Posts posted by Kulapavana
Haribol Ksamabuddhi... I kind of suspected it was you...
You have grown and you think more and more for yourself.
Considered a closed canon by whom?
You have made a claim, now please tell us where Vyasadeva has closed the canon to future rishis.
Who has the authority to say that self-realized rishis cannot find and reveal any Vedic knowledge contained in the universe?
Even Madhvacarya did not make a claim that his writing is to be accepted as shastra or some divine revelation. His writing is merely a commentary to the shastra. That is the difference between Madhvas and the Gaudiyas, who claim to represent Madhva sampradaya.
Bhaktivinoda was in fact an admitted space traveler.
He had that mystic perfection.
He very well could have brought the text back down from a higher realm.
And where does Bhaktivinoda admit that? And how do we know it is not a made up story?
Bhaktivinoda used fiction in his writings all the time. Jaiva Dharma is a fictitious dialogue - the fiction part does not detract from it's philosophical or doctrinal value but the book itself is not a 'shastric proof' of anything.
Well, that is your speculation, because in the Saraswata lineage of Bhaktivinoda it is said that Bhaktivinoda found the text in his search around Bengal for the text.
It has never been claimed by the Saraswatas that Bhaktivinoda wrote the book like a novel.
He discovered the text in some library or in the possession of some Brahmana.
Nobody has referenced this Upanishad in the 2000 years of very extensive writing about Vedic literature, not even the Goswamis who spent years on research trying to substantiate Lord Caitanya as yuga-avatara. Also, the language it is written in suggests a modern source, and is similar to other writings of Srila Bhaktivinoda.
Why is it necessary for someone to fabricate an Upanishad for "preaching?" Especially when the basic thrust of the fabricated text is that your acharya is God? Why does one's acharya have to be deified for the sake of acharya?
It is certainly not necessary to fabricate evidence for the sake of preaching. Why does it happen? Because some people passionately believe in something, and want others to believe in it as well. It is very human. And deifying their acharyas is not just a problem for Gaudiyas. The followers often want to see their guru elevated to the most divine platform possible. And that is human as well.
In other words you are saying that you know better than Bhaktivinode Thakur and that he was commenting on a bogus text.
It seems that it was Bhaktivinoda Thakur himself who wrote that text for the sake of preaching. At times Bhaktivinoda would pretend to be a Baul so that he could better preach to Bauls (see his Baul Sangeet). He did not do it for money - he did it for a good cause. I find such actions much less problematic than accepting money raised by very questionable means for the sake of building a spiritual mission. Once you believe that end justifies the means, it is a very slippery slope.
Here is the analysis of this text by Jagadananda: http://www.gaudiya.com/pdf/An_Analysis_of_Three_Suspicious_Texts.pdf
Do some basic research on it, Sonic-ji... Sri Chaitanya Upanishad is just as 'authentic' as the Allah Upanishad. I do not know of anybody outside the Saraswata circle who believes it is genuine.
So let's stick to one defintion and that should be Bhatisiddhanta's, not yours.
It must be tough to be this dense...
I just showed you TWO different definitions used by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and not a single one that I developed.
It is unfortunate that sometimes Gaudiyas to the philosophy of "end justifies the means", which leads some otherwise good devotees to fabricate evidence to support their religious claims.
Seeing the flurry of supposedly Puranic quotes here I am surprised that nobody from Iskcon is quoting "Caitanya Upanishad" which even most Gaudiyas consider to be a forgery.
Here is your mistake in this idea. The soul is unchanging NOW. It only appears that there is a break in the loving service to Krishna when the question is viewed from within the illusion of past and future which are in themselves only wispy dreamlike states.
It's not that the jiva becomes a dog and then returns to being a Vaisnava.
How is jiva not changing? It desires may change, it's taste may change, it's consciousness may change. That is what separates those who chase independent enjoyment trom Vaishnavas - desires, taste, and consciousness. And you can not become a Vaishnava unless you get the seed of bhakti from one who is already a Vaishnava.
When shastra says that Brahman is changeless it simply means that it does not transform into something else.
Here is an example of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta using a different definition of a Vaishnava than the one you quote above:
je ‘phalgu-vairagi,’ kohe nije ‘tyagi,’
se na pare kabhu hoite ‘vaishnava’
hari-pada chadi’, ‘nirjanata badi,’
labhiya ki phala, ‘phalgu’ se vaibhava
je-who; phalgu-vairagi-false renunciant; kohe nije-calls himself; tyagi-an accomplished renunciant; se-he; na pare-is not able; kabhu hoite-to ever be; vaishnava-a devotee; hari-pada-the lotus feet of the Lord; chadi’-rejecting; nirjanata badi-residence in solitude; labhiya-obtaining; ki phala-what result?; phalgu-false; se vaibhava-that opulence.
16) "One who falsely gives up things that could actually be used in the Lord’s service proudly calls himself a ‘renunciate,’ but unfortunately he can never become a Vaishnava by such an attitude. Abandoning his servitorship to the lotus feet of Lord Hari, and resigning himself to his solitary home-whatever is gained by that exercise can only be the worthless treasure of deception." From Vaishnava Ke?-“Who is a Real Vaishnava?”
As JN pointed out, you can not have several different definitions of one term without creating confusion. It is a common problem in our movement - contradictory statements, and contradictory definitions confusing the heck out of the followers and creating needless divisions among them.
As to this statement it reminded me of why I ignore your posts. This is so full of cr*p. It is highly offensive to Bhaktisiddhanta by calling him a sentimentalist, ignorant of objectivity and factual knowledge of shastra.
You see just what you want to see - both in me and the world AROUND YOU. There are very elevated sentiments in some devotees and that is what I had in mind saying: "Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's statement quoted above can be taken as his devotional mood rather than an objective and fact (or shastra) based truth."
While all jivas may have the potency to become Vaishnavas, they are most certainly not all Vaishnavas (one who worships Vishnu out of pure love expecting nothing from Him in return) NOW. That is an observable reality you are trying to ignore.
There is a potency of fire in wet wood but calling wet wood 'fire' is not an objective knowledge.
People like you will make all kinds of ridiculous word gymnastics and logical charades to 'prove' their point. But who is getting fooled by such jugglery? And when cornered, all you can do is to scream: Aparadha!!!
It would be nice if we had clear cut definitions of the terms we use, and were consistent about it.
One time we say "every Jiva is a Vaishnava", and at other times we are contrasting Vaishnavas with Buddhists, Christians, Advaitins, etc.
And when we say: "'Vaishnava', which literally and naturally means one who worships Vishnu out of pure love expecting nothing from Him in return", we are actually speaking of supremely pure Vaishnavas. How many jivas in this world worship Lord Vishnu out of pure love expecting nothing from Him in return? I am not even sure you can say that about jivas who exist in the Brahmajyoti. Do they even know Lord Vishnu?
Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's statement quoted above can be taken as his devotional mood rather than an objective and fact (or shastra) based truth.
ha! that thread predictably turned into quite an all out brawl... jai!
Jesus of New Testament is most likely a composite character - lives of at least 3 separate people went into it (Jeshu the Magician, John the Baptist, Appolonius of Tyana - and Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus the Nazarene if he indeed had a separate existence).
Whether it was invented by 'disgruntled Jews' or followers of this new religion from a different ethnic group is really beside the point.
Still, there is no harm believing that Jesus of New Testament is a historical person. It is a positive and a heart warming story, just like the one about Santa Claus. I like the Santa Claus story better, because no religious wars were ever waged in his name.
Bhaktavasya-ji, as Sonic-ji already said, it is the same Sri Govinda. You should be able to get in touch with him through the SCSM website.
Another person who possibly knows the events you are interested in is Jitendriya das from Chicago, a life long resident there. You should be able to get in touch with him through the Chicago Temple. He is a very sweet devotee, always eager to help others.
Good luck with your book! such memoirs are very enlivening. Let us know when they will be available for purchase.
Were you able to get in touch with Sri Govinda Prabhu? I have heard that he recently took sannyasa in Sri Caitanya Saraswat Math.
Good topic! Very practical.
Renunciation has it's proper place in spiritual life, but if practiced incorrectly or prematurely it can lead to disastrous consequences. We have seen many people who thought they are ready to renounce the world only to find themselves totally absorbed in materialistic thoughts only a short time later. Pseudo-sannyasis craving both subtle and physical sense gratification are not helping anyone, including themselves.
Detachment is a similar issue. Detachment of a father towards his family is totally wrong and does not lead to any spiritual benefit. Attachment to acting in the mode of goodness allows people to have a proper life - both materially and spiritually. Beware of people who claim to be above acting in the mode of goodness as they are usually a fraud.
Yukteshvar based his system of yugas on more than a mere speculation. Puranas and other Vedic literatures use several different yuga standards:
I still think Yukteshvar was wrong, but that is perhaps because this particular Kali-yuga is very different.
Instead of gradual decline into a more and more barbaric society from Middle Ages, we actually see a gradual improvement as time passes by. The appearance of Lord Caitanya set in motion a chain of events which turned a bleak Kali-yuga into what certainly seems like a Dvapara yuga.
Yukteshvar's yuga cycle is also different in the sense that it is a system where change of yugas happens by an oscillation, not a rotation: it goes Satya, Treta, Dvapara, Kali, Dvapara, Treta, Satya, Treta, Dvapara, Kali, and so on. The rotary system Prabhupada adopted (which comes from Surya Siddhanta) goes: Satya, Treta, Dvapara, Kali, Satya, Treta, Dvapara, Kali, and so on.
Being vegetarian is cool, but I dislike vegetarians sporting a holier-than-thou attitude and criticizing meat-eaters, McDonalds, etc. Really no different from Hare Krishnas criticizing Shaivas, Mayavadins, Kundalini Yoga, etc. It comes across as extremely shallow.
If someone gives up eating meat because he is concerned about the suffering of the animals than he is certainly on a higher moral level than meat eaters who do not give a rip about the way animals are raised and slaughtered in order to arrive at their table as meat. That has nothing to do with concocted religious hierarchies.
In many natural cultures hunters begged the spirits of killed animals for forgiveness. That is a much higher platform of understanding than most people in this world have today.
The Apasampradaya piece of writing is such a mess. You are so educated and broad-minded, why quote from that?
I posted it for a historical context alone. Iskcon ritviks want to use the same tools Kartabhajas used and still use, and not just the ritvik initiations part... I would say that post-Prabhupada Iskcon is in quite a few ways similar to the kartabhaja movement of old - same emphasis on guru only (at the expense of shastra and sadhu), same emphasis on building a huge social and preaching empire, same idea of 'end justifies the means', same abuses of power, same ways of controlling the members and squashing out dissent.
History likes to repeat itself.
I am not sure I would call Jains 'atheists'. They are more or less monists, believing in the existence of the spiritual element (soul) and liberation (attaining divine consciousness) as the ultimate goal.
Are meat eating and war mongering 'theists' of this world better than Jains? Not at all. Krsna does not punish anyone for not believing in a personal God. You are punished for you deeds (karma), not for your doubts.
According to both scholars and traditionalists, Mahabharata, from which Gita is extracted, is a fairly ancient text (present version is most likely about 2000 years old).
Even if we question the identity of a person who gave it the form we all know today, it is the value of the content that is really important. And that content is certainly grounded in very old (one could say timeless) traditions, like yoga, sankhya, and bhakti.
Whoever wrote it did a fantastic job. It is a fascinating book on all accounts. I have read the full Ganguli translation of Mahabharata and I can safely say that it was the most interesting book I have ever read, and I have read a lot of books in my life.
The kartabhajas worship no deity other than the karta (guru). Whatever words he speaks are themselves sastra and should be blindly obeyed. His activities are always divine. Such divine activites were revealed by Aul Chand, the founder-avatar. In Bangladesh, a new version of the kartabhaja sect was founded some years back by one bogus "God". He is now dead, but latter-day devotees can be directly initiated by him through preachers known as ritviks. New initiates must agree to follow the principles -- be vegetarian once a week and worship no deity other than his picture.
From a historical perspective, babajis are a relateively recent category. There is no mention of babajis in the medieval Vaishnava literature. Seems like they were formalized as an 'order' in the late 18th or even early 19th century.
in Spiritual Discussions
Posted · Report reply
Do not worry about the rules you are not able to follow. Worry about following the rules you CAN follow, like hearing, chanting, remembering, rendering service, etc. Concentrate on the positive purification.
Prabhupada gave here a very high standard few people (especially of the non-brahminical variety) can follow. Set yourself a realistic standard of no sex outside marriage - that is hard enough for most people to follow. If you live like that all your life (following realistic standards and performing devotional service) when you are old you will be ready to follow the highest standards. Be patient.