Jahnava Nitai Das

Please report any server problems to me by email at bvashram@.

I would disagree. I have been to thousands of ancient temples, and only a handful had such carvings. The majority of carvings on the pillars, walls, etc., are general devatas or decorative carvings (yalli, etc.).

If you can read this message, then you have reached the new server.

Personally I find the dentistry to be good in India, but the government medical facilities to be terrible. Most Indians dont go to the dentist. So their bad teeth are more or less their own fault. Certainly the dentistry doesn't compare to the west, but it is pretty decent and inexpensive. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 06-12-2002).]

Sometimes a small quotation from a person can misrepresent their true perspectives on an issue. I don't know if it is the case here or not. Also the audience whom he was talking to would be a relevant point. If he was talking to some students in his gurukula in West Bengal, or if he was talking with some grihastha devotees in Los Angeles who work in outside jobs, it would be two different things altogether.

This thread has been moved to Spiritual Discussions.

I couldn't answer for him, but I would guess it is probably because it is known to the audience.

Yet we must always accept that we are not in control. Our mere willing (i.e. positive thinking) will not bring about a change in our karmic reactions. The only way to become free from our reactions is to surrender to Krishna. Further more, their aims are not actually "positive". They have confused material success with a positive situation, when in reality it is just creating a further chain reaction of greater suffering, when their "positive will" ultimately is smashed by the will of God in the form of death.

A cow tied to a tree is limited in movement by the length of the rope. Yet he can further reduce his movement by entangling the rope around the tree.

Hinduism is a very broad group of faiths and practices, thus I can't give an exact answer for all Hindus. But roughly, most Hindu's acknowledge some divine source for other religions and their scriptures. Over time man has adjusted these God given teachings to suit their political and economic agendas. Thus today's teachings may not actually be derived from God, despite the original teachings having come from Him. An example would be the past writs of assurance in the Catholic church - something clearly man made - where one can buy his way out of sin, whereas other poorer followers must suffer in hell. The entire concept of hell may have been designed by man to further the economic aims of the church. It is really impossible for us to know the intricate histories involved in the manufacturing of religious doctrines throughout the centuries. The Hindu concept is to find the essence of spiritual knowledge everywhere, regardless of the source. It is said that just as one may take gold from a dirty place (the gutter for example), without being concerned with the dirt; in the same way one may take knowledge from any source. We must learn to distinguish between the "gold" and the "dirt". That which is made by man is always based on exploitation and should be avoided. That which is originating in the Divine is for the upliftment and benefit of all living entities. We should search for that divine spiritual knowledge in all faiths and religions. As far as a hell for the eternal damnation of fallen souls, Hinduism does not accept such a thing. One of the fundamental concepts of Hinduism is the belief in reincarnation, whereby a soul is given unlimited opportunities at perfection. According to our actions in this life, we are given a suitable body in our next life, wherein we will experience reactions for our good and bad deeds. Those who have performed a great proportion of sinful (harmful) activities, will certainly reap negative results in the next life, and thus it may be thought of as a "hellish" existence. But even in such a circumstance, we are all given the opportunity to learn and advance ourselves towards perfection. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 06-06-2002).]

For a disciple of their path that may be a sufficient answer, but for those who follow other paths, such an answer appears to be blind following. Thus it is natural they will question on what scriptural basis do the Goswami's establish each of their principles. We would do this for any other school of thought (i.e. Shankara, Sai Baba, etc.), thus it is only fair to allow others to do the same.

For a disciple of their path that may be a sufficient answer, but for those who follow other paths, such an answer appears to be blind following. Thus it is natural they will question on what scriptural basis do the Goswami's establish each of their principles. We would do this for any other school of thought (i.e. Shankara, Sai Baba, etc.), thus it is only fair to allow others to do the same.

Prithvi is another name for Bhumi.

The nonchanging position of the soul is stated in the Mandukya Upanishad: prakriter anyathabhavo na kathancid bhavishyati "The mutation of one's nature, becoming anything other than one's internal nature, will not take place in any way whatsoever." [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 06-03-2002).]

"The scientific basis of sewage consciousness". I was really looking forward to this thread.

This thread has been cleaned up. To keep it peaceful, anything slightly off topic will be deleted.

It's amazing how much discussion can occur from the time you sleep till you wake up in the morning! I will close this thread because it is certainly consisting primarily of insults, which whether valid or invalid just disturb the minds of common readers. BVI, if you want to continue this discussion, maybe you can try to focus on philosophical points, and avoid personal criticisms, simply because I want to keep personal criticisms away from these forums as much as possible. Sorry to all for stepping in so late. I'm in a different time zone then most of the posters, so I usually see the posts much after they are posted (i.e. most of the posts occur while I am sleeping).

Some traditional bead bags look more like a sock, without any holes in it for the index finger to come out, nothing for hanging it on the neck, etc. They are more common in North India today. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 06-02-2002).]

Some traditional bead bags look more like a sock, without any holes in it for the index finger to come out, nothing for hanging it on the neck, etc. They are more common in North India today. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 06-02-2002).]

You miss the point. It is not a question of whether to follow the Goswamis or not. It is a matter of whether we are blind sentimentalists or whether we have firm understanding of the teachings of the Goswamis, which all happen to be based on shastra. One acharya in the line of Rupa Goswami has stated the following in his paraphrased translation of the bhaktirasamrita-sindhu: "The neophyte or third-class devotee is one whose faith is not strong and who, at the same time, does not recognize the decision of the revealed scripture. The neophyte's faith can be changed by someone else with strong arguments or by an opposite decision. Unlike the second-class devotee, who also cannot put forward arguments and evidences from the scripture, but who still has all faith in the objective, the neophyte has no firm faith in the objective. Thus he is called the neophyte devotee." The neophyte is one who simply says "no need to support our conlusions with scripture". For example, if we are not able to do the simplest thing, such as establish the qualities of soul based on the shruti, then we are nothing but sentimentalists. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with being a sentimentalist, but then we shouldn't claim to follow a Vedantic tradition. The Goswami's on the other hand put much importance on being recognized as a Vedantic tradition, not just a sentimental devotional cult. For this reason they wrote so many books, establishing each of their premises based on authoritative scripture. Why did Baladeva Vidyabhushana write a commentary to Brahma-sutras? To be recognized as a Vedantic tradition and to prove that the Gaudiya line is not a sentimental devotional cult. Why have Gaudiya acharyas written commentaries on the Upanishads? Not for internal use by the devotees, but primarily for external critics. This is one reason many of the Upanishadic commentaries in the Gaudiya line are lost, they were not preserved within the devotional community as much as some other literatures. It is clear the line of the Goswami's is a Vedantic tradition based on the authorized scriptures - not based on the so-called whims of Chaitanya (i.e. "we are followers of Chaitanya, we don't follow the examples of the Gita"). Chaitanya's precepts are the ultimate conclusion of the Gita's message. The Goswami's have proclaimed Sripada Madhvacharya as their foundation. We are primarily followers, not sentimental renegades. Yet the shrutis themselves actually speak of only one thing, Sri Krishna. This is the conclusion of Madhva and the Gaudiya sampradaya. It is due to ignorance that various munis misinterpret the vedas to establish their own philosophies. In commenting on this verse Srila Prbahupada says: "Now, one might ask why there are so many philosophers if the ultimate goal of philosophy is one... Because they are ignorant and bewildered concerning the soul and its activities, even though some of them have a vague idea of the soul, many controversies arise, and the philosophical speculators can never reach a conclusion." Vedantic traditions hold the belief that there is an absolute and correct understanding of the scriptures. In the Gaudiya line the conclusion is that Sri Krishna is the object of all the Vedas. Sripada Madhvacharya has stated: vede ramayane caiva purane bharate tatha adavante ca madhye ca vishnu sarvatra giyate (originally from Harivamsha) "In the Vedas, Ramayana, Puranas and the Mahabharata, from the beginning till end, and also in the middle, Vishnu is glorified everywhere." Thus it is not the Gaudiya's conclusion (nor any other vedantic school's conclusion) that the shrutis can support anything. On the contrary the Gaudiya vaishnavas state the shrutis solely establish the glories of Sri Krishna. In other words, we can't support anything we have read with the shruti texts. This is the typical modern Gaudiya reply, and it is for this reason many other Vedantic traditions do not recognize the Gaudiya school as a Vedantic tradition. It is not that the Goswami's were not Vedantic, but their modern followers are unable to establish the Goswami's statements from scripture. Among internal followers it may be fine to just accept a statement based on the fact that Swami XYZ said it, but outside of one's own tradition it will not be recognized as valid. And even within one's own tradition it may be doubted based on interpretation (if there is no supporting evidence from the scriptures). Part of that allegiance is to support our preceptors words with scriptural evidences. It is easy to say "we follow the mahajanas", but what does it mean? svayambhur naradah sambhuh kumarah kapilo manuh prahlado janako bhismo balir vaiyasakir vayam The twelve mahajanas whom we are following are the great devotional authorities, whom we hear about only through the scriptures. Thus to follow the mahajanas requires one follow the injunctions presented by the mahajanas in the scriptures - not to just sentimentally call upon their names as vague authorities. If that is the case it should be very simple for you to establish your views based on the shruti, but till now you have never done it. Here is one example of modern Gaudiya replies to various evidences from another thread: 1) Precedent set by Arjuna receiving initiation from Krishna Answer: That doesn't count because he does not have a sampradaya. 2) Precedent of Ramanuja receiving initiation from Yamunacharya Answer: That doesn't count because he has his own sampradaya. 3) Precedent of Chaitanya Answer: Caitanya doesn't count because we should do what he does when he takes formal initiation but we shouldn't do what he does when he doesn't give formal initiation. In otherwords, the typical answer is "That doesn't count". Why? Because they don't have a response to it. HKS, Unfortunately the same thing will occur with any of your posts. When there isn't a sufficient answer, the reply will be "That doesn't count. You can prove anything by quoting Krsna himself..." In other words, to them scriptural authority refers to texts from Bengal that are at most a few hundred years old. Chaitanya, in creating His philosophy, borrowed two concepts from each of the four sampradayas. The vaishnava sampradayas are the foundation for Gaudiya siddhanta. It is unfortunate that many Gaudiyas are only familiar with Bengal, and not with the greater Vaishnava tradition. This is certainly why other schools do not recognize modern Gaudiya followers as a Vedantic school. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 06-01-2002).]

Of course if someone were to actually quote from Mahabharata or Manu-samhita in a discussion, I suspect the answer would be, "There are many other traditions, we only follow the Goswami's..." This double standard, of only accepting evidence that supports our own view, is quite disappointing. If the evidence suggests something else, we will reject the whole body of literature simply because we cannot defend a stance traditionally. Thus it becomes meaningless to quote from these sources at all (including the above quote), unless one is prepared to accept all references from these literatures. We cannot pick and choose what we want to accept as authoritative and what we don't like.

Of course if someone were to actually quote from Mahabharata or Manu-samhita in a discussion, I suspect the answer would be, "There are many other traditions, we only follow the Goswami's..." This double standard, of only accepting evidence that supports our own view, is quite disappointing. If the evidence suggests something else, we will reject the whole body of literature simply because we cannot defend a stance traditionally. Thus it becomes meaningless to quote from these sources at all (including the above quote), unless one is prepared to accept all references from these literatures. We cannot pick and choose what we want to accept as authoritative and what we don't like.

No, the point remains. If Ayurveda says garlic is beneficial for lactation, and a western educated doctor laughs at it, it is because they are ignorant of the effects of certain categories of food on the human body according to Ayurveda. I used the word "medicine" previously, because I dont consider garlic a food. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 06-02-2002).]

Most people, including doctors, are ignorant of the effects of medicines based on Ayurveda. Thus they may laugh at anything. Just because they are medical practitioners does not mean their ignorance is any less when it comes to understanding how the three doshas are affected by food within the three modes.

For clarification, that other thread was closed because it ended up being used to criticize other spiritual paths in a malicious manner. It wasn't closed due to the last few messages, which this thread has continued on.