mud

Personally, I don't think the Lord thinks about homosexuality or heterosexuality. He's having too much fun doing divine sexuality! I don't feel He is approving of one persons sexuality while condemning anothers. Besides, why bother when You can let the devotees fight it out, hoping to establish an absolute doctrine?!

dairy replacement: Milk - Vitasoy soymilk (yum!) Butter - Non hydrogenated oil margarine or something like. Cheese - ? Not much experience here, any recommendation? Yoghurt - Is there a vegan alternative? This is my personal favorite dairy. Eggs - That's covered. Cream - ? On a previous thread Priita was mentioning something about soy being bad for you. I can't remember what exactly she was saying, but there was no reply. Maybe she can re-post that idea here and see what the folks come up with.

My question then is: Why go vegan totally? Why not just avoid milk products from abused animals and companies that abuse animals? Well, theist has some darn good arguments I'm sure. I have thought this same thing. However, what companies don't participate in the abuse? One might propose organic companies, which I have done in the mean time, while I'm considering the vegan issue. Organic companies advertise that they don't use growth hormones, treat the cows nicely, etc. but they still send them off to slaughter. Besided this, I have some doubt that the whole process of pasturization and homogenization does anything to milk but make it indigestible and ultimately harmful to human health. This is a good question, about where "organic" companies fit on the scale of ethical treatment of dairy cows. I'd like some more input. For some sick, but funny entertainment, check this out. http://www.bancruelfarms.org/meatrix/

doubt: Mostly I see Hare Krsna people talking about philosophy and theoretical ideas, and they seem to spend alot of time trying to refute other religions and paths. I'd have to agree with you. At the same time, this is why I have faith that the acaryas who have written about the stages of progress in bhakti knew what they were talking about. Study some of those faults in Madhurya Kadambini. Spending much time trying to refute others ideas and "defend the faith" is a symptom of kanistha. Or if you study Bhaktivinoda you can see that the way he describes the komala-shraddha, the madhyama and the saragrahi vaishnava... these are amazing realizations. Still, yes, it's unfortunate that the komala-shraddha is prominant and the saragrahi is rare. Maybe that's why your faith is shaken. By the way, I just wonder if your faith is shaken more by the conduct and interactions with people, or the philosophy. doubt: I feel like prabhupada's books spend way too much time criticizing other paths and are full of fanatical "us vs them" statements. I think as a preacher, in one on one interaction Prabhupada did this a lot. However, the books are mainly philosophy. To me, this does not matter that much. I'm free to disagree with Prabhupada, especially after 30 years of social change. I can appreciate him in a different way though. I don't know if Prabhupada himself would agree with everything he said then. I don't agree with everything I said yesterday, what to speak of 5, 10, 20 years ago. I don't think the past (although sometimes I hate the harsh history) should rule our judgements. doubt: I can't say I really ever met anyone who seemed to or talked about experiencing beyond the kanistha stage. I'll get back to you on some personal realization of progress... I'm not sure if I have Madhurya Kadambini or not, but I remember reading in it some faults that I could definitely identify with and that I feel I have overcome. Also, Bhaktivinoda's definitions of the stages is much more inclusive. He speaks of people like Henry David Thoreau as saragrahi vaishnavas, uttama's. Now there is a broadminded vaishnava for you. doubt: I just get tired of hearing about the dry theory Again, I can totally relate. Good association is hard to come by, but I don't think that the fact that many people show limited realizations (hopefully only for the time being) should make you throw out the baby with the bath water. Along these lines Bhaktivinoda states that the association between the kanishta and the madhyama is no good. The madhyama (who he says is "plagued" by religious doubt) cant relate to the kanishta and the kanishta cant understand the madhyama's lofty ideas. That may be what you have been frustrated with all these years. Something to think about.

Thanks for your opinion yashoda-nandana. You don't need to worry about my prasadam taking, I'll do just fine I'm sure. you said: yes.. they're saints, they can make such distinctions, for us, at that stage of life all prasadam is pure mud: Hey, maybe you are talking to a saint!!! Just to clarify, milk from protected cows I don't have a problem with. I will drink, eat, with pleasure. Dairy from unprotected cows (the only dairy available to me) tests my conscience. Besides all the cruelty, add the fact that I worship the Protector of the cows and that inspires me to pull the udders of soybeans. Where oh where is a theist when you need one? That prabhuji/jini has a good head.

I agree with what you are saying. That's exactly what I had in mind. Just to add a bit, I think that once we become aware that our actions contribute to some sort of suffering, that is when we become responsible to try our best to avoid it. For example, when I become aware that the ground beef in the U.S. comes from something like 85% dairy cows, the facts start to wear on my conscience. It becomes difficult for me to take part in that. If I ignore that effect on my conscience I feel that THEN is when the "karma" really makes me responsible. Did I make sense? In the same breath, as a once famous sankirtana leader used to tell me, "try your best and depend upon Krsna for the results". In your words, make the A for effort and be detached from the rest.

I find myself really agreeing with a lot of your viewpoints. You seem very familiar to me. Does your name begin with an R? Do you live on the west coast? Anyway, nice to know you either way. I like to read your stuff. I wanted to ask you some vegan/devotee stuff. I have read some of your posts on dairy (and other topics) and for many years I have contemplated becoming vegan. Actually I was vegan before I joined ISKCON and they told me why I shouldn't be... That worked until I started thinking for myself again! Over the years I have defeated all the classic devotee arguments against a vegan diet plus a few that I came up with myself. There is really only one doubt I have left and I was wondering what you think. Does it really matter anyway? Philisophically there is this idea that one cannot live in this world without harming other living entities. The cycle of karma is so entangling... So, if one becomes vegan one is doing one's best for the cows and also personal health, environment, and arguably something devotional for the Protector of the cows, but the way this age and this world is made, one can never have "clean hands". Before I joined the temple many years back I had many many "causes" that I supported and promoted. Devotees preached to me (which I believe to some degree which must be clarified) that the root of all problems must be remedied by a spiritual method and that boycotting certain products or other such types of protest are only minimally effective. Although I've changed a lot over the years, this doubt remains somewhat. I'd like to hear what you think. I have a thought or two myself, but would like to hear yours.

According to Gaudiya philosophy there are three main category of living entities. Vishnu tattva - God, visnu, unlimited avataras, etc. - controller of the other two energies. Jiva tattva - the living entities. Sakti tattva - the feminine aspect of the supreme, subordinate to the Lord. Durga, Kali, the material creation are all part of this energy. Kali is not Visnu. She (the sakti) deserves all our respect as the consort of the Lord and the material energy, but is not on the same level as Visnu.

mr. or mrs. doubter, to be honest, I would be a little doubtful myself after hearing some of these responses. I'm trying to do a little one on one with you here. you say: Some times I experienced peace of mind while chanting japa and kirtana, sometimes I didn't. Sometimes I experience that same thing while sitting quietly also. mud: What does this mean then? I'm just not sure what you are getting at. Did you ever feel anything other than "peace" while in these processes? Peace is a good thing to feel isn't it? I know that it is easy for a devotee to say that your practice is faulty if you are not experiencing results. Judgement aside, this is taught as a process and does require specific things for specific results. Peace is a result of sattva guna. There are many other results. Specifically, why don't you have faith that the results spoken of by the acaryas will be achieved if properly followed? you say: The reason I asked this question about people's realizations in the first place was because I have this doubt that anyone has really experienced Krsna. I think many people who practice Hare Krsna-ism have experienced a sense of peace, and felt like they were experienceing "Krsna's presence" mud: Well, whether you believe Krsna is God or not, it is obvious that some people have experienced great love for Krsna. That is all the goal of this process is. I don't see great saints who have given up everything for the sake of Krsna as just experiencing peace. They are in love. Besides that, many of them are tortured by a sense of constant anxiety, no peace, because of their intense love. I guess I need to know what you mean by experiencing Krsna. The Vaishnava path is only invalid for you depending upon what you want. Very few spiritual desires can be seen as being "off" the Vaishnava path.

madanvrao, I can think of many people who have tried this formula for 20-30 years and express doubts such as this doubter person has. I would expect that such people only feel less inclined towards such a process when the mentality directed at them is "preachy". I feel doubt is healthy and helpful. Maybe this person has brought up something that can help us renew our faith, make it stronger by self-analysis. Factually, our spiritual progress is stagnant without constant analysis. The security that we get from being in a position to "preach" does not last. "Do this for one year and then come back." What have you actually done for this person but invalidated their inquiry? Explain why YOU think they should do this for one year, what have you gotten out of your practice of it that makes you give them that order? That's what was asked for, REALIZATION, not dogma.

This is coming from a free agent Hare Krsna devotee. I would not say that my view represents "Hare Krsna's", ISKCON, or anybody other than myself. First, you are asking for a specific realization, a darshana of Krishna. In my understanding this is a very rare accomplishment, one to strive for, but certainly very rare. I can say that I have realizations of a more general nature, from the practices of Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy. For example, I realize to some degree that I am not the body. I realize that I seek relationship, and that the relations of this world are temporary. As for Krishna being God, I don't know if proof (if that's what you are looking for) can be given. That is where faith enters the picture. Philosophy and logic (as someone else spoke of) leads me to the conclusion that the absolute posesses both personal and impersonal features. The personal features (it makes sense to me) are unlimited. God has unlimited features of personality. Gaudiya philosophy teaches that Krsna posesses all aspects of personality in full and that He is the most attractive. In my process of trying to know Krsna I can say that He is a lovable person. His personality as described by sastra and acaryas is very attractive and therefore I find it worth meditating on. From this meditation I feel greater appreciation for Him and love developing. That is the goal of bhakti. I personally think that God manifests himself in so many ways so that all can find some attraction to him. One form or another will endear him to a person searching for him. I find other forms attractive also, the material creation for example... Hope this gives a little something to consider.

Okay, I originally got the same feeling as tirisilex about your post. Thanks for clarifying your point. I'm just wondering when you say "I find nothing wrong in using logic of history to discern things." what that means. I don't know of a logic of history. To me, if something makes sense, the time it was spoken, before or after other philosophy is completely irrelevant. I've experienced this too much in the Vaishnava tradition where followers preach that they have the oldest philosophy/religion. Besides being an endlessly debatable point, impossible to prove, WHY does it matter? I find it lends no more authority.

I tend to think that all religions aim to end the suffering of all humanity for all time. Their plan to do that varies. Mahaprabhu's teaching of how to do that varies from the Buddha's. I'm not sure why it matters who was oldest. The thing I think is most significant about the vedic teaching is that the teachings to end suffering are updated through time. That's why different avatara's continue to descend to help enlighten people.

I guess I don't follow your question. What specifically are you asking about compassion? Are you talking about the bodhisattva vow specifically? Is there something similar in Vaishnava doctrine before the Buddha? Maybe not doctrinized specifically with sastric reference, but the general idea of the avataras coming down serves two purposes. 1. The pleasure of the Lord. 2. Compassion on the jivas in samsara. These avataras also include shaktyavesa, jivas, doing the Lord's bidding. In the Vaishnava theology the Buddha is considered an avatara also. How is Mahaprabhu's message borrowed from the Buddha? What part of his message are you referring to?

I knew there had to be a good 'ol Hare Krsna fanatic here somewhere! Welcome, welcome! I was wondering how long we would be able to go having a respectful philisophical discussion about differences before someone jumped in with no philosophy except name calling and personal attack. Thank you sir or maam for bringing us back to the real world of shoot first, think later. Do you have some wisdom you'd like to share that would be helpful? If not, there are plenty of other boards for preaching. Please go to boddhicitta's thread only if you can discuss or learn. My great philisophical question is this... Why does ISKCON produce followers that cannot interact with people of opposing viewpoints? Not everyone, but a majority. Is it a detriment or a good quality?

Could I ask where these quotes came from? Thanks.

okay, I'm following the argument... If the aggregates are temporary, then the self is also. That's what Buddhism says. I would say that yes, that temporary self, the ego of that one body, dies when the body dies. In that sense the self is temporary. We take on different egos with each body. We become bodily conscious, aware of our body and we identify with that body. That dies because the body dies and there is nothing to identify with. From a Vaishnava perspective though the self is the basis of the identity. It is the one doing the identifying... It is different from consciousness. The self is what develops the temporary ego. That's why it is said that consciousness is the symptom of self. It indicates it's presence. As for the self being permanent, one cannot perceive with the senses that it is permanent. One can only perceive that consciousness is present or absent.

autumn, Your post demonstrates a sincere mentality of seeking the absolute. What else could you ask for? You say: I like the idea of Buddhism; that to simply hold beliefs is not progressive. If I say, "The holy book says there is an eternal self", really, what benefit am I getting? Real belief is based on experience. Logic and philosophy and not enough to realize the Deathless element. Simply holding a set of doctrines and beliefs is not enough. Me: I take it that you are implying that the Vaishnava doctrine promotes exclusive faith in sastra. While faith in sastra is considered the main evidence I don't feel that it excludes other evidence. Indeed, experience (sense perception) is considered a valid pramana. Jiva Goswami discusses different types of valid evidence in Tattva Sandharba. Sastra is not exclusive, but is more a final validation of other evidence. The buck stops there so to speak. Many ISKCON devotees jump to attack sunyavada or perceived voidest arguments in order to defend their faith. Personally I find your discussion stimulating. Here is what I would consider the only points of contention in your post. You say: everything the Vaishnavas have explained as proof of a self is also temporary. They say consciousness is proof. Me: I would disagree slightly here. It may be splitting hairs but there are some important distinctions. To me the Vaishnava doctrine does not describe consciousness as the proof of self, it is referred to as a symptom. To use your examples, if eye consciousness is there it means the self is there. Consciousness being symptomatic, who is the seer? When eyesight is gone, the self is not gone, just the "eye consciousness" is not possible because the body is damaged. The potential is still there because the self is there. Even a blind man may have memory (consciousness) of seeing. See what I'm getting at? Besides, I don't know that it is true that if someone loses eyesight that eye consciousness goes away. Consider amputees. I have heard it reported that they often imagine as if they still had the limb they are missing. In this way the consciousness of a disabled body part may still exist despite the physical reality not being present. This is because of presence of self, identifying with body. As for dreamless sleep, that is debatable whether it is possible to have dreamless sleep. Maybe we don't remember, but I'm not sure that we sleep without dreaming. The mind is constantly working. As for I-ness being temporary, I have never experienced it going away. Maybe one feels united with the brahman for some time, selfless, but it is a temporary realization which still stems from the losing of self-consciousness, ego-centeredness. But one must have a SELF to be centered on in the first place and with enlightenment not be centered on. You say: If we give up our attachment to this concept of self, or simply notice its ever changing nature, we can get a glimpse of the Deathless, and give up all blind beliefs. Me: I see (through Vaishnava philosophy) the temporary self, the false self is ever changing but the I, me, is constant. Yes we should EXPERIENCE this self and glimpse the deathless. I got no bones with you there man.

hymn's to Santa Clause exist, therefore Santa exists??!!? The north pole exists! How many billions of books of fiction are there that the speaker does not exist? Just because people believe in something and some place or object connected with it exists in our perceptual world does not prove it's existence. I'm just trying to nudge you into coming up with some better logic, please don't mind.

hari om tat sat