suryaz

Humm! OK but - I do not understand this [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 04-19-2002).]

http://sanskrit.gde.to/doc_1_index.html

So much gobbledygook on these topics are and/or have been presented as facts. The only things we can be definite about are that we are now becoming and in the future what is of us now, and what was of us in the past, and what will be of us in the future, will continue to become in one way or another. [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 04-14-2002).]

Yes, - truly Gauracandra. I know of similar situations. However, of these the devotees concerned, have previously been initiated into ISKCON, have good relationships with local ISKCON management and are required to keep the non-ISKCON initiation quite (although most others are aware of the non- ISKCON initiation). There are always some people who can move easily among the different groups. This is however, seldom the norm. [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 04-04-2002).]

Hummm !! OK... but... Jagat, The pleasure of assistance was ours. And now as our soul brother, I hope you will forgive us for reminding you of what you already knew. Your soul sister in Divine service.

Or maybe If eligibility is verified, the spiritual master reveals the eternal form the disciple is to cultivate as a manjari in Lalita's branch of Srimati Radharani’s group of gopis

Well Shashi I can ask: Could your judgment not be based on a gamble???? [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 03-31-2002).]

Thank you gHari, You are very kind I also hope the food offered was enjoyed i.e., I hope it became prasad

Jagat, Your translation: "When on examining the disciple’s natural tendencies, the spiritual master verifies that he truly has a taste for serving in the sringara-rasa, he informs the disciple of the eternal form that he should cultivate as a manjari in Lalita's sub-group of Srimati Radharani’s group of gopis." Alternatives: "When on examining the disciple’s natural tendencies, the spiritual master verifies that” [he/she] -or put- [the disciple] “truly has a taste for serving in the sringara-rasa” [the spiritual master then] “informs the disciple of the eternal form that” [he/she] “should cultivate as a manjari in Lalita's sub-group of Srimati Radharani’s group of gopis." "When on examining the disciple’s natural tendencies, the spiritual master verifies that” [the disciple] “truly has a taste for serving in the sringara-rasa” [the spiritual master then] “informs the [individual] of the eternal form…” [he/she] “should cultivate as a manjari in Lalita's sub-group of Srimati Radharani’s group of gopis." My preferences are: Upon "examining the natural tendencies of the disciple the spiritual master" confirms whether the disciple "truly has a taste for serving in sringara-rasa." If a positive confirmation is verified, the spiritual master "informs the disciple of the eternal form" he/she "should cultivate as a manjari in Lalita's" branch "of Srimati Radharani’s” gopi camp or Upon "examining the natural tendencies of the disciple the spiritual master" confirms whether the disciple "truly has a taste for serving in sringara-rasa." If eligibility is verified, the spiritual master "informs the disciple of the eternal form" he/she "should cultivate as a manjari in Lalita's" branch "of Srimati Radharani’s group of gopis." [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 03-31-2002).]

Good night Beemasane and good night gHari. I need to prepare the evening prasad now. [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 03-30-2002).]

Thanks ghari, [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 03-30-2002).]

Oh! ghari that is a bit harsh………even though you said it in jest I do not think of Jagat (or the rest of you for that matter) as a big male chauvinist pig but rather like the rest of us a conditioned soul. However, I really object to being either 1. forced to accept address in male terms, or 2. be excluded from something that is equally my right as a human entity, a jiva and the rest when there is simply no need for it. A little bit of caution and sensitivity in this matter would not be difficult. It may be argued that Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote in male terms and the translation is perfect. However is not accuracy in ideology more important in a presentation - ie is not the in meaning rather than a literal translation of greater significance? [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 03-30-2002).]

Hummmm!!!!!!!!!!!! What?????????????????????? At least KK translation does not show gender bias. In view of the other two translations it appears that men only can perform raganuga bhakti, be initiated into and initiate others. Can we really say the above are without error? We can also ask: does it really show (or at least be as closely as possible representative of) the essential spirit of Gaudiya Vaishnavism? Your servant [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 03-29-2002).]

Huuuuuuuuummmmmmm Jai Jai Gaura-candra [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 03-29-2002).]

Sha, Your Gaura-purnima greeting is soooooo nice. [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 03-28-2002).]

....-....-....u.......u.......-.....-...-...- ...and a merry merry Gaura-purnima... [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 03-27-2002).]

I guess it is my PC - Nope, again and again, just a saffron square

WHAT??? Is this a joke or is there something wrong with my PC. I tried the above URL but all that I saw was a saffron square (literally). [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 03-20-2002).]

Jndas, To support your position and to get your view across, you used what I call poly-pseudo-diction. Your secrecy argument is not cogent. You use the word secrecy out of context to support your argument. Eg you used the word secrecy in the raja-vija verse to support your view that Krsna supported secrecy. However, the way it is used therein supports the opposite. Prabhupada calls this an ‘open secret’ and therefore not a secret. Just because the word secret occurs there it need not necessarily support secrecy. In the final analysis: Krsna turned the Vedic religious secrecy thing on its head in 18.66. He suggested all regardless of caster, gender etc can reach the final goal through bhakti and not dharma. Then Caitanya made sure it had a workable forum VIZ: Sir Krishna Sankirtana and made it available to “sarva-atman” – “every living entity” not just regardless of caste colour, creed and/or gender but regardless of species and corporality as well He said “sarva-atman” “every living entity” And that means 'every living entity" By dint of their very existence "every living' entity has qualified. "sarvatma-snapanam param vijayate sri-krsna-sankirtanam" ceto-darpana-marjanam bhava-maha--davagni-nirvapanam sreyah-kairava-candrika-vitaranam vidya-vadhu-jivanam anandambudhi-vardhanam prati-padam purnamrtasvadanam sarvatma-snapanam param vijayate sri-krsna-sankirtanam [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 02-10-2002).]

it becomes chintamani?

Krsna made BG an “open secret” and therefore not a secret. He too opposed secrecy. His raja-vidya is for all regardless of caste, creed, colour or gender. [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 02-09-2002).]

This depends on your definition of body The body is not a single thing. The material angas are of a body of elements. The living body however is more complex. It is a body or unity of physical elements, bodily angas, psycho-physical elements, imagined ideas and the soul.

Yes Jndas but nevertheless -"protection" by definition means the dis-empowerment of somebody. The notion of protection depends on the existence of some kind of dis-empowerment. This brings into play the notion of the other Why does one need to be protected in the first-place - In other words why should there be the 'other' in the first place. It is only when injustice of dis-empowerment is made legal, institutionalised, that a group of people are identified as the 'other'. If a society stands on just, honest and truthful foundations the 'other' should not exist. - If society offers equality in opportunity and access to power to all its member dis-empowerment will not exist at least institutionally. So what does one need protection from - brute or force of the creators of the 'other' no doubt? Encouragement through affirmative action is the better term

Let's get these terms right - There is Polygamy, and there is Polygyny Polygamy = where both male and the female members of a society, group etc can have multiple marriage partners at the one time eg Mahabarata: Kunti her co-wives and her Husbands, Drupadi her co-wives and the Padavas. Polygyny = a male has multiple female marriage partners eg Islam, Mohammad, Bin Laden et al. Judaism, Mormon, Hindus etc.

I am confused - - I do not get it. This can only be a “curse” if secrecy is believed to be a good thing. But is it a good thing? We should consider what is at play behind secrecy. Does secrecy not bring into play duplicities? = Yes We can then ask where there is duplicity can there be honesty, truthfulness etc? Further, by definition secrecy means the empowerments of some at the cost of the disempowerment of the other? There is certainly not equality in access to knowledge in secrecy. If the ‘curse’ (so called) is dealt with in a positive way, and if honesty (rather than duplicity) is the goal we could say women have a benediction and are instruments of honesty So why does the author promote it as a curse? Remember Quote "The 81st verse: Tri-satyasya bhaktir eva gariyasii bhaktir eva gariiyasii" "For the one who is truthful in three ways, devotion is dearest, devotion is dearest to him" "[Truthful in thee ways – with body, mind and words. His activities, thoughts and speech are coherent with each other.]" "Is this not the foundation for any functional social relation – what to speak of spiritual love (bhakti)?" End of Quote We could then ask if the author is dealing lila-specific. In such a case would not the incident only be applicable to women of the lila and not of womankind in human society? [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 02-08-2002).]