't be able to reread or edit this so please forgive any typos that may be there, or uneven flow.
[This message has been edited by JRdd (edited 08-21-2001).]
-
The above message was edited due to typing mistakes and omission of a few intended words.
-
Both Canada and the United States have been balancing the right to freedom of speech with the inntroduction of anti-hate laws.
Basically,what you say in private conversation is your own business, but it is illegal to publish or promote views that promote hatred of an ethnic group or race
based on those views.
Here are some suggestions on how we can excersize freedom of speech, which is vital to the pursuit of truth.
1) We shall retain the right to disagree with any statement, belief or religious doctrine and to express our own views, in the spirit of friendly discourse.
2) We agree to refrain from personally attacking or insulting anyone's teacher/guru or each other while maintaining the freedoms allowed in suggestion 1)
3) In the event of a discourse erupting into a battle, the rules of engagement are one on one, and that it be 'taken outside' the spiritual discussion forum and hashed on on the test forum. Suggestion 1) can be formatted to allow for spontaneity, with some restrictions applying. For example, someone may refer to their 'opponent' (and not the opponent's guru) as a jerk or a b**ch, but calling someone a f**khead would not be allowed. If the heat of the battle becomes too intense, the moderator can intervene by imposing a cool-out period for both forum members.
4) We acknowledge that our views, while different, may not be the highest truth, due to incomplete knowledge, faulty receptors, and personal basis.
5) We recognize that freedom from illusion comes from Divine Grace. Once freed, no-one's former illusion/delusion may be brought up and used against him/her.
********
Along with these suggestions, I propose that we wipe the slate clean and invite banned members such as Jayasriradhe back into the forums.
[This message has been edited by Bhaktavasya (edited 08-21-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Bhaktavasya (edited 08-21-2001).]
-
Valaya, I don't understand how bringing up (reviving)old threads can cause confusion when the entire thread can be read by 'new readers'.
Sounds to me like you're picking at faults (sorry, but I have to say it) that don't really exist.
-
for Jijaji
If You're Gone
I think you're already gone.
I think I'm finally scared now
You think I'm weak-But I think you're wrong
I think you're already leaving
Feels like your hand is on the door
I thought this place was an empire
But now I'm relaxed- I can't be sure
I think you're so MEAN-I think we should try
I think I could need this in my life
I think I'm scared-I think too much
I know this is wrong it's a problem I'm
dealing
If you're gone-maybe it's time to go home
There's an awful lot of breathing room
But I can hardly move
If you're gone-baby you need to come home
Cuz there's a little bit of something me
In everything in you
I bet you're hard to get over
I bet the room just won't shine
I bet my hands I can stay here
I bet you need-more than you mind
I think you're so mean-I think we should try
I think I could need this in my life
I think I'm just scared-that I know too much
I can't relate and that's a problem
I'm feeling
If you're gone-maybe it's time to go home
There's an awful lot of breathing room
But I can hardly move
If you're gone
Baby you need to come home
cuz ther's a little bit of something me
In everything in you
by Matchbox 20 from the album 'Mad Season'
-
The aim of Buddhism, or the results of Buddhist meditative practise, is to become free from suffering that comes from egotism and ignorance and then with enlightened compassion to work for the benefit of all sentient beings. To be mindful or conscious in each and every act and situation. "Before enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water, after enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water" is a familiar zen saying.
This is a nutshell explanation, as there are many different school of Buddhism from Zen to Mayayana to Theravada that often disagree on various points of doctrine, such as whether or not to pay homage to the wrathful deities, whether or not they actually exist. The Dalai Lama, for example, has denounced the inclusion of a particular wrathful deity (whose name escapes me), and Buddhists from another school denounced the Dalai Lama for exluding the wrathful deity, claiming that the massacre of Buddhists in Tibet came about because prayers to wrathful deity stopped after the Dalai Lama denounced him.
An excellent magazine on Buddhism, with articles by Western and Eastern teachers, modern day Buddhists and older traditionalists, is tricycle (see tricycle.com), the Buddhist Review.
In today's Daily Dharma:
The Dalai Lama, Compassion and the Individual
We humans have existed in our present form for about a hundred thousand years. I believe that if during this time the human mind had been primarily controlled by anger and hatred, our overall population would have decreased. But today, despite all our wars, we find that the humand population is greater than ever. Ths clearly indicates to me that love and compassion predominate in the world. And this is why unpleasant events are "news"; compassionate activities are so much a part of daily life that they are taken for granted and, therefore, largely ignored.
-
Originally posted by rand0M aXiS:
Good luck finding a half-dozen individuals to cooperate.
BB, I totally agree with you on this one also.
Gauracandra, the real issue here is trust. You're talking to some here that have invested more than money in the dream of a spiritual community where devotion to God and service to each other is the reality. Economic blessings may follow or not. It's not as if you build an economic base and bhakti follows.
Your plan seems to me to be a spinoff from the expansionist mentality of bygone iskcon. People have to know each other, actually care for each other, before they can ever agree to live and work together 'in the spirit of devotion'. Good luck, though.
-
Originally posted by jijaji:
This story has no historical substance because Chaitanya had already passed on by the time Francis arrived in India...
you got that right..?
No problem. Either Jayatirtha made up the story of Chaitanya's meeting with Francis Xavier or he heard it from another source who made it up or speculated on it. Or...maybe it was a ghostly encounter. Something like the story of Chota Hari das's
ghost-body appearing to sing for Chaitanya.
(hee hee hee)
-
Sabrina; just one comment. Not everybody goes to the library to go on line. Many have their own personal computers at home. You seem to be under the impression that most people don't have a life outside the net, but most devote anywhere from 15 minutes a day to a couple of hours reading and posting, judging from the lengths of the average posts. I can assure you that, like most other humans, we all have other activities that include working at jobs, cooking, cleaning, raising children (in some cases), interacting with friends outside the net and other family members, bicycling, mountain climbing. And of course taking the time for private bhajan and meditation.
-
p.s. The body I saw was in the church named St. Francis Xavier (or the church of St. Francis of Xavier) and it is believed by locals to be the same Francis' body.
-
Jijaji; after reading your posting on the life of Francis Xavier, I found no clear indication that he either died in Goa or that his body is there. The church that I went to with Jayatirtha has a body encased in glass (or see-through plastic). Jayatirtha was the one who told me about Francis and Chaitanya meeting and discussing theology. He said that that is why there remains a harmonious blend of Christianity and Eastern traditions found there currently. I once posted on vnn a description of a temple/church on a mountainside. On the path leading to it there are stations of the cross. The main temple room consisted mostly of painted murals; on the west wall was a mural depicting Christ on the cross with a doitie on and weeping women in saris. The mural on the East side (from what I remember)was figures in conflict representing the battle of good versus evil, a sword with serpent wound around it, held by an old man, presumably Moses. On the next wall was a painting of Jesus floating in the air as he came out of the tomb, with 2 male figures floating along beside him. They all had long, flowing hair and were also wearing doitis. Of course Jayatirtha may have been embellishing the story. Or he may have heard it for someone else. He never did elaborate on where the story came from.
-
Thanks for putting out the word,BB.
-
Tarun, no wonder nobody could crack the riddle. Kalacanji cannot get sick. If He is considered to be made of stone (which according to Kapiladev in Srimad Bhagwatam is considered a hellish mentality)then stone cannot get sick. If He is considered the Supreme Brahman, He can only purify whoever meditates on Him without becoming contaminated in any way.
Originally posted by Tarun:
2) Proof Samuel Clemens was not self-realized:
"Never ther Tw___ shall meet" (at least not in that lifetime).
1) Why Zri Kalacandji´s often ill?
Porque ahI estA MAL Krishna.
Porque ahI es TAMAL Krsna.
Because there Tamal Krsna (visits).
Spanish "EstA mal" means "is ill, sick"
-
I was exaggerating while trying to make a point that many people who are incarcerated with lengthy sentences are not a danger to society.
Originally posted by talasiga:
Ex murderers are understandable - but an "axe" murderer?
World War 3 Began Today... God Help Us
in Spiritual Discussions
Posted · Report reply
What happened to you? Association becoming a touchstone, I guess.
Nuke the bastards, fry the jews, crush the enemy...it's all the same bullshit tit for tat. What about the people of Iraq being bombed back to the stone-age, their water supply, the fall-out and starvation of thousands of also innocent people, men, woman and children through years of sanctions. What about Belgrade, where thousands of citizens who were opposed to the leader were bombed continuously not just for one day but for over a month, day and night.
Whoever tosses the first nuclear bomb ensures that none of the people on the planet, for hundreds of generations, have a future life on our shared Mother Earth.