Rati

I find a charming poetic quality to Shiva's posts. Also, he is doing much better with commas and paragraphs. Now he just needs to raise the bar for himself philosophically. As Jagat has opined: He shows much potential.

If I remember correctly, Hari-bhakti-vilasa tells how sunrise is calculated, but I do not remember the exact details. With the internet and ISKCON's on-line paJjikA, there really is no need to have a local jyotiSa pandit on hand, now is there? If you already understand about lunar days, Sarasvati, then I really do not see what you are confused about. Srila Prabhupada temporarly simplified the observance of holy days for reasons of practicality alone, but the situation has changed with computers and the internet, so your argument of keeping in line with Prabhupada's instructions does not really apply today. At least it does not appear to from my vantage point. Also, there are many much more important issues when it comes to unity than astrological calculations, IMHO. [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-19-2002).]

And I am just now wondering why the Shashi is taking every opportunity to be obnoxious just to show off his/her clever (?) wit. Frustrated actor maybe?

The spirit of your sentiment is appreciated, however there are certain principles of Jyotish (Hindu astrology) that are followed and these are tithis (lunar days) that do not correspond to solar days (sunrise to sunrise), because they are evenly divided fractional parts of full moon to new moon (kRSNa-pakSa) and new moon to full moon (zukla-pakSa). Pradyumna Das used to do precise calculations for those lunar days in the various time zones, but Srila Prabhupada needed him to do his job as an editor, so that was why the one date for all time zones policy was instituted (remember, desk top computers were not readily available at the time, and doing those calculations by hand was quite time consuming). The longitude is one part of the equation, but also the exact time of sunrise for your location (which will differ by latitude), particularly with respect to the ekAdazI/mahA-dvAdazI rule. So it is entirely possible for two temples geographically in proximity but only a few minutes difference of longitude and/or latitude in location to have different dates for observance of the same holy day. Hope this clears up some of the confusion and does not make it even more enigmatic. Frustrating it will always be, but if one wants to do the vratas at the auspicious times, a necessary evil. [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-19-2002).]

Looks like some here totally missed the point of my above musing. The gist of it was a global awakening of humanity that involved the Renaissance in Europe, the settling of the New World by those seeking religious freedom and the bhakti movements in India. One could say there were significant turning points in history (both scientific and religious) that occured around the same time. The same could be (and indeed has been) said of the latter part of the nineteenth century. One of the recent Indian gurus (I forget which, but it might have been Muktananda or Aurobindo) has suggested that the yuga cycles described in Sanskrit scriptures have been misinterpreted - that the cycle really is satya, treta, dvapara, kali, dvapara, treta, satya - and that we have recently re-entered the Dvapara yuga, which he put forth to explain scientific and technological advancement. Food for thought. I think we're overdue for a quip from the peanut gallery: [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-18-2002).]

There is also that siddhi known as tri-kAla-vit, whereby one can see past, present and future events. That is clearly numinous and suggests that the perception of time as linear is but an illusion.

Yes, it does make sense. Archtypal projection had not come to mind, but seems to be very germaine. Synchronicity seems to be very similar to the consciousness of events at a distance, as Haridas Das has described in the various Vaishnava hagiographies. Brahma Samhita states that in Goloka time is conspicuous by its absence, so it would logically follow that all events in that realm are occuring simultaneously, which would be synchronicity implicitly, although it actually becomes a meaningless concept on that level - being something astounding for us living in a realm of linear time. Mythical time as well is cyclical rather than linear, so there should be a higher prevalence of synchronicity in sacred space. [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-16-2002).] [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-16-2002).]

Here's another suggestion for you Shiva: Before you post, gather your thoughts, then try to form paragraphs out of sentences (perhaps you should just avoid commas altogether, until you learn their purpose) to complete each thought. The standard practice is to either indent the first sentence of each paragraph or at least space between each one (as JNDas has suggested). If you can do this, then people will be more interested in reading what you have to say, and there will be fewer complaints about your use of English. Once you have that down, we can work on some of your other writing problems. Just see - you're geting tutoring here, free of charge!

Thanks for the insight Jagat. It does not sound like our friend Shiva is very well acquainted with archetypes, based on his response. He seems to have mistaken the king and warrior archetypes for their actual types. There is a gulf of difference. Besides the Vedic guru is not quite the same thing as the Puranic (or Gaudiya Vaishnava guru). There may be some common characterstics, but there are also plenty of significant differences. Shiva, I suggest you read any of the books published on the subject of archetypes first, then revisit the topic at that time. If you want to look at something about the four I mentioned, you can read the work of Moore and Gillette. [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-15-2002).]

Does not surprise me, even though it doesn't ring a bell. I do remember a GBC resolution for the late seventies that called for a hands off approach to S. S. and his group. This could have been prompted by that behavior. I used GK as an extreme example of things out of control in ISKCON while Prabhupada was still on the planet, but apparently it was too controversial for this forum, as it was deleted by the moderator.

Ah yes, the topic that refuses to die. Just to sidestep the controversy for a moment: Sexual mores follow a cyclical pattern in human society (at least since historians have been writing on the subject). They tend to swing periodically from liberally promiscuous to puritanically repressive. Don't forget that the general population (whether you are talking about Europe or America or India or Japan) is not comprised of yogis. Look at the example of the last half of the twentieth century in America, where the trend went from fairly restrictive to highly promiscuous for post-war baby boomers and now for the new generation of adolescents coming of age there is an increased trend of waiting until marriage. OK, now you can get back to your debate.

Since you brough up the subject of Jungian archetypes, would you say that the guru could be considered as manfesting all of them in one person? He represents the King figure as an absolute authority of religious doctrine and Vishnu's representative on earth. He represents the Magician figure as the via medium. He can be said to represent the Warrior when propagating Sri Caitanya's movement, since the dharma of the warrior is to serve a higher purpose (i.e. the will of the King). He could even be considered to embody the characteristics of the Lover with respect to mAdhurya bhAva. This all seems to fit in considering the India concept of the guru, whereas in the Western world view religious preceptors are more purely King or Magician or a combination of both. Certainly avatAras of Vishnu or other deities embody all archetypes, since by nature they are archetypal characters. So, a guru (especially in the case one that is truly zaktyAveSa) as the theophant could function in the same capacity. Archetypes are very much an integral part of myth, and when it comes to myth traditional societies are much more attuned to the inner message than our post-modern hi-tech civilization, which has stripped the sacred from everyday life and relegated to houses of worship. [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-15-2002).]

OK. I edited the post. It now just addresses the complexity of weight gain and loss.

I don't see why the title of the thread makes anything obvious. Both the original Gurukripa Das and Siddhaswarupananda had the same guru, did they not?

Bhaktivinoda's statement about the nether regions does bring up an interesting point about the origins of that concept. For example, historians of religion have traced the origin of the Judeo-Christian concept to Zoroastrianism. Prior to that the Hebrew people had no such thing as a Devil. Anyone have any information on the actual origin of hell in India? Perhaps it was also borrowed from Zoroastrianism.

I like his overall thesis, but his statement about the guru-disciple relationship being alien to Western culture is perhaps overly exaggerated. After all, there was clearly that type of formal relationship between Christ and his disciples. Also it does seem to have been widely accepted for a number of Indian gurus with Western disciples over the years. I think it is not so much that relationship, but the Eastern mysticism that is perhaps hard for people in the West to swallow. Don't know for sure. Just basing this on my personal observations in life, for what their worth.

I'm Body by Fischer.

My brother and sister-in-law tried home schooling for a while for their two kids, on account of their religious faith (Christian) and the problems in the public schools, but it did not work out, so the kids ended up back in the public school system. Until the whole faulty educational system is thrown out and rebuilt from scratch, I guess we are stuck with it for the time being. [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-15-2002).]

Are you the old Gurukripa that used to hang out with Yasodananda and had a travelling party in Japan? If so, sorry for using you as an example on the other thread. If not, you may want to change your screen name.

So you're a Vonnegut fan? How did you like "Sirens of Titan"? I found it to b exquisitely satirical. [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-15-2002).]

Mahaprabhu did appear around the time Columbus discovered the New World. Coincidence?

If you review the current literature and research, you see that obesity (and even slight weight problems) are much more complex. The newest treatment that shows great promise is an enzyme they have recently isolated that not only helps one shed pounds, but keeps them off as well. You see, when you loss some weight, your metabolism automatically changes and you store fat more easily (apparently the body's natural defense mechanism to protect against starvation). This enzyme counters that effect. [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-15-2002).]

Genuine scientific advancement has been impeded throughout history by a religious elite clinging to old worn-out dogma, such as a flat earth theory. Bhaktivinode's statement about liberty goes right to the heart of the problem. It can also be applied to theological inquiry and development. After all, without the contribution of Rupa Goswami to an already existent theology, where would we be today? If we are to take his statement to heart, then we must see the pitfalls of relying too heavily on the instructions of others and ignoring our own intellect in the process. If a hypothetical guru were to tell us that we need to round up all of the first born male infants and slaughter them because Kamsa has been prophesized to reincarnate, that would go against our conscience and, if we are applying our intellect as the Thakur has advised, we would reject those instructions (or at least seriously question the validity of the reason for them). There are religious authorities we rely on: sAdhu and zAstra. There are also other sources of pramANa (evidence), such as pratyakSa or direct perception. By a synthesis of all of these, we can view the world with a deeper understanding. Otherwise, the temporal will seem as permanent and the search for happiness will be confined to this world and the objects of the senses. We as rational beings have been endowed not only with liberty, but the power of reason. To use our free will and our powers of logic to accomplish great things is a noble pursuit. [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-12-2002).]

Purport: The classical (as well as Vedic period) Sanskrit texts, such as the Puranas and the Itihasa (Mahabharata and Ramayana) are meant to be understood as having meaning on multiple levels. In addition to the literal meaning, there are other levels, such as allegorical, symbolic, hidden, etc. We have to look at these texts in light of Sri Bhaktivinode Thakur's statement to read between the lines in places. Certain passages will have an obvious literal message in plain language, whereas others will require some analysis and reflection to ponder their meaning on these other levels. We have various commentaries written to guide us in such a process. Just reading the texts as curiosities without actually living their teachings through practice (sAdhana) will result in missing out on the spirit of them. If we combine the reading of them (and preferably hearing from qualified readers that can also explain them) with practice and take the prescribed step of dIkSA, then we can achieve higher levels of understanding than those available by a mere academic approach to the subject.

Shiva: I guess it is just not clear to me what exactly your point is. Does anyone else here have the same problem, or is it just me? Are you talking about disqualification to actually take up sAdhana as a practice, on account of not having the right pure desire? If so, then that is quite illogical, since the whole idea of a practice is to start from the impure state and eventually be purified in the process. Different paths lead to different goals. That was my point on other threads about worshipping in the mood of aizvarya (which leads to vaikuNTha or dvArakA) versus worshipping in the mood of madhUrya (which leads to goloka). I am sure you are going to again explain at length what you really mean, but the result is going to be more dancing around in circles: the rAsa dance of this dialogue. The only question in my mind at this point is whether or not your philosophical musings have any connection with reality, since they seem to center on some hypothetical set of persons rather than a real world set. Since I have other pressing matters, unfortunately I do not have the time to spend trying to get to the bottom of your agenda (and it appears that you have one, although what it is may not be apparent to the rest of us). I invite Raga and the others here to step in at this point to continue this conversation, as I have to leave these forums for a while.