raghu

just see the praises being sung for christianity, liberal , unitarian , universalist .........

Are you and I reading the same essay? I thought it was quite obvious that the author had a thinly veiled, derisive tone towards Christianity.

fact is that british rulers for most of their time period of rule did not feel any significant threat from hinduism . at that time hinduism was a 'superstitious' pagan faith in their eyes and the faith in church was strong .

The historical facts do not bear this out. While it was true that they denounced Hinduism, it is also true that they invested quite a bit in scholarship to decipher and dissect Hinduism. This is not the action of someone who feels that your religion is a bunch of superstitious bunk that is beneath him.

the real threat was from this 'neo-hinduism' and began to be felt from 1960's with the advent of secularism and fall of moral values in the west .

 

Neo-Hinduism as defined by the author began in the 1800s.

there has been a change in hinduism ...all right ! by why should it turn into a confused religion ? 99% of indian hindus would agree that there is no confusion at all . what big confusion is it ?

Confused people often do not know that they are confused. An example of confused thinking is the idea that all religions, despite their differences, are actually the same. A confused person will state this as a maxim and ignore all evidence to the contrary. Similarly, a confused Hindu will talk about the greatness of Islam and Christianity as valid but different paths. But then again he will be very upset if his son or daughter converts to Islam. Similarly, there are those Hindus who uphold the greatness of other religions even when it is shown that those religions have hostility towards Hinduism built in to them.

Where Morales I think is incorrect is his view that Neo-Hinduism was enforced on the Indians by the British. I disagree. It appears that belief in Neo-Hinduism has always been a voluntary effort on the part of Hindus who were educated in the British secular educational system to recreate their religion in a way that makes it more appealing to secular minded individuals. Here is another example of confusion - they will refer to it as "sanatana dharma" even though they admit to changing it. So what is "sanatana" about it?

I wanted to post a poll, but the forum rules apparently allow only one answer per question, which does not make much sense. :-)

This article was written by Dr. Frank Morales, an American convert to Hinduism. Please note that I am not a follower of Dr. Morales, but I do find the essay interesting. No one can deny that Neo-Hinduism exists and has largely replaced traditional or classical Hinduism in the eyes of practitioners and academics alike. I would like to begin a discussion on understanding and recognizing Neo-Hinduism. What are some other characteristics of Neo-Hindu thinkers? How do Neo-Hindu thinkers see themselves in relation to traditional Hindus? What influences Neo-Hindu thinkers to depart from traditional Hindu patterns of thinking?

For the purposes of this discussion, I am using "Hinduism" according to the conventional definition used historically, i.e. those religious traditions that flourished on the Indian subcontinent and owe their origins at least in theory to the Vedas and their adjunctive scriptures. Please, no holier-than-thou, ethnocentric diabtribes about how we are not Hindus, about how Hinduism just refers to the body, etc. I find it easier for the purposes of discussion to say "Hinduism" instead of saying "Vaishnavas, Shaivas, Shaktas, Advaitins, nyaya/vaiseshikas, karma-mimamsas, followers of Patanjali's yoga," etc.

---------------------

The Death of Traditional Hinduism

From Dr. Frank Morales

A tragic occurrence in the very long history of Hinduism was witnessed throughout the 19th century, the destructive magnitude of which Hindu leaders and scholars today are only beginning to adequately assess and address. This development both altered and weakened Hinduism to such a tremendous degree that Hinduism has not yet even begun to recover.

British Attack on Hinduism

The classical, traditional Hinduism that had been responsible for the continuous development of thousands of years of sophisticated culture, architecture, music, philosophy, ritual and theology came under devastating assault during the 19th century British colonial rule like at no other time in India's history.

Innovative Cultural Genocide

What the Hindu community experienced under British Christian domination, however, was an ominously innovative form of cultural genocide. What they experienced was not an attempt at the physical annihilation of their culture, but a deceivingly more subtle program of intellectual and spiritual annihilation. It is easy for a people to understand the urgent threat posed by an enemy that seeks to literary kill them. It is much harder, though, to understand the threat of an enemy who, while remaining just as deadly, claims to seek only to serve a subjugated people's best interests.

Anglicized Hindu Intellectuals

During this short span of time in the 19th century, the ancient grandeur and beauty of a classical Hinduism that had stood the test of thousands of years, came under direct ideological attack. What makes this period in Hindu history most especially tragic is that the main apparatus that the British used in their attempts to destroy traditional Hinduism were the British educated, spiritually co-opted sons and daughters of Hinduism itself. Seeing traditional Hinduism through the eyes of their British masters, a pandemic wave of 19th century Anglicized Hindu intellectuals saw it as their solemn duty to "Westernize" and "modernize" traditional Hinduism to make it more palatable to their new European overlords. One of the phenomena that occurred during this historic period was the fabrication of a new movement known as "neo-Hinduism".

What is Neo-Hinduism?

Neo-Hinduism was an artificial religious construct used as a paradigmatic juxtaposition to the legitimate traditional Hinduism that had been the religion and culture of the people for thousands of years. Neo-Hinduism was used as an effective weapon to replace authentic Hinduism with a British invented version designed to make a subjugated people easier to manage and control.

The Christian and British inspired neo-Hinduism movement attempted to execute several overlapping goals, and did so with great success:

a) The subtle Christianization of Hindu theology, which included concerted attacks on iconic imagery (archana, or murti), panentheism, and continued belief in the beloved gods and goddesses of traditional Hinduism.

b) The imposition of the Western scientific method, rationalism and skepticism on the study of Hinduism in order to show Hinduism's supposedly inferior grasp of reality.

c) Ongoing attacks against the ancient Hindu science of ritual in the name of simplification and democratization of worship.

d) The importation of Radical Universalism from liberal, Unitarian / Universalist Christianity as a device designed to severely water down traditional Hindu philosophy.

The Death of Traditional Hinduism

The dignity, strength and beauty of traditional Hinduism was recognized as the foremost threat to Christian European rule in India. The invention of neo-Hinduism was the response. Had this colonialist program been carried out with a British face, it would not have met with as much success as it did. Therefore, an Indian face was used to impose neo-Hinduism upon the Hindu people. The resultant effects of the activities of Indian neo-Hindus were ruinous for traditional Hinduism.

The Dilemma

The primary dilemma with Hinduism as we find it today, in a nutshell, is precisely this problem of…

1) Not recognizing that there are really two distinct and conflicting Hinduisms today, Neo-Hindu and Traditionalist Hindu; and

2) With Traditionalists being the guardians of authentic Dharma philosophically and attitudinally, but not yet coming to full grips with the modern world, i.e., not yet having found a way of negotiating authentic Hindu Dharma with an ability to interface with modernity and communicate this unadulterated Hindu Dharma in a way that the modern mind can most appreciate it.

A Confused Existence

Hinduism will continue to be a religion mired in confusion about its own true meaning and value until traditionalist Hindus can assertively, professionally and intelligently communicate the reality of genuine Hinduism to the world.

hi all

a question regarding our hindu beliefs & rituals has been arising in my mind for last few years. we Hidus believe in Indra dev , surya dev , pawan dev etc. and these gods are reponsible for Rain , sunlight , air etc. so why these gods are not recognized all over the world? does anybody else is responsible for Rain in britain, rome, egypt, europe etc. and why these gods gave birth to their children only in India. like Arjun was the son of Indra, Karan was the son of Lord sun etc. do these god have some hosility with other countries?

Pradeep,

I am guessing you are looking for an answer from a Hindu perspective instead of a dry secular one. After all, you are posting the question here in a forum of practitioners instead of asking a bunch of non-practitioner academics.

Some early scholars have tried to argue that the ancient Vedic deities were imported from Greece just as the Roman deities were. However, there is no reason why it could not be the other way around - their deities being imported from India and renamed.

Now as far as knowledge of these deities is concerned - these are atindriya entities and so they can not be known from sources that are limited to the perceptions of their authors. As per Vedantic tradition, the Vedas are apaurusheya and can give information about things that are beyond the realm of the human senses, including information about the devas who administer over this universe. To the extent that Vedas are studied and propagated within any given culture, people will have information about these devas. If there is no Vedic culture, there will be no information about the devas, unless knowledge about them is imported by a civilization. Otherwise, people will make up and worship their own "gods."

Regarding the point about India being the focus - certainly that appears to be true. However, there are numerous references in the Puranas/Itihasas to far away lands, so I would not say that it is only in India where Puranic stories have taken place. As far as why children of devas are usually born in India, consider the point - if you were a celestial being who was worshipped by brahmins and glorified in Vedic hymns, would you want your child to be born in a culture that believes in the same or elsewhere? :-)

 

From King Yudhisthira's

Answers to Dharmaraja

 

Yaksha: What make one a brahmana, birth, learning or behavior?

Yudhisthira: It is behavior alone that make a person a brahmana. Even if one who is expert in the four Vedas, born of brahmana parents, but whose behavior is not proper should be considered a sudra.

Kulapavana,

I have repeatedly heard this story being offered up as proof that varna should be classified based on conduct instead of birth. However, I have been unable to locate it in the Mahabharata so far. Can you quote the exact chapter and verse numbers so that I can look it up?

thanks,

Raghu

KR: Why do we need to do that? I fail to see the relevance. How do we know Prabhupada comes from an unbroken disciplic succession from where ever he claims he is? How do we know they were all genuine? Did you ever pose this question to your Gurus?

Why shouldn't it be relevant ? Since you insist so much on the lineage.

Can u trace your lineage back to Brahma?

Well I can trace my Guru parampara back to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu

(and even to Vyasa deva, but I don't want to get into that discussion here),

who is considered as Sri Krsna by us.

I'm still going back and catching up on the threads I have been unable to access. I think this was one that I wanted to respond to but I will come back to it in a bit.

Initiation is traditionally called vaisnava-diksa in Sanskrit. It consists of the ceremony of diksa itself and the process of diksa, which takes as much time as needed for a particular disciple (sisya) to achieve the goals of diksa which are two: anartha-nivriti (freedom of all anarthas, unwanted bad qualities and inclinations in the heart) and divya-jnana (the divine knowledge, which is basically knowing the Brahman). I believe I have explained this earlier in this thread. Both the ceremony and the process of diksa are important and required for the achievement of the goals of diksa.

But the point is that in ancient Vedic culture, people were conventionally called as brahmins if they were of brahmin birth and were pursuing brahmana-dharma. There was no way for a common man to objectively judge if the brahman had achieved "anartha-nivriti" and "divya-jnana"

achieved the Parabrahman by the same universal method. In some cases though it is self-evident for a qualified vaisnava.

Since it is only self-evident for a qualitified vaishnava, and that too only in some cases, how can society function on foundation of different social classes if most people have no practical means by which to identify a brahmana? Isn't the answer simply that brahmanas were identified as such by their birth and their adherence to brahmana dharma?

In attempt to answer your last question I'd like to simply quote from the Bhaktivedanta's Purport to this very shloka from Bhagavatam you mentioned:

 

TRANSLATION (SB 1.7.42)

Sri Suta Gosvami said: Draupadi then saw Asvatthama, who was bound with ropes like an animal and silent for having enacted the most inglorious murder. Due to her female nature, and due to her being naturally good and well-behaved, she showed him due respects as a brahmana.

 

PURPORT By H.D.G. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

 

Asvatthama was condemned by the Lord Himself, and he was treated by Arjuna just like a culprit, not like the son of a brahmana or teacher.

But when he was brought before Srimati Draupadi, she, although begrieved for the murder of her sons, and although the murderer was present before her, could not withdraw the due respect generally offered to a brahmana or to the son of a brahmana. This is due to her mild nature as a woman.

Women as a class are no better than boys, and therefore they have no discriminatory power like that of a man. Asvatthama proved himself to be an unworthy son of Dronacarya or of a brahmana, and for this reason he was condemned by the greatest authority, Lord Sri Krsna, and yet a mild woman could not withdraw her natural courtesy for a brahmana.

Even to date, in a Hindu family a woman shows proper respect to the brahmana caste, however fallen and heinous a brahma-bandhu may be. But the men have begun to protest against brahma-bandhus who are born in families of good brahmanas but by action are less than sudras.

The specific words used in this sloka are vama-svabhava, "mild and gentle by nature." A good man or woman accepts anything very easily, but a man of average intelligence does not do so. But, anyway, we should not give up our reason and discriminatory power just to be gentle. One must have good discriminatory power to judge a thing on its merit. We should not follow the mild nature of a woman and thereby accept that which is not genuine. Asvatthama may be respected by a good-natured woman, but that does not mean that he is as good as a genuine brahmana.

So again, here we have the case of Ashvatthama who committed murder. He was Drona's son. Drona was a brahmana and thus Ashvatthama was a brahmana. And despite murdering the sons of the Pandavas, both the Bhagavatam and your guru's commentary still refer to him as a brahmana.

Doesn't this show that "brahmana" just refers to a social category of people who are *supposed* to act in a certain way, but by itself is not indicative of a high level of spiritual realization? After all, you would not claim that Ashvatthama had attained "divya jnana" and "anartha nivritti," would you?

regards,

Raghu

Dear Ranjeet,

First of all, apologies for the late reply. For the last several months I was not able to access the forum due to repeated error messages to the effect that the server as "too busy." Then I created a new userid to see if that might fix things, and for a while I was able to post as rrao, but then I started running into the same problem. Hopefully this has now been fixed.

Now on to your comments.

rrao,your taunts are pathetic

I don't know what you are talking about. I haven't taunted you or rahalkar at all. I only asked questions to clarify his/your stance regarding the "scriptural" basis of the Madhva-Gaudiya parampara. I'm not sure why you have suddenly turned hostile.

If you dnt want to accept chaitanya as God,fine.

This does not answer the question about the "scriptural basis" for the Madhva-Chaitanya link.

Just to summarize, Rahalkar made the following claims for which I am still awaiting clarification:

"Your understanding of Brahma-Madva-Gaudiya Sampradaya disciplic succession does not have any scriptural basis, therefore it is completely wrong." - what is the "scriptural" basis of the BMG disciplic succession?

"The Brahma-Madva-Gaudiya Sampradaya Paramapara, Guru-Disciplic succession, was stated by Srila Kavi Karnapura and authorized by Lord Gauranga Himself." - again, where exactly did Gauranga "authorize" this disciplic succession? In what writings attributed to him has he even mentioned this disciplic succession?

Furthermore, Rahalkar made the claim that achintya bedha abedha "complements" Tattvavada and furthermore he minimized the differences between the two. I asked if he had ever studied Tattvavada, and from what I can see he never answered that question.

regards,

Raghu

I fought them from day one to institute DVD!

That is truly a shame.

If you had instead chosen to fight over instituting Blu-Ray, you would have gotten twice the resolution for only a marginal increase in price.

In response to:

Originally Posted by raghu

Since I did not get any answers, and since the only responses were once again evasive, let me again put forth the questions. I really do not understand what is so childish about asking these questions. Yes, I know, I'm a new kid, i'm evil, i'm a bigot, etc. But please, can we have a focused discussion?

1) The disciples of Prabhupada who are currently gurus - are they all brahmins? Yes or no?

2) The disciples of Prabhupada who were formerly gurus but then fell down - were they brahmins? Yes or No?

3) If the disciples of Prabhupada who fell down were not gurus, then why did Prabhupada initiate them as brahmins? Did he (a) do so knowing that they were not brahmins, or (b) do so because he did not know if they were brahmins or not?

4a) If the answer to question (3) is choice (a), then how do you rationalize giving initiations to a non-brahmin when you claim that one is only a brahmin based on conduct/qualification?

4b) If the answer to question (3) is choice (b), then when even Prabhupada (whom you no doubt consider the topmost guru) could mistakenly identify someone as a brahmin, then how are other gurus supposed to correctly identify brahmins prior to initiation?

1) I would venture to guess that 'no' they are not brahmanas.

If the current gurus are not brahmanas, then why are they gurus? Better to be an unqualified non-brahmin then a qualified caste-brahmin, eh?

2) Could have been at one time, but not after a fall. That would just cheapen the varna.

So your concept of a brahmana is that one can be a brahmana at some times and not at others. How interesting.

Since varnas are totally dynamic, and a person can be multiple varnas within a single lifetime, who keeps track of that all? Is there a registry somewhere? Or does everyone just make up their own decision at any given time as to what varna one belongs to?

Oh and they were never gurus in a bonfided ISKCON. Prabhupada is the only guru for ISKCON.

What an admission! You just insulted thousands and thousands of iskcon disciples.

3) Guru and brahman are two different things, mutually exclusive. One does not depend on the other. Second part will have to be answered by Prabhupada. I do not claim to know His mind at the time. But as a father, I would say that the answer is as individual as the people involved. And the over all mission of spreading KC. Things are much bigger than just one generation. The result of an action might take a hundred yrs to manifest.

So let me see I got this straight:

1) A brahmana cannot become a guru (they are "mutually exclusive")

2) I have to consult an individual no longer present on this plane of existence to find out why Prabhupada initiated unqualified people. In the meantime, I should have no doubts that his doing so was in any way improper.

3) You basically do not know what you are talking about.

4a) What? You say they were non. How about at the time of initiation they were following purly, thereby qualified.

So, qualification for guru-hood is also a dynamic thing? It need not be a permanent feature? I am learning something new about gaudiya vaishnavism all the time!

4b) Again, What? No you have your speculation on back words. Srila Prabhupada made the best use of a bad bargan, he used as he saw fit those that came to him. Do you think that Prabhupada cherry picked us from the lot? Duh, you said yourself we are just demons/raksasas. So at the time of concideration, they were following the rule and regulations. Fell later. Other gurus do not concern us.

 

So you are saying that he knowingly initiated unqualified people.

I am unclear on why (1) using birth to determine varna is evil, and yet (2) knowingly initiating unqualified rAkshasas as brahmanas is more sensible.

Of course, this might just be due to my latent envy.

Gandhi would be turning over in his grave if he knew what was going on.

Mariner, that would truly be disturbing given that his body was cremated...

That is not what I said Mr. Spaghetti sauce.

 

I said they worshiped the pure Vaishnava.

ok so what shAstric injunction (as in shruti, smRti, etc) allows one to become a brAhmana and a guru by worship of a pure Vaishnava?

Thank you for finally attempting to answer my very simple questions. I must say, getting answer from you is harder than pulling teeth. And I was so impressed that you didn't even insult me this time. Now in regards to your specific answers:

1) The disciples of Prabhupada who are currently gurus - are they all brahmins? Yes or no?

 

(NO, they are more than a brahmana)

 

This is a troubling answer. The Vedas only recognize four varnas - brahmana, kshatriya, vaishya, and shudra. Saying that someone is "more than a brahmana" begs the question - what are they? Being a Vaishnava does not make you "more" than anything - you still belong to a varna when you live in the material world.

One can be a shudra, vaishya, or kshatriya and still be a Vaishnava. You agree?

If any of the current disciple-gurus falls down (statistically, a likely scenario), will the fallen still be "more than a brahmana?"

2) The disciples of Prabhupada who were formerly gurus but then fell down - were they brahmins? Yes or No?

 

(No, they are devotees and more than a brahmana)

 

So the gurus who molested disciples, embezzled money, ran off with female disciples... they are "more than a brahmana?" Ok....

3) If the disciples of Prabhupada who fell down were not gurus, then why did Prabhupada initiate them as brahmins? Did he (a) do so knowing that they were not brahmins, or (b) do so because he did not know if they were brahmins or not?

 

(He did so knowing they were devotees of the Vaishnava and more than brahmanas)

 

Ok, now here comes the question: how does one determine who is a "devotee of the Vaishnava" and thus eligible to become a guru? Does anyone who worships Vishnu get this designation, or is there some other criterion?

4a) If the answer to question (3) is choice (a), then how do you rationalize giving initiations to a non-brahmin when you claim that one is only a brahmin based on conduct/qualification?

 

(Servants of the Pure Vaishnava are much more than a brahmana)

 

If someone is "more than a brahmana," then why would one initiate him as a brahmana? Does that not seem contradictory?

4b) If the answer to question (3) is choice (b), then when even Prabhupada (whom you no doubt consider the topmost guru) could mistakenly identify someone as a brahmin, then how are other gurus supposed to correctly identify brahmins prior to initiation?

 

(He followed shastric injunction and gave proper regard to the servants of the Vaishnava who are greater than brahmanas)

What shastric injunction allows a person to become a brahmana and a guru merely because they worship Vishnu?

You and raghu both seem to be very judgmental and totally overlooking all the service, devotion and love that persons like Kirtanananda Swami dedicated to Srila Prabhupada.

Guilty as charged. I guess I do tend to be very judgemental about some minor things.

Like when a guru embezzles money. Or smuggles drugs. Or makes a homosexual advance on a disciple. Or abuses a child.

In such times of doubt, I sometimes dare to think, "perhaps this person is not a brahmin...."

But then Theist and Sonic Yogi come and smack me down. They remind me that as a soul born in an Indian and brahmin body, I am by the very fact, guilty of all manner of social evils in India. Consequently I cannot possibly have any reasonable concerns or doubts.

And then I come to my senses and feel nothing but love again, ready once again to shut up and do as I am told.

Why this parampara thing is on spirituality thread?

I agree. There are plenty of other spiritual topics that better fit this forum. Like the guy who wants mantras to make his girlfriend love him. Or the various "end of the world" threads. All very spiritual.

.If the admin thinks it is necessary to feed trolls like kaiserose,raghu etc why dont you create a trolls thread.

I have a better idea. Let us create two forums:

- one for people who know how to read, understand, and respond to simple questions/remarks in English

- the other for those people who habitually write the same things without even bothering to read

I would be happy to call myself every bad name in the book just to preempt Sonic Yogi and his gang. All I really want are answers to these questions:

1) The disciples of Prabhupada who are currently gurus - are they all brahmins? Yes or no?

2) The disciples of Prabhupada who were formerly gurus but then fell down - were they brahmins? Yes or No?

3) If the disciples of Prabhupada who fell down were not gurus, then why did Prabhupada initiate them as brahmins? Did he (a) do so knowing that they were not brahmins, or (b) do so because he did not know if they were brahmins or not?

4a) If the answer to question (3) is choice (a), then how do you rationalize giving initiations to a non-brahmin when you claim that one is only a brahmin based on conduct/qualification?

4b) If the answer to question (3) is choice (b), then when even Prabhupada (whom you no doubt consider the topmost guru) could mistakenly identify someone as a brahmin, then how are other gurus supposed to correctly identify brahmins prior to initiation?

If I would have said that I would have gotten banned from the forum.

 

There are many "traditions" in India that deserve to be rejected.

 

In India's long history many "traditions" have been created, but that doesn't make them right.

Many traditions in India falsely represent themselves as spiritual or Vedic when in fact they are many times just bigoted, racist, prejudiced practices of pseudo-religionists who make there living as professional Hindu priests.

 

Some of those traditions are no more spiritual than watching the Superbowl every year with the friends and family.

Sometimes tradition is just a very stupid thing.

Sonic Yogi,

I understand the point that you are making. Obviously you find Indian traditions to be appalling and unacceptable. You would hardly be the first.

To me, it is ironic to the extreme that some people who lived their lives consuming dead animals have become emboldened to to the point that they criticize one of the oldest civilizations on Earth. And that too while claiming to be followers of "Vedic culture." If you truly live the spiritual ideals which you profess to believe in, wouldn't you have a certain humility about your background that would preclude you from judging traditions you obviously do not understand?

When the British first arrived in India, they also spoke of us just as you did here. Many people come to India thinking that they can "civilize" the "savages." I am certainly not going to try in vain to convince you that my culture deserves respect equal to any other culture. When even iskcon devotees who claim to believe so much in Vedic culture, can be so hostile to Vedic culture, then what hope is there for anyone else?

I also have certain reservations about American culture. Would you like to hear them? Here they are:

• I object to unqualified individuals becoming gurus, then falling down and causing chaos for thousands of people who were innocent enough to follow them.
  
• I object to ignorant people using evasive and dishonest tactics to avoid confronting a corrupt philosophy that puts the unqualified gurus in the position to do harm in the first place.
  
• I object to hypocrites who claim to believe in a scripture, and then turn around and refuse to accept the point of view described in those same scriptures (i.e. bhagavad-gItA)
  
• I object to hypocrites who claim to follow a guru-parampara and then openly disagree with the gurus in that paramparA (like the way you all disagree with Baladeva)
  
• I object to hypocrites who feel that they have divine sanction to question everyone else's beliefs, but when their beliefs are questioned, they react with indignation.
  
• I object to hypocrites who claim to believe in practicing Vaishnava philosophy unchanged, and then when no one is looking, they introduce all sorts of changes (i.e. "Jesus is a pure devotee" and similar deviations)
  
• I object to the argumentative nature I see in iskcon wherein simple, reasonable, and pointed questions are met with hostility and scorn, but never answers to the questions
  
• I object to children being physically and sexually assaulted in so-called "gurukulas"
  
• I object to > 55% divorce rate in iskcon. Where is your so-called "Vedic culture?"
  
• I object to so-called "devotees" who cannot control their senses or even the urge to speak (or even type) nevertheless criticizing Vaishnavas for the sole reason that the latter believe in something that the former refuse to understand.

It's strange, but when I read Gaudiya Vaishnava books, I at least get the impression that there are some interesting beliefs there. But when I see Gaudiya Vaishnavism in practice (i.e. people like you, Andy, Theist, Ghari), all I see are a bunch of ignorant bullies. How can there be such stark discrepancy between "Gaudiya Vaishnavism: the beliefs" and "Gaudiya Vaishnavism: the reality?"

Since I did not get any answers, and since the only responses were once again evasive, let me again put forth the questions. I really do not understand what is so childish about asking these questions. Yes, I know, I'm a new kid, i'm evil, i'm a bigot, etc. But please, can we have a focused discussion?

1) The disciples of Prabhupada who are currently gurus - are they all brahmins? Yes or no?

2) The disciples of Prabhupada who were formerly gurus but then fell down - were they brahmins? Yes or No?

3) If the disciples of Prabhupada who fell down were not gurus, then why did Prabhupada initiate them as brahmins? Did he (a) do so knowing that they were not brahmins, or (b) do so because he did not know if they were brahmins or not?

4a) If the answer to question (3) is choice (a), then how do you rationalize giving initiations to a non-brahmin when you claim that one is only a brahmin based on conduct/qualification?

4b) If the answer to question (3) is choice (b), then when even Prabhupada (whom you no doubt consider the topmost guru) could mistakenly identify someone as a brahmin, then how are other gurus supposed to correctly identify brahmins prior to initiation?

At the time, he saw it best that those with sudra qualifications would have no use for the samskaras of Vedic Viddhi and that is understandable.

"At the time" is nowhere to be found in the writings of Baladeva. That is merely your interjection to make what he wrote palatable to you.

Sure. It is impossible, as previously stated to "make" a person who is Sudra by tendency and qualification "become" a brahmana by some ritual.

Thank you for that dismissive appraisal of Vedic samskAras. But Baladeva writes that shUdras are not eligible to undergo samskAras. One of the samskAras is initiation. How can a shUdra become a brAhmana if he is not allowed to undergo initiation? You cannot simply declare one a brAhmana - there has to be a samskAra.

Or was I mistaken in assuming that you are a follower of "Vedic culture?"

First of all, there has been the appearance of another Acarya in Baladeva's line. He has, as acarya's are wont to do, taken into consideration the time place and candidates he was preaching to, and authorized the dispensation of samskaras according to Sri Narada's Bhakti based Pancaratrika Viddhi, which are tailored to taking those most fallen in Kali yuga, who have even the slightest inclination to surrender to inquiry about Self-realization, and initiate their gradual path back home.

And of course, you are about to provide the explicit references to substantiate this claim, right?

Someone please enlighten me.

 

Why are the Hare Krishnas obsessing about the varna-system? Why is it important for them to become Brahmanas?

 

I fail to get it. Since the Hare Krishna's goal is Krishna, why this deep-seeded need to become a Brahmana? I don't see the link.

 

It looks like they believe only Brahmanas are eligible for Krishna, which I find to be a very weird position for an international organization, not to mention lack of scriptural support for such a position.

 

Cheers

I second these questions. Theist claims that all that is necessary in this age is to teach some cleanliness and some bhakti. So what is the necessity of giving unqualified people brahmin initiations?

Again, nice that you change your tune, but this is not all there is. You are stymied by pigeon holing existince into categories of what "most people" can or cannot do. While it would be foolish to ignore the truth of such stereotypes, we should not do so at the expense of exceptions.

 

If you are too intellectually lazy or uncaring or perhaps, giving you the benefit of the doubt, priorly indisposed, to scour the world looking for the lost servants of Sri Krsna who have been temporarily dazed by a karmic birth unsuitable to bringing out their best qualifications, that is understandable. What is offensive to your own soul is your relentless campaign to belittle those who are engaged in such efforts. Your shoot first and ask questions later approach to that which seems mysterious to you does not serve you well.

Andy,

This forum would be served well if you could learn to read what people are writing, instead of reading *into* what people are writing.

Leave me out of this please. I made no statements to this effect. My position is that the time for trying to hang these designations (brahmana, sudra etc. ) has long outlived it's usefullness in society.

That is always your tune when someone has presented views you want to disagree with but can't.

My view is 99% is being born at or below sudra level and that the only thing that needs to be taught is Vaisnavism and basic cleanliness which can be engaged in from any platform.

Fine. So why was your Prabhupada initiating some of these "at or below sudra level" people as brahmins?

People will naturally be attracted to one type of work or another and for the more serious they can take advice from their siksa guru to find which service is more compatable with their nature.

How is the "siksa guru" supposed to know "which service is more compatable (sic) with their nature?" Kirtananda was a swami who embezzled money and was probably involved in the murder of a disciple. Did his siksa guru, in giving him thread initiation and sannyasa, correctly identify the work that was most compatible with his nature?

The idea that some have that to know God one must take birth in a brahmana family (held by some) is obnoxious to me.

Who said that? Can you please provide the exact quote and web link?

Andy,

It seems that you are dancing around the same questions. Let us stay focused.

1) The disciples of Prabhupada who are currently gurus - are they all brahmins? Yes or no?

2) The disciples of Prabhupada who were formerly gurus but then fell down - were they brahmins? Yes or No?

3) If the disciples of Prabhupada who fell down were not gurus, then why did Prabhupada initiate them as brahmins? Did he (a) do so knowing that they were not brahmins, or (b) do so because he did not know if they were brahmins or not?

4a) If the answer to question (3) is choice (a), then how do you rationalize giving initiations to a non-brahmin when you claim that one is only a brahmin based on conduct/qualification?

4b) If the answer to question (3) is choice (b), then when even Prabhupada (whom you no doubt consider the topmost guru) could mistakenly identify someone as a brahmin, then how are other gurus supposed to correctly identify brahmins prior to initiation?

Wrong. I can identify someone elses actual varna by simply observing their behavioral tendencies and qualities. And I can change their karma too. For if they have the karma of being born into a situation where their father is not qualified to engage them according to the actual guna that is attached to their soul, I could recommend that child be placed into Gurukula with a teacher of higher varna, or instruct them myself. Very simple. Karma is altered due to mercy. If the soul is willing and surrendered to the step, and the father amiable, it is a done deal. Try and stop me. So I have proved you wrong inherently.

SO if you can do that, then why could not Prabhupada?

Why did Prabhupada mistakenly identify Kirtananda and many others as brahmanas?

What do you have that he lacks?

You Madhvites fail to recognize the extreme chastisement Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and his stalwarts like Srila Bhaktivinode and his son Bhaktisiddhanta had leveled at the Gaudiya Community as well, and much more frequently than the rare occasion they addressed the Madhva lineage. They particularly focused their chastisment upon that section of the Gaudiya community who insulated themselves into a self-aggrandizing, self-perpetuating caste by birth only lineage.

This would be in contrast to iskcon, where there have never been any self-aggrandizing, self-perpetuating spiritual leaders.

Such chastisement was never meant to be a fanatic condemnation of the progress such caste-by-birth-ONLY adherents had made in meditating on the names of the Lord,

You, Sonic Yogi, Shiva, and Theist are confused.

No one is arguing in support of a system which privileges one exclusively based on birth.

On the contrary, all that has been said is that in Vedic culture, one's varna was determined by birth and *then* one was raised and expected to act according to that varna. This is not an opinion but an historical fact. Arjuna is an obvious example of this.

We can argue all we want about how things *could* be or *should* be, but this is the way things were.

No one is arguing with the principle that even a shUdra or mleccha should be given respect equal to that given to a brAhmana when the former display brAhminical qualities. This is a theoretical point, however, since most people cannot objectively ascertain who has enough "brAhminical qualities" to merit promotion to a different varna. There is one story of VishvAmitra who became a brahma-rishi, but that was only after tens of thousands of years of penance, and it was none other that Sri Brahma himself who appeared to bestow that title on him. Look at how much chaos was generated when people in iskcon wrongly attributed "brAhminical traits" to unqualified mlecchas, and then these mlecchas when on to become "gurus." How can you support such a system when it has been such an unmitigated disaster almost from day one?

This is an observable and recognizable truth, and you only fail to give admittance because it removes you from your comfort zone and challenges your cherished position as having a corner on the market of truth,

Ironically, these arguments apply to you and those like you who repeatedly behave as if you do not require any support from guru, sAdhu, or shAstra for your claims. You want that everyone should believe you simply because you follow (or claim to follow) Prabhupada. Whereas many of us have been arguing based on scripture, logic, and even the testimony of your own AchAryas! We don't need anyone to believe us based on our birth. Claims for spiritual superiority privileging opinion come from your camp, not from the many who disagree with you.

the high priest of spiritual knowledge, as if the Lord cannot appear as Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and add a thing or two that you don't know,

Sure, the Lord can do that. The Lord can appear as a giant amoeba if He wants. The mere fact that He *can* do something does not mean that he did it or will do it.

that Sri Madhva did not choose to share with you for his own divine reasons, and that is not meant to hurt you but to further your advancement in spiritual life.

Pardon me for saying this, but when I see iskcon bullies like you screaming whenever people disagree with you, I become skeptical of the view that gaudiya vaishnava ideas help you to develop more "advancement in spiritual life."

Instead of minimizing the "only thing he wrote", the Siksastaka, why don't you read it, you might catch a clue.

Well I read it, and I do not see anything in there claiming a "disciplic succession" from Sri Madhva.

Don't let the fact that some fanatic so-called disciples of Gaudiya Acaryas misuse these facts

Question: are you a "fanatic so-called disciple of Gaudiya Acarya." Or would you call yourself a "bona fide" Gaudiya Vaishnava?