karthik_v

Dear Raguraman, I am as much against conversion as you are. I am all for banning every form of conversion. I would also like to see every organized form of religion, especially the sectarian kind, banned. Such a list would include all the churches and all the Islamic organizations. Perhaps, even ISKCON, though lower down the order. To me a sectarian organization is one which claims that only its path is correct and every other path is either incomplete or down right wrong. Such intolerance to pluralism is what has always led to the most inhuman kind of violence as can be learnt from the history of Christianity and Islam. I am also against any kind of organized religion which works with a mandate to bring more and more followers into its fold. It is against the spirit of Sanatana dharma. It all ends in commerce. Spiritualism should be an individual pursuit, free of dogma and without ever being intrusive or aggressive. But, I don't believe that banning conversions alone would make India or the lives of majority of the Hindus terrific. The simple fact is, whether you agree or not, that the Harijans have been meted out the worst treatment by our people. The religious leaders, and that list includes acaryas too, have rarely stood up against such a blatant injustice. More often than not, they have been supporting that, directly or indirectly. Let us just take Gaudiya Vaishnavas and ISKCON for example. Sure we have temples all over the world, but do we have them in the tribal areas in India? Did we not simply ignore them? We have to be proactive as for as they are concerned. Otherwise, we have no right to ban conversions. I would be writing tomorrow, in answer to another member's question, as to why Manusmriti is bogus. What we have today should rightly be called Aurangazeb-Jones smriti. It treats the Harijans, Shudras and women as dirt. I feel very sad when an acarya like Srila Prabhupad goes around touting it as THE DIVINE LAW. FYKI, Valmiki Ramayana has many recensions - having verses ranging from 24,000 to 48,000. So, it has been re-written many times over. Why are you singularly agitated when I say that it should be re-written omitting the terrible parts such as Uttara kanda, which is wholesale interpolation? What is wrong in retaining the core of Ramayana while leaving out atrocious interpolations like Rama banishing Sita to forest, long after coronation? You have no problem when so much interpolation has gone into the works of Valmiki, but you are agitated when I demand that they be cleansed. I never said that it is due to Brahmins alone. It is due to all and above all due to the system. It is due to invasions. Above all, identifying what our true scriptures are and identifying the interpolations. And to always bear in mind that scriptures are at best a guide - and that too only in spiritual matters. They are never there to dictate our social mores and laws, as in the semitic religions. Our laws and customes have always changed and will change. Scriptures should have no place, whatsoever, in that. I never believed that the Christians are into any social service. Only ISKCON people have been glorifying the likes of Teresa. Not me.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/oct/11akd.htm That was a provocative title, though that issue constitutes only a small part of the article per se. Nevertheless, the article has raised 2 valid points: One, we should banish Manu from the public. Two, it is time we re-wrote Ramayana.

J N Das prabhuji, Even historically and archeologically, the Aihole inscriptions mention this date to be the beginning of Kali yuga. Ethosprabhuji, I would think that the golden age prophesised by Caitanya Mahaprabhu hasn't started yet. We don't even have a worldwide scenario that is favourable to spiritualism, leave alone Vaishnavism. On the contrary, going by the controversies that ISKCON and other such organizations have invited in the recent past, one is tempted to deduce that right now it is a turbulent phase. I would guess, once all this turbulence settles down, a stage of mature spiritualism [sans sectarianism and polemics] will begin and that would perhaps mark the commencement of the golden age. When this could happen is a matter of conjecture, but I would be very skeptical of assigning any date in the near future.

I think the guest is referring to the Ritviks among former ISKCON devotees. These are the people who argue that SP never established a guru-shisya parampara and he is the final guru. All others are mere officiating priests who can initiate on behalf of SP. But, this argument seems flawed. First of all, SP emphasised so much on parampara. He was insistent that the eternal truth is passed from a guru to his disciple and so on. He never spoke [to the best of my knowledge] about someone being the final guru. Instead, he spoke about creating a society of Brahmanas, a natural consequence of which is to have initiated gurus as well. SP also repeatedly spoke about how one should identify a spiritual master and how a spiritual master should accept a disciple. This implies a direct relationship between the guru and the disciple. Suppose SP is the final guru and others are mere officiating priests, as Ritviks argue, then how can someone determine if someone is fit to be a disciple, as SP is no more around in material form? This seems like a big flaw in the Ritvik argument.

Dear Shvu, Thanks. I will reply to this in detail, in the next 2 or 3 days. I am extremely busy for now. One more thing. I would like to clarify some historical facts with you and see if you have any information on that [no, this is not at all related to this topic]. Is there a way I can email you? If so, on which id?

Dear J N Dasji, I already offered to provide the arguments as to why these are considered as interpolations. I will do so this week-end. In fact, I can provide statements where Sankara says that mukti should be made available to ALL and specifically and explicitly includes SHUDRAS in that list. Never. Can you please show me where I did so? I only criticize him for what is attributed to him. Only if that OT verse is included in the NT also. Every verse in NT was either spoken by Jesus or has his approval - atleast that is what the church claims. Neither were the 10 commandments originally spoken by Jesus. Nevertheless, SP used to quote one of them, Thou shall not kill, to drive home his point that today's Christians are violating Jesus' teachings. Does it become double standards, if I do that? Actually, both SP and I are correct on this. The church has included many parts of OT in their Bible and claim that Jesus approved those passages. Hence, attributing them to Jesus. Yes, they could have been interpolated at later times. How do we know which parts were interpolated? I can argue that all those Biblical verses relating to ahimsa, love etc., were all interpolations and borrowed from Buddhism through the Greeks. I can argue that the original Bible was devoid of anything good and that is why it appealed to a Barbarian called Constantine. Very true that there was no Bible during the times of Jesus [i mean the time attributed to him. Let us not make it sound as if he really existed]. In fact, there was no Christianity either. Isn't that the reason I address him as Jesus, the rebel rabbi? Jesus was a Jew and belonged to a Jewish sect and practised Judaism. At best, he [meaning the real Jesus] was a small time rebel Rabbi, who was executed for his audacity and for angering the parochial Jewish leaders. 1. Debatable. I will provide the arguments. 2-4. None of these were considered as THE BOOKS until the time of Madhvacarya. Only shrutis had that place of honour and they don't talk ill of shudras. They treat all as equal. 5. Bhagavad Gita is not shruti again. Nor is it free from interpolation. Before Sankara, nobody argued on the basis of BG. Even after Sankara's time, it was never the primary treatise. Only shrutis had that place of honour. The popularity of BG is because of the European interest in it. The entire genre of Tamil bhakti works, of Nayanmars as well as Azhwars, show no knowledge of BG. None of the Advaitin writers in Tamil have even quoted BG once. Isn't that clear sign that it was never THE scripture? 6. Only, Tamilnadu was relatively free from Muslim invasion. Even then, Khilji's barbarians invaded Tamilnadu and raped our people. The place where most of the Sanskrit books were preserved was Vijayanagara empire. Even that fell into the hands of Muslims. So, our smritis were never protected from them. Only shrutis were, as they were dependent on oral recitation. It is very true that I don't like to talk negatively about shudras, women or blacks. To me, there can be no discrimination on the basis of our birth. Let us not forget for a moment that almost all the smritis were originally written by shudras. It is another story that a few Brahmins actively re-wrote them under the Moghul, Bahmani and British rule - a sizeable number of those Brahmins hailing from Bengal. But, that is not the reason why I consider them to be interpolations. Please tell me if there are multiple recensions is it not apparent that there has been interpolation? For example, Bhandarkar edition found 30% of the 1,00,000 verses in Mahabharat to be interpolations. We have recensions in Ramayana with verses ranging from 24,000 to 48,000. Is it not clear that there have been interpolations? At least, I have a basis for criticizing him - his supposed teachings in the form of the Bible, which the church unanimously says are his words. On what basis does one glorify him - that too as the Son of the God? Frankly, Jesus won't even figure in my scheme of things, but for all these silly glorifications. When the evil church is scheming to proselytize my poor country men with the support of tonnes of money, the last thing I want is some Hindu acarya going around glorifying Jesus, lending further credence to his cult. It is then that I am tempted to flash the facts and put Jesus in his place - which is nowhere. You have assumed that I blindly support Sankara. Not the case. If indeed Sankara did say those abominable things, I am totally opposed to them. But, the simple fact is that the Tamil works on Advaita have all been written by shudras, who practised it. Isn't that the reason I have always argued that nobody is perfect? Not for me is the dogma of blindly clinging on to a guru, no matter what his faults are. There are many great things to be gleaned from the writings of Sankara, SP, Aurobindo.... But nobody becomes Son of the God, in my book. Nor the embodiment of perfection. Dear Raguraman prabhu, I never said that the shrutis have been interpolated. But, I can understand your confusion. Another guest said that, but last time when I posted, I forgot to log on. So, that Guest statement was mine. I hold the vedas to be free from interpretation [every academic scholar too does so] and in the highest esteem. Dear Guest, Those were my words. Plagiarism is the foremost sign of intellectual debauchery. You have been talking about interpolation in the vedas, without answering the questions Shvu and I raised yesterday. Today,you are plagiarising my words and claiming them as yours. Please don't forget that the administrator can confirm the identity through IP address. He can even make them public. How about using your real Muslim name for posting? If you think that you are converting the members of this forum to that epidemic called Islam by your tactics, then let me assure you that you are puerile.

Dear Bhaktajoy prabhu, If you love thy neighbour, can you hand out rape as a punishment to her? Or, can you sell him in slavery? Every time, I think of Jesus' teachings as unconditional love, these things from the Bible stare at me? What should I do?

Dear Guest, Wow! I would refrain from going anywhere near a 10,000 watts bulb. Too hot for anyone's comfort and too bad from an enery conservation point of view. I guess such a bulb is better turned off /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Doubt: Did the Jews who crucified him wear shock proof gloves or did they use non-conducting nails? I would think that driving a nail through a 10,000 watts object is quite dangerous.

Dear J N Das prabhuji, You may say I am a dreamer I am not the only one. Hope some day you will join us And the world will be One. - John Lennon. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Seems like even a few religious leaders, who are actually following Advaita, agree with me. Even a cursory analysis of Sankara's commentary on Brahma sutra reveals that some parts were later day interpolation, as they contradict his sayings elsewhere in the same treatise. I can post in detail, when I get some time. That would be a seperate thread in itself. Interpolation, even otherwise, is a distinct possibility. Sankara mutts, all of them, have been without a head for long periods of time after the Muslim invasion. Some were actually resurrected by the barbaric Muslim kings. In those days, the works were preserved only on manuscripts written on palmyrah leaves. They lasted only for a short time. It doesn't take a great effort for someone to rewrite them, to suit his fancy. Actually, I have written before that the entire Bible is a doctored version. As Nietszhe said, the last Christian died on the cross. [it may not necessarily refer to Jesus though]. It was re-written atleast thrice and may not reflect anything that Jesus taught - assuming that he taught anything different from OT. But, this also raises a pertinent question: How do you know what Jesus taught? I am attacking the very fundamental of Christian belief - that Jesus resurrected. Historically and even biblically that stands unsubstantiated or even contradicted and negated. Above all, my objection is only to raising Jesus to the status of an avatar - shaktyavesha or otherwise. Such a pronouncement has no shastric basis. For a practising Hindu, Jesus is no better than a Sufi fakir, a Parsi priest or a Jewish rabbi - and as insignificant. It is also worthwhile noting that the acaryas outside of Bengal never cared about Jesus. For them, he was as foreign as Cuban cigar - and as irrelevant and useless in their sublime spiritual pursuit.

There is no need to doubt that God or Krishna can perform miracles. After all, if we accept that there exists a Creator, who is all powerful, then it automatically follows that he can do anything - even things that seem impossible or to be violating the physical laws. A scientist wouldn't accept a creator God, because he always seeks empirical evidence. So, approaching religion with a scientific bent of mind is futile. Of course, even a scientist wouldn't insist that empiricism explains everything, because, he also knows that there is no Grand unifying theory and there are exceptions to virtually physical law. So, a certain element of faith is involved in science as well as religion. A scientist trusts that what he perceives is indeed what is true. A spiritualist trusts the creator as the starting point. Now talking of miracles, Hinduism isn't dependent on miracles for its survival. Lord Rama didn't perform any miracle, yet he is worshipped. Many acaryas like Sankara, Ramanuja, Caitanya [atleast outwardly] and Prabhupada didn't perform any miracle, yet they are revered. Hinduism is a religion that is always open to introspection and doesn't depend on dogmatic pronouncements that have to depend on miracles. The prime focus of Hinduism is not make a believer adhere to an authority or a performer of miracle in a dogmatic manner. Rather, the focus is on making a person relate to a tenet, experience it and internalize it. That is precisely the reason why Hinduism survived the onslaught of Islam and Christianity, both of which were evil and tyrannical. Every other religion in this world got decimated when faced with the same. You can't decimate a way of life, can you? So, in Hinduism, faith in an acarya or God goes hand in hand with that process of internalization. On the other hand, the very basis of Christianity is dogma. Its foundation is very much dependednt on the miracles that are attached to Jesus. So, the entire religion and the faith that goes with that, falls apart if you can easily show [as has been done many times over] that those miracles are mere myths. Please note that for Christianity to be valid, the historicity of Jesus and a historical validation of the miracles that go by his name are essential.

Dear Avinashji, There is one more reason why I demanded shatric basis for the avatarhood of Jesus, the rebel rabbi. It is common sight for ISKCON devotees to pounce on a Sai Baba devotee when he claims that Sai Baba is an avatar. Our devotee will flash BG, SB and eloquently reel out all the avatars mentioned therein and demand to know if Sai Baba is one of them. The relentless attack will go on until the petrified Baba devotee takes to his heel. I dont find anything wrong when an ISKCON devotee does that. After all, I am not magnanimous and I dont think Sai Baba is God either. So, a sectarian person like me feels that we can indulge in an all out attack on what we don't like. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif What surprises me the most is when the same ISKCON devotee puts SB aside and meekly accepts that Jesus is an avatar. That is when I feel it is pertinent that I remind him of the arguments he deployed against Sai Baba. Of course, I must admit that ISKCON alone is not at fault here. RKM does the same thing. R K Parahamsa also thought that Jesus and Mohammad were prophets. He even met them in his trance! [Mohammad must have taken a day off from his busy schedule with the heuris /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif] Looks like this is a Bengali affliction. Can't blame them either. Kolkata was the Rajdhani during the British era and Bengalis were the first of Macaulay's children. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif Paramacarya of Kanchi Sankara mutt once told that any true religion cannot have a point of origin in time, because that way those who lived before that are denied salvation. Since Christianity and Islam both originated at a specific time, they cannot be true religions. The only true religion is sanatana dharma - the religion based on the apaurusya vedas.

Dear Avinashji, Good question. Those who have read my previous posts know that I have little regard for shastras, especially of the kind of Manusmriti. I consider most of them to be highly interpolated. So, even if somebody produces a line from a highly interpolated Bhavisya purana in support of their claim that Jesus was an avatara, I won't be impressed. Here my question was addressed to those who base their judgements on shastric utterings. So, I wanted to know from those persons, who to shastras, if there is a shastric basis for Jesus' avatarhood. Hope that clarifies. The corollary to my question is that if they can accept Jesus' avatarhood without a shastric basis, then why do they reject someone else' claim that Sai Baba is also an avatar. PS: I have little regard for Sai Baba either. Dear Guestji [i suggest that you become Questji!], I ignored you because you never substantiated your claims with any references. Since you are persistent, I need to put things in perspective for you. Have you heard of Sayanacarya and his comentary on the vedas? Would you care to check on his chronology and let me know if he lived before or after Akbar? While doing so, could you also clarify for yourself as to whose kingdom Sayanacarya lived in? And then come back and tell me if the version of the 4 vedas we have now is any different from the one to which Sayanacarya wrote a commentary for? Once you find the find the answers to these questions, could you please send a mail to the moderator requesting him to delete the factually inaccurate post you have made? Or just admit so here? That would elevate you in our eyes. Dear Shvu, I don't discount the possibility of miracles. Nor do I to the school of logic that claims that reality is limited to what we observe. Our perception of the reality is dependent on a few variables such as the facts at our disposition and the tools for perceiving the same. The fanatical church of the middle ages did perceive a sun that went around the earth and Prophet Mohammad earnestly believed that the sun set in a muddy pond, just to wake up the next morning [in the east] after a nice slumber! Perception, with limited facts, is not everything. Nevertheless, I apply a different yardstick to decide whether a book abounds in hyperbole - that I do by looking for contradictions within the same book. By that yardstick, our puranas and the Bible are full of hyperbole. The Hindus accept their scriptures without bothering whether they are historical. It is not necessary to show that Krishna was historical before a Hindu accepts the BG. On the other hand, Christianity is dependent on historical incidents, rather myths, that surround Jesus. Without recourse to resurrection, multiplying loaves, chasing the pigs down the hill etc., there is little validity to the claim that he was the Son of the God. So, when one can show the contradictions in the NT and using other evidences can establish that he was a myth, the religion itself can't stake any claims to divine origins. That is not the case with Hinduism. Countless Hindus have practised the religion and introspected on the BG without subscribing to the notion that Krishna was God incarnate. In fact, without even subscribing to the notion of avatars.

Dear Ram Prabhu, Were you in a good mood when you wrote this? Do you seriously want someone to prove that Jesus DIDN'T exist? Can anyone prove a negative? I must say that you are re-defining the paradigms of logic. If your efforts continue, the line between logic and illogic would be blurred completely and we can all blissfully wait for the arrival of the next "Son of the God". In case he takes a bit longer, then hope that an imposter claiming visions in the desert arrives. Many lived a good life long before Jesus was born. Many atheists today are good. Is there a reason to believe that those societies that believed in Jesus had a higher distribution of goody goody sweet souls? If so, I will buy your argument. On the contrary, if I can show that Christian societies, inspired by the doctrines of the church, committed the most ghastly crimes, will you agree that Christianity is indeed all evil? Only to those who had surrendered their rational faculties. Jesus, the rebel Rabbi, had no clue about soul. All he was concerned was [with himself being] the sole [way to liberation]. Soul as a concept enters Christianity through Origen, only to be banished a little later by the petrified padre. Origen lived around the 5th century CE and he got his ideas from Greece, which in turn borrowed from Buddhism. Later the soul makes a re-entry into Christianity around the 12th century when Aquinos realizes that his religion is no more than a bundle of encyclicals [and contradictions] and decides to introduce a [poorly] plagiarised version of the soul from the east.

Theist prabhuji, Your responses to Guest: Not at all. It only means that Jesus is a myth. Is there a shastric basis to assume that Jesus was an avatar? I am sure that somebody out there thinks that Sai Baba is an avatar too? I am sure that somebody believes that Hitler was an avatar. I am not sure that any avatar would have ever been a racist and a supporter of slavery, as Jesus had been.

Dear Ram prabhu, Mahabharat is distinctly post vedic. It had some elements of the vedic culture as well as elements that weren't vedic. But, even there, the Pandavas were deprived of their kingdom and ex-communicated and exiled. They weren't made into slaves, if we use the modern English definition of that word. Agree with your other points. A slave is bought, has no right over his family, is sold at will, doesn't have any negotiating power... Also not to forget that the so-called shastras as Manu Smriti have never been in existence in the physical form for thousands of years and were invented during and after the days of Aurangazeb, in their present form. We know very little of the content of the original smriti itself. It is dangerous to base our arguments and even worse to follow, these later day inventions.

Dear Ram prabhu, I think it has become fashionable to give such superficial and pacifist answers. If a religion is about the eternal truth, then it should have no beginning or end. Both Xianity and Islam had a specific beginning. They fail this criterian. I am sure even Nazism had some shades of truth to it. Would you have considered it a true religion had Hitler declared himself as the Son of the God or as THE Prophet? Dear Theist prabhu, A valid point. Does it extend to Advaita also? Or does t remain condemned for eternity?

Dear rrepling, Now I will try to answer your other questions. As Gauracandra explained, in Hinduism, time is considered to be cyclical. So, there is no permenant end. Every destruction is followed by the beginning of the next cycle. In Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna tells Arjuna that He has given the spiritual message many times over in the past. He also says that he continues to do so each time dharma is on the decline. So, time is cyclical. This cyclical time is in turn made up of units called yuga. Just like 4 seasons, there are 4 yugas which follow each other cyclically. They are Satya, Treta, Dwapara and Kali. We are presently in the Kali yuga, 5000 years into it, in our current yuga cycle. There is a destruction, though only partial, at the end of each yuga. For example, there was a great Kurukshetra war at the end of Dwapara yuga 5000 years ago. There is also a complete destruction at the end of every yuga cycle - that is at the end of every Kali yuga. Our scriptures say that Lord Krishna will appear as Kalki and there will be a great pralayam or floods. That will bring about a massive destruction and the next yuga cycle starts all over again.

The churches lick the boot that kicks them, and bite the hand that feeds them...

Here is a wonderful, very objective and highly thought provoking article written by the eminent historian Koenraad Elst: http://pws.the-ecorp.com/~chbrugmans/articles/missions.html

Shvu, I would rather say it is fortunate, because it has allowed Hinduism to be a religion of laissez faire unlike the dogmatic Christianity. I can't imagine a parochial Hinduism with its one jealous Semitic God, His Son whose way is the only way, His one all powerful church and its single-minded ruthless violence against those who seek the truth differently - rather those who seek it /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

Dear rrepling, Let me try to answer this from Rk veda. Just to provide an introduction, Hindu scriptures fall under 2 categories - shruti and smriti. Shruti is what has been revealed to the sages and smriti is what has come of that revelation. The 4 vedas are known as shruti. The message of the vedas are often esoteric and the real meaning of the vedas, as the Rk veda itself states, remains beyond the words that they contain. So, they are perceptible only to the realized sages. Great sages such as Vyasa, Sankara, Valmiki, Kambar, Azhwars, Nayanmars, Caitanya, Ramanuja, Aurobindo, Prabhupada etc., have expounded on the esoteric message of the vedas and elucidated them in a manner the ordinary people can understand. As a result, we have several other Hindu scriptures known as [i[smritis. Now let us see what the Rk veda says about creation. I am quoting from what is known as the Creation hymn. I am just providing the translation, but if you are interested, I can provide the Sanskrit verses too: "Then, even nothingness was not, nor existence. There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it. What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping? Was there then cosmic waters, in depths unfathomed? Then there was neither death nor immortality, nor was there then the touch of night and day. The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining, there was that One then and none else. At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness. All this was only unilluminated water. That One which came to be enclosed in nothing arose at last born of the power of heat and then stretched the cord across the void before time was to be." [RV 10:129] Others can provide different perspectives from such treatises as Srimad Bhagavatam.

Dear rrepling, I will try to answer your questions, one at a time. In fact, each question can be answered in detail from several Hindu scriptures and commentaries written on them. In that sense, answering just 1 question will take weeks. Nevertheless, I will make a beginning and hope others, such a s Gauracandra who has already contributed nicely, provide answers from a myriad of Hindu scriptures. By the way, Hinduism is a name given to it by the Persians to address not just the religion but the entire people, culture and language that existed on the eastern side of the river Sindhu [modern day Indus]. In ancient Persian language, the phonem S in Sanskrit often changed to H, so Sindhu in Sanskrit became Hindhu in Persian. Hence the origin of the name Hindu. The religion itself had no beginning. It has been eternal. Hence it never had a name by which the Indians addressed it. The entire collection of philosophy and its interpretation has been known as Sanatana dharma. Sanatana means eternal. Dharma has no equivalent translation in English, but the closest definition would be religion and the way of living that is based on eternal righteousness. With that pre-amble, I will start answering your questions in my next post.

Dear Bhaktajoy, I was expecting a reference to the shrutis that says that the spiritual master is perfect and as good as God. I am not even suspecting the devotion of SP for a moment. He displayed great piety towards Radha Krishna. But sycophancy is not needed in spiritual pursuit. Every time we claim that SP was perfect and flawless, naturally someone would point at the flaws in his decision. For example, many whom he initiated as disciples and sannyasis fell down and even committed sickening crimes against children and women in their trust. So, one can very well argue that these were erroneous judgements on the part of SP. I am not a great follower of Mahatma Gandhi, but some of his thoughts have been profound. He said that if something in the scriptures goes against his humanistic approach, then he would reject that. He trusted the shrutis and accepted the smritis only in parts. One of the key aspects of spiritual pursuit is that we don't become sectarian. Sadly, if we look at the abusive attacks on Adi Sankara in the writings of SP and ISKCON, then one doesn't feel that we are above sectarianism. Still, none of this lowers my regard for SP. Just that I don't consider him to be perfect. I never did. I don't consider anyone I have known to be perfect either. There are some humanistic values which none of us can let go off. This is where absolute surrender to the guru can be dangerous, especially when the guru cannot protect you. Is it not a fact that many female devotees were forced to have sex during the travelling women's party? Though SP was alive then, there was not much he could do to stop these acts. In fact, nobody can, if the family unit is weakened. The safest place for a child is in his/her family. Only when there is strong family unit, such abuses won't take place. Often, since the devotees engaged in evangelism and book distribution, the family unit was weakened in ISKCON and that was what led to all these abuses. A lot of the devotees who abandoned the family to distribute books did so because they thought the guru was perfect. Their faith was absolute. Many of them were abused. Had they firmly decided that the best place for their daughter was their own home and not some experimental gurukul or a mobile home, such acts wouldn't have happened. Honestly tell me if those abused devotees, who had unquestioningly accepted the words of the guru, progressed spiritually or got devastated even in the material life. I don't believe there is an express elevator to Goloka. We will get there when we have progressed enough spiritually and it has to be gradual. Till then, be a good humanist, avoid sectarianism and take care of your family. Even if it means going against what the guru says.

Shvu, A good one you have quoted. May I add that HKs should also abstain from preaching mindless abstinence from sex to impressionable teenagers and college kids. Post-Islamic bhakti movement, as contrasted with the pre-Islamic, did indeed develop the terrible Muslim attitude towards sex. I would think that it all started with Tulsidas who ended up portraying Sita as the servile wife rather than the vivacious and warm companion of Rama that Valmiki portrayed her to be. Kambar continued Valmiki's tradition without attaching any sense of guilt or remorse to sex and approaching it with an open mind, as a thing to be relished and the memories of which are to be cherished. With the advent of the Victorian prudes, there also developed a fierce advocacy of abstinence from sex. And sex in itself became the B word. I have never seen such abstinence work in anyone. Sex is not an evil you consciously kill. It is something which becomes irrelevant to you, if you transcend that, in which case you are one in a million. There is only one difference between the multitude who enjoy sex and those who force themselves to abstain from it. The former, coming to terms with it, enjoy it. As for the latter, it preys on their minds all the time, making abstinence an obsession in itself. Bhaktajoy, Is there a shastric basis to this claim? I mean a basis in the shrutis or BG. God, by definition, is perfect. He is perfect in every sense. If a spiritual master has short comings, which you may brush aside as material short comings, would you still call him perfect? The only one who is perfect is He. Indeed He alone. I don't think that anybody here is deriding India's spiritual culture. What people are deriding is the tendency among HKs to deride many components of India's spiritual tradition, which includes Advaita.

The name sounds more like a female, anyway it is besides the point. Shvu, I would agree with you that the site in question is a Hindu propaganda site, yet, not everything they say can be tarnished because of that. They do tend to mix propaganda with facts and some embellishments. Yet, the link you provided is very much factual. The likes of Shabana Azmi are definitely rabid Muslims and they have done their best to tarnish Hinduism. Do you really believe that Shabana will agree to be cast as a Muslim woman, who indulges in lesbianism with another wife in a polygamous marriage [insinuating that in Islamic polygamy wives are sexually starved]? But, she won't have any qualms doing the same with the Hindus. Coming to exaggerations, I have often felt that even mainstream academic works lack honesty, when it comes to deal with Hinduism. Are they not guilty of propping up canards? Are they not guilty of speculations? Then why just single out this site?