Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

suryaz

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    215

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by suryaz

  3. Posted · Report reply

    Originally posted by mmaranr:

    Hi all,

     

    I am confused if there is really a Divine Creator called God (I believe He is called Brahma in Hinduism) and have some very fundamental questions. I hope someone can enlighten me and guide me to the truth.

     

    1. If Brahma created the universe and all living things, who are Jesus Christ's father and Allah?

    2. If He created the earth, when was this event accomplished? Is it 4.6 billion years ago as estimated from radioactive dating?

    3. Why did He create primitive life form millions of years ago that are very much different from the life form that exist today? (Why create dinosaurs first before humans and make them extinct?)

    4. Why make the earth with fault lines along which earthquakes repeatedly occur and kill thousands of normal, innocent people, including children?

    5. Why make the earth with molten rock underneath the crust that oozes out as lava during earthquake?

    6. Why create the e-coli bacteria? Or any of the hundreds of viruses that cause death to innocent people, children, animals and plants?

    7. Why create 9 planets and make only one possible to sustain life? What is the purpose of the other 8?

    8. Why create people of different races, religious beliefs, color etc.?

    9. Why create some people with birth defects? If this is to pay for their misdeeds in their previous life, why wait one generation?

    10. Why hundreds of innocent people die in stampede, tunnel fires, diseases when seeking Him at temple festivals, rituals, pilgrimages etc.

     

    I hope someone can help me.

     

    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).]

  4. Posted · Report reply

    Originally posted by Gauracandra:

    Not to get into any politics, but I thought it would be good to mention that there are a number of people who aren't initiated in Iskcon who are allowed service within the institution itself. I know of two people (in two different temples) who are disciples of Srila Bhakti Pramode Puri Maharaj who perform pujari work, and another person who is a disciple of Srila Govinda Maharaj who does service as well.

     

    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).]

  6. Posted · Report reply

    Originally posted by gHari:

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

     

    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

     

  7. Posted · Report reply

     

    Originally posted by Shashi:

     

    Sorry prabhuji but I am not able to bet with you. our family Guruji having prohibited the gambling as well as meating and intoxicating and unmarried loving.

     

    Well Shashi I can ask:

     

    Could your judgment not be based on a gamble???? Posted Image

     

     

     

     

    [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 03-31-2002).]

  9. Posted · Report reply

    If you can help me out with suggestions, Suryaz, I welcome them.

     

    Jagat

     

    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).]

  11. Posted · Report reply

    Originally posted by gHari:

    Suryaz, I didn't realize you were female, but don't worry, Jagat is a good guy. He will see the comment as humour, I'm sure. I also think he will appreciate your reminding him of the gender-neutral thing.

     

    Thanks ghari,

     

    Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

     

     

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

  12. Posted · Report reply

    Originally posted by gHari:

    Yes, one must watch their pronouns nowadays. Looks like our Jagat will get some tangible compensation for his selfless service to us here.

     

    The funny thing I found about some of Harinama Cintamani as I had typed it into the fellowshipwas that in some sentences people would turn from male to female right in the same sentence; starting out a 'him' and then bam, suddenly a "her".

     

    It will be interesting to see how a big male chauvinist pig like Jagadandana Prabhu (chuckle - hope you're laughing, Jagat) will handle such confusing texts.

    Oh! ghari that is a bit harsh………even though you said it in jest Posted Image

     

    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).]

  13. Posted · Report reply

    Originally posted by Jagat:

    .....A translator really must resist the temptation to add extra words or comments, no matter how convinced he is that the original author intended them. He has the right to separately add commentary, as I am doing here, but he should be careful to preserve the original in as transparent a fashion as possible.

     

    ....For instance, on page 143 of the HNC, the following passage is found in footnote 29:

     

    <blockquote>gurudeva ziSyera svAbhAvikI pravRtti parIkSA kariyA jakhan dekhen je ziSya zRGgAra-rasera adhikArI baTe, takhan tAMhAke zrI-rAdhAra yUthe, zrI-lalitA-gaNa-madhye sAdhakera siddha-maJjarI svarUpa avagata karAiben.</blockquote>

     

    KK's translation: "First the spiritual master carefully examines the disciple's nature. If the disciple is qualified to enter zRGgAra-rasa, the spiritual master explains the disciple's perfect manjari form in Lalita's sub-group of Sri Radha's group of gopis. Then the spiritual master explains the eleven items that describe the disciple's spiritual identity."

     

    SB's translation: "If, after having tested the disciple, the spiritual master determines that he is eligible to perform bhajan and serve in the sringara rasa, he then confidentially informs the disciple about his eternal spiritual form as a manjari in Srimati Radharani’s camp, under the supervision of Sri Lalitadevi."

     

    Both translators take this to be conditional and understand adhikAra to mean uniquely some extrinsic qualifications, “eligibility” or “qualified.” The word adhikAra goes beyond this meaning however, and most certainly Bhaktivinoda Thakur is here talking about the “natural proclivity” of the individual (svAbhAvikI pravRtti) and not something else.

     

    My 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."

     

    I will give more specifics on the passages you have quoted in a later post.

     

     

    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).]

  19. Posted · Report reply

    Originally posted by valaya:

    I just went through this entire thread again and it's quite amazing how it changes with rapid twists and turns. Maybe it's the male-female energy that makes it more volatile. First Atma posed what on the surface seems a sraightforward question about a particular incident, but it quickly goes into the male-female thing. Avinash makes it more personal and Tarun--well, Tarun just Taruns it up to a new level.

     

    Then JRdd (where'd she come from?) chirps in with this provocative teasing input: "LOL! Atma is right on form, love the improv, sister. Right on. (hee hee hee)" That of course cranks up Tarun and Avinash until Suryaz comes on with, "I am confused--I do not get it." Then begins her whole empowerment bit, which really seems to set off the guys and a new participant, sushil, adds something which may or not make sense but is completely unintelligible to me, though not any more so than Tarun and avinash have become. Could it be true, they actually do drive us nuts?

     

    Alright, so jndas tries to answer suryaz's allegations of women's disempowerment, but I come in responding to what I perceived as attempts to control by `priests` in their own selfish interests. jndas then somehow connects secrets with `confidential knowledge` in scripture and Gauracandra lashes out at what he perceives as anti-Prabhupada in my reference to priests (not referring to gurus at all, especially not him), which turns into an attack on my post suggesting suryaz may be tripping over herself by attempting to put all this together intellectually.

     

    Finally we're into Sahajiyism and my past posts going back to who knows when. So far we're at me trying to explain myself, somewhat apologetically, to both jndas and Gauracandra, more or less totally removed from atma's original question. Can I back out now, as gracefully as possible? It was kinda fun at the start, but now it's not. Say, isn't that the way it is in the mode of passion...not that there's any relation with anything or anyone here. It just came to mind. Haribol, prabhus!

     

    valaya

     

    [This message has been edited by valaya (edited 02-10-2002).]

    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).]

  21. Posted · Report reply

    Originally posted by jndas:

    Not everyone is qualified for confidential knowledge. Some will misuse it, others will ridicule it. Thus the Lord Himself keeps the greatest secret of all, the raja-guhyam, which also happens to be the king of knowledge, the raja-vidya.

     

    Knowledge is not for everyone without qualification. Thus it is necessary to keep secrets, such as that of mantra-upadesha.

     

    Such knowledge, if given to an unqualified receiver, causes more damage to them, which is the opposite purpose of knowledge.

     

    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).]

  22. Posted · Report reply

    Originally posted by Pujar:

    "The soul was never dead and the body was never alive" with this token, how to consider ourselves as souls and not bodies? By merely saying so, we cannot achieve this, I am sure. Can this be achieved by spiritual practice alone and if so, what type of spiritual practice can lead us to get this feeling?

     

    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.

     

     

  23. Posted · Report reply

    Originally posted by jndas:

    You can just as well change the word empowerment to "protection".

    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

  24. Posted · Report reply

    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.

     

     

     

  25. Posted · Report reply

    I am confused - Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image - 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).]

×
×
  • Create New...