Murali_Mohan_das

Most people would not call his ideas from introduction to Sri Krsna Samhita "showing correlation between shastra and science". Bluntly speaking he essentially said that a lot of scriptural stories are gross embellishments, and most of them never even took place in the physical reality, as both shastra and tradition claim. That is why I made my comment as quoted above.

Your statements regarding Bhaktivinoda's comments on Hanuman led me to my assumptions (not being familiar with the work on which you comment).

Just previously, I said, I cannot percieve the intentions of Srila Bhaktivinoda, but here, it might be useful to at least speculate.

I believe that Bhaktivinoda, as Srila Sridhar Maharaj has explicitly stated, is begging us to "dive deep into Reality the Beautiful" by pointing out that our goal in studying the shastra is to seek the essence and not to dance around the periphery becoming engrossed in "trivia".

As a child, Krishna Book, the story of Prahlad and Hiranyakasipu, etc., *were* my "fairy tales" (in the sense of "bedtime stories"). I wasn't aware that I was learning any philosophical conception, I was enraptured by the high drama. Each year, as I hear the story of Narasimhadev, greater relevance and significance is revealed (hopefully by Mercy and not my own speculation). I have come to see that this is not just "history", but, rather, it is an ever-present condition in the material world. Even now, "global warming" is reminiscent of the heating effect on the *universe* (not just this planet) that Hiranyakasipu's austerities generated.

Now, let's not talk about "physical reality" when referring to this great illusion, eh? Yes, so many of the shastric histories are not material and mundane. Don't we get enough mundane stories already? This is not a fault of the shastra, it is their gift--they offer relief from the so-called reality in which we are all suffering. They offer a glimpse into worlds beyond our comprehension.

I doubt very, very much that this was his intent. It is akin to Srila Prabhupada telling his disciples not to think he is God, and his disciples acting contrary to that instruction and proclaiming that he is God after all, just saying he is not out of humility. Sentiments of the disciples can lead to serious deviations if not controlled by the intelligence.

His intent is beyond my perception.

Gurudev, on the other hand, I trust to know his intention, and convey to me as he desires.

I don't think your comparison is valid. Nowhere is it said that Lord Sri Krishna has *written* any scriptures, and yet the words of the Lord are there. Bhagavad Gita is told not directly by the Lord Himself, but by Sanjaya to Drtarastra. Do we know the name of the sage who transcribed it?

The compilers of the Shastra are divinely inspired. What makes Vedavyas any better than Saccidananda Bhaktivinoda?

Let's look at the point you use for comparison though. While we may quibble theologically about whether Guru is God or "as good as God" (is it not another case of acintya beda bed?), functionally, what is the difference? It is clearly stated in shastra that Guru is as good as God. In our devotional lives, then, for all intents and purposes Guru *is* God.

Regarding sentiments and deviation, yes, you are right. We must rely on Gurudeva and the Vaishnavas (such as yourself) and our own sincerity to correct us when we deviate and keep us on the path.

Aha! So *this* is where the party is happening!

Count me with the "like dhotis" category. In terms of "simple living", I can't imagine anything simpler (or more comfortable) than a dhoti.

I've dreamed that, if I were a better (or any sort of) model of a Vaishnava, I would go to work each day in dhoti and kurta (I like the idea of having *one* life and not many different compartments).

Since we're quoting song lyrics here. This one by Van Morrison brought me to tears yesterday (yep, I'm a sentimental sahajiya, just like my Dad). I did a quick cover of it last night, but it turned out pretty messy (if spirited).

Dweller on the Threshold

by Van Morrison

I'm a dweller on the threshold

And I'm waiting at the door

And I'm standing in the darkness

I don't want to wait no more

I have seen without perceiving

I have been another man

Let me pierce the realm of glamour

So I know just what I am

I'm a dweller on the threshold

And I'm waiting at the door

And I'm standing in the darkness

I don't want to wait no more

Feel the angel of the present

In the mighty crystal fire

Lift me up consume my darkness

Let me travel even higher

I'm a dweller on the threshold

As I cross the burning ground

Let me go down to the water

Watch the great illusion drown

I'm a dweller on the threshold

And I'm waiting at the door

And I'm standing in the darkness

I don't want to wait no more

I'm gonna turn and face the music

The music of the spheres

Lift me up consume my darkness

When the midnight disappears

I will walk out of the darkness

And I'll walk into the light

And I'll sing the song of ages

And the dawn will end the night

I'm a dweller on the threshold

And I'm waiting at the door

And I'm standing in the darkness

I don't want to wait no more........><!-- D(["mb","\u003cbr\>\u003cbr\>I'm a dweller on the threshold\n\u003cbr\>And I cross some burning ground\u003cbr\>And I'll go down to the water\u003cbr\>Let the great illusion drown\u003cbr\>\u003cbr\>I'm a dweller on the threshold\u003cbr\>And I'm waiting at the door\u003cbr\>And I'm standing in the darkness\n\u003cbr\>I don't want to wait no more\u003cbr\>\u003cbr\>I'm a dweller on the threshold\u003cbr\>Dweller on the threshold\u003cbr\>I'm a dweller on the threshold\u003cbr\>\n\u003c/span\>\u003c/div\>",0] ); D(["mi",8,3,"112543bc41124a28",0,"0","Maitreya Maziarz","Maitreya","maitreya.maziarz@gmail.com",[ ,[["David","davidlukeabbott@","112543bc41124a28"] ] , ] ,"May 3 (22 hours ago)",["\"David L. Abbott\" \u003cdavidlukeabbott@\>"] , , , ,"May 3, 2007 4:17 PM","Re: Dweller on the Threshold","", ,1,,,"Thu May 3 2007_4:17 PM","On 5/3/07, Maitreya Maziarz \u003cmaitreya.maziarz@gmail.com\> wrote:","On 5/3/07, \u003cb class\u003dgmail_sendername\>Maitreya Maziarz\u003c/b\> <maitreya.maziarz@gmail.com> wrote:","gmail.com",,,"","",0,,"\u003c383278030705031617m6a0a8506i310732f089ca51e4@mail.gmail.com\>",0,,0,"In reply to \"Dweller on the Threshold\"",0] ); //-->.........>

I'm a dweller on the threshold

And I cross some burning ground

And I'll go down to the water

Let the great illusion drown

I'm a dweller on the threshold

And I'm waiting at the door

And I'm standing in the darkness

I don't want to wait no more

I'm a dweller on the threshold

Dweller on the threshold

I'm a dweller on the threshold

Perhaps Bhaktivinoda was born in a lower caste shakta family so that he might grow up without pre-conceived notions of what Vaishnavism should be. It is often hard to be a reformer if you absorb a particular flavor of a tradition in your childhood.

 

You should read his autobiography. It is very enlivening. His honesty and sincerity are very vivid in that account.

Valuable insights, Prabhu. I pray for the inspiration to learn more about that dear and great person!!

Seems like it is precisely Bhaktivinoda who reduced shastra to fairy tales with a moral.

I didn't directly address this point in my earlier response.

It's not clear exactly how you came to this conclusion, but, to show correlation between the scripture (shastra) and science is not to devalue the shastra.

As pointed out by Bhaktivinoda in a quote recently posted on these forums, our goal lies in the realm of Chit (consciousness). This realm is beyond time and material space, so, when we project that world into our "two dimensional" (to use a film-projection analogy) realm of words, thoughts and time, by necessity the representation will not be full.

What am I trying to say? While the shastra no doubt has some literal truth, it cannot contain *all* truth. It is a doorway to the realm of limitless consciousness.

What is language, after all, but a model of reality? A word represents a "real" thing (or a "real" concept) in an abstract fashion. As our models become more refined over time (through science, or what have you), why should those who are divinely inspired not use these better models to describe the Ultimate Reality in a way that is more comprehensible to the educated person of his or her day?

In a sense, it *is* valuable to accept Shastra literally (under the guidance of a Vaishnava), if only to try to pry our minds free of it's death-grip on the illusion we accept, in our every day lives, as "reality".

On the other hand, the Vaishnava, who is being carried by the same transcendent current that has carried the various Vyasdevas, can harmonize the shastra and that small portion of current science which is not complete bull-pucky.

My post was addressed to Murali prabhu, who knows exactly what I'm talking about. You should read the introduction to Sri Krishna Samhita for an exact reference. I dont have the book now but the matter is no secret among the Gaudiyas. Why do you think that book caused such an uproar when it first came out?

You're too kind, Lowborn Prabhu, to assume I know what you're talking about. I think I follow what you're saying, though much of the history you've presented (very briefly) is new to me, I must say, but is not surprising.

While, as Guruvani Prabhu says, it's nice to have citations to which we can refer, I'm willing to accept what you say for the sake of discussion.

That is precisely the problem with certain Bhaktivinoda's pronouncements on the shastra, such as that Hanuman was simply a non-aryan south indian man.

Well, if there's a "problem" with Srila Bhaktivinoda's pronouncements, I see that the problem is solely mine and not his. Beyond the complete faith that my merciful Gurudeva has placed in him, even with my own myopic vision, Bhaktivinoda's brilliance is blinding.

Since his writings are, in complexity and erudition, comparable with any post-graduate thesis, most of us know Srila Bhaktivinoda through his songs, in which the Vaishnava mood is presented in manner of unprecedented beauty.

He does not know that for a fact - that was just his opinion based on the current scientific views.

To the degree that none of us know *anything* for a fact, I agree with you, and while his intelligence allowed him to easily grasp much of the contemporary science of his day, the Vaishnava sees Bhaktivonoda's pronouncements as being divinely inspired. So, whether or not Bhaktivinoda's pronouncements are "facts" (as defined by??? The vedas??? science??)), the Vaishnavas see them as Divine Truths.

As long as he is not pretending he knows it for a fact, I can appreciate his perspective. But why cant we also rationally and scientifically proclaim that Hanuman was simply an exceptionally strong Neanderthal man? It is an old story, perhaps from the time when modern men lived side by side with Neanderthals or other hominids. And who knows what will be the "current scientific view" of that story in 200 years? Seems like it is precisely Bhaktivinoda who reduced shastra to fairy tales with a moral.

I don't see Bhaktivinoda pretending at anything. His sincerity is utmost.

We can rationally and scientifically proclaim so many things, but those proclamations will be fraught with all of the attending baggage of reason and science. Your speculations are reasonable enough, and the rational side of me accepts them. While these are interesting mental exercises, in which way do they help us progress on the path of Bhakti? Perhaps by engaging our mind in thinking of Divine Personalities.

But, as aspiring Vaishnavas, do we worship reason? No! In Mahaprabhu, we worship a "madman", who rejected reason (having been the preeminent scholar of His day) to chant and dance in the streets in a state of Divine Intoxication. The Lord is the Divine Autocrat. He is not bound by any "facts".

Ultimately, Gaudiya Vaishnavism is a religion of the heart. The mind must be engaged (trained--man-tra: train the mind) or it will get into so much trouble, but we are warned not to be guided by our minds but, rather, by our hearts (which is not to say we are guided by sentimentalism, but by our hearts *true* hankering).

At the time Bhaktivinoda wrote the very controversial introduction to his Sri Krsna Samhita he was not initiated into ANY Vaishnava sampradaya, still ate fish, and made no claim to represent any Gaudiya line.

Funny you should mention this. When Guruvani-ji recently made some disparaging comments about "iconoclasts", the first persons that came to my mind were Thakur Bhaktivinoda and his most illustrious son.

I did not know that Bhaktivinoda was not a born Vaishnava (I'm making that assumption based on what you have presented), or that he had ever taken fish. If this is true, it is so enlivening!!! Through his sincerity, he received limitless mercy!

It was simply his attempt to put shastras into a perspective that would appeal to the rational and scientifically minded segment of the Indian population. Yet, later on, myth-making process was started to somehow present his writings as "equal to if not better than shastra" and devotees like you have an absolute faith in his statements while you only have relative faith in the stories from the scripture.

Well, there is only a problem with "equal to if not better than" if we see the writings of Bhaktivinoda as being *apart* from shastra. To the Gaudiya Vaishnavas following in his line, it *is* shastra. What he is presenting is not any different than what has come before (in essence; no doubt we can point out so many superficial differences).

The example given is that of a telescope. While, to the observer, the thought might occur: how can putting all these things between you and your object of vision help you to see it more clearly? you should just look at it directly. Of course, to the person looking through the telescope, this is ridiculous thinking. It is only with the aid of the telescope that so many features are visible.

Similarly, the writings of the Vaishnava Acharyas are clarifying and amplifying the essence of all shastra.

As for "devotees like me", I have no faith whatsoever...not in shastra, not in Guru. What little intelligence I have tells me to cling on to the feet of my Master for dear life.

The writings of Srila Bhaktivinoda contain a tremendous wealth of knowledge and inspiration, yet the principle of rationality applies to them just as he applies the principle of rationality to shastra. A less generous person would say however, that while the Vedas are considered the breath of Lord Vishnu, Sri Krsna Samhita is only a breath of Bhaktivinoda.

Yes, as scholars and spiritual seekers, we must apply the principle of rationality. As aspiring Vaishnavas we must apply the principle of direct heart-to-heart transmission.

"Sri Krsna Samhita is only a breath of Bhaktivinoda"

What air do we need besides the breath of Bhakitivinoda??!?!?! It is fully-nourishing and scented with the sweetness of Goloka!

Speaking of fairy tales, have you heard the one that says: it's good to give oxygen to someone whose heart has been stopped for 15 minutes after jumpstarting their heart with electricity?

Turns out the oxygen is what *kills* the person.

So you see, we cannot be certain about *anything* we *think* we know!!! Just because science (with all it's biases and limitations and constant change) doesn't accept what has been revealed in shastra for millennia, we will dismiss shastra as fairy tales?

From yesterday's news:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368186/site/newsweek/

May 7, 2007 issue - Consider someone who has just died of a heart attack. His organs are intact, he hasn't lost blood. All that's happened is his heart has stopped beating—the definition of "clinical death"—and his brain has shut down to conserve oxygen. But what has actually died?

 

As recently as 1993, when Dr. Sherwin Nuland wrote the best seller "How We Die," the conventional answer was that it was his cells that had died. The patient couldn't be revived because the tissues of his brain and heart had suffered irreversible damage from lack of oxygen. This process was understood to begin after just four or five minutes. If the patient doesn't receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation within that time, and if his heart can't be restarted soon thereafter, he is unlikely to recover. That dogma went unquestioned until researchers actually looked at oxygen-starved heart cells under a microscope. What they saw amazed them, according to Dr. Lance Becker, an authority on emergency medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. "After one hour," he says, "we couldn't see evidence the cells had died. We thought we'd done something wrong." In fact, cells cut off from their blood supply died only hours later.But if the cells are still alive, why can't doctors revive someone who has been dead for an hour? Because once the cells have been without oxygen for more than five minutes, they die when their oxygen supply is resumed. It was that "astounding" discovery, Becker says, that led him to his post as the director of Penn's Center for Resuscitation Science, a newly created research institute operating on one of medicine's newest frontiers: treating the dead.

 

Like sooo holier than thou, dude. The truth is that both religions, all religion, religion involves surrender to Krsna. Period.

 

Very few can do this - whether Vaisnava, Christian or Muslim. If we cannot see the few hundred surrendered souls who outwardly act like Vaisnavas, then how can we expect to see the few surrendered souls who act like Christians externally?

Well said!!!

Wasn't it Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Prabhupada who, after completing parikrama of Vrindavan, lamented that, in all of Vrindavan, he had not found a single Vaishnava?

You can blame me if you get your cookies doing so, but the fact is that Srila Prabhupada was very critical of the Christians. It is not simply my manufactured opinion.

 

"Christian" is itself a manufactured name.

 

If we called devotees "Krishnas" then that is about the equivelant.

 

Jesus did not give a name or a designation to his followers, as he only claimed to be fullfilling the Jewish Hebrew scriptures.

 

Probabaly Paul manufactured the name "Christian".

 

Jesus never approved any such concept as "Christian" nor did he ever approve the Churchianity manufactured by Paul.

 

Paul and successive thinkers in his line have manufactured the Christian theology and it was never approved or authorized by Jesus.

Way to change the subject, Prabhu!! Of course, you could do a better job of changing the subject. Now your foot is going deeper into your mouth.

By your own reasoning, we could say, where did we get this term "Gaudiya Vaishnava"? Krishna Himself did not give this term. Nor did Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

Is Krishna Consciousness all just a "concoction" of the Six Goswamis? After all, *they* have given most of the formal practices of Bhakti, and not Sri Krishna or Mahaprabhu. Is that the Vaishnava vision?

What you say might be true in a sense, but does it really have any bearing on the topic at hand?

Can anyone define simple living? Throw out your computers, your television, your phones and avoid manufactured food like cereals and flaxseed oil. No pills for headaches, no relief from tooth decay through modern dentistry...the list goes on.

The term "simple living" is it's own definition. It means: don't add unnecessary complexity.

No need to throw anything out. It's been said that anything and everything can be used in service to the Lord. Of course, when we are acting in a mood of service, our actions may be vastly different from how we act when we are seeking our own aggrandizement.

As for television, phones, and processed food. The trade-offs involved in employing them as they are currently being employed are pretty clear. It can certainly be argued that TV has led to the "dumbing down" of the people who are addicted to it.

As for modern dentistry (don't even get me started here), it arose to solve a mostly modern problem--tooth decay. Before folks ate diets high in processed sugars, and white flour, tooth decay was not nearly as prevalent as it is today (kinda like autism).

Stop for a moment and try to visualize life this way. Then ask yourself how practical this sounds...to try to adopt the lifestyle of a bygone culture in today's world...and for no obvious benefit.

No one is necessarily advocating adopting the lifestyle of a bygone culture (though, one can convincingly argue that many of those "bygone cultures" had higher standards of living than folks living in Westernized countries do today). What's being advocated is a timeless spiritual principle that, in order to make room for spiritual endeavors, our material lives ought to be structured in the simplest way that is practical.

Prabhupada would say, bhakti-yoga, or proving the existence of God, is a scientific process, not something what you have to believe blindly.

Well, Prabhu, "bhakti-yoga" and "proving the existence of God" are two entirely different things.

"Proof" in the scientific sense has a very specific meaning. It involves mathematically rigorous extrapolations based on accepted and established scientific principles, and, where possible, experimental confirmation of the principle's validity. I still insist that proving God's existence via the scientific method is not possible and defy anyone to prove me wrong.

To the Vaishnava, there is no question of proving the existence of God, the Vaishnava sees God *everywhere* (so, of course, there is no question of "believing blindly").

Modern sciencists are using their material brains and material senses and come to the conclusion they didnt see an intelligent Designer behind creation, that they didnt see any God.

Right. Scientists have no evidence (as defined by science) to show that there is an Intelligent Designer (ID) at play in the universe. Where is *your* scientific evidence? Of course, to a good scientist, the lack of evidence is not proof to the contrary, but, simply, a lack of evidence.

But isnt this like sticking your finger into honey and saying, I cant say if this is sweet or not? Only our highly complex taste buds are able to taste sweetness and send this message, here is something that tastes good, to our brain.

Frankly, I fail to see how this example applies to the question of the scientific proof of the existence of an ID. Furthermore, as pointed out by Srila Prabhupada many times (and you yourself), our senses are not to be trusted. It's funny you should use the example of sweetness, because Srila Prabhupada liked to cite the example of jaundice:

http://vedabase.net/noi/7/

TRANSLATION

The holy name, character, pastimes and activities of Kṛṣṇa are all transcendentally sweet like sugar candy. Although the tongue of one afflicted by the jaundice of avidyā [ignorance] cannot taste anything sweet, it is wonderful that simply by carefully chanting these sweet names every day, a natural relish awakens within his tongue, and his disease is gradually destroyed at the root.

PURPORT

The holy name of Lord Kṛṣṇa, His quality, pastimes and so forth are all of the nature of absolute truth, beauty and bliss. Naturally they are very sweet, like sugar candy, which appeals to everyone. Nescience, however, is compared to the disease called jaundice, which is caused by bilious secretions. Attacked by jaundice, the tongue of a diseased person cannot palatably relish sugar candy. Rather, a person with jaundice considers something sweet to taste very bitter. Avidyā (ignorance) similarly perverts the ability to relish the transcendentally palatable name, quality, form and pastimes of Kṛṣṇa. Despite this disease, if one with great care and attention takes to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, chanting the holy name and hearing Kṛṣṇa's transcendental pastimes, his ignorance will be destroyed and his tongue enabled to taste the sweetness of the transcendental nature of Kṛṣṇa and His paraphernalia. Such a recovery of spiritual health is possible only by the regular cultivation of Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

So, Srila Prabhupad and the scientists tell us the same things: do not trust your senses. Scientists use the best measurement tools available to them, but they have learned not to blindly trust their measurements, since tools made by imperfect hands often have imperfections.

Here's an example from the Anthropogenic Global Warming discussion:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/ocean-cooling-not/

Basically, a new array of measurment buoys were placed at various places in the ocean. After a couple of years, the data from these buoys was indicating that the oceans were *cooling* and not warming as the scientists expected. After reviewing all of the involved components, a sensor was found to be defective.

I see stories like this all the time. Science is anything but perfect. However, most of the scientists I have known have been very humble, dedicated people. While there are, no doubt, many arrogant scientists, I find it is in the media that science tends to take on a hysterical tone.

Similiarly, since the spiritual energy is anti-matter it cant be perceived with material tools like material mind and material eyes.

Now, this is nitpicking, but spiritual energy is most definitely *not* anti-matter. Anti-matter is also material, *not* spiritual. Spritual energy is exactly that, spiritual. It transcends the mundane. It is supra-mundane.

But this is what modern science insists upon, they only accept that there's a God when they can see God with material instruments. However, isnt this as foolish as insisting, I can only accept that honey is sweet when I'm able to taste the sweetness with my finger? Only by awakening our sleeping soul and spiritual senses we can perceive the presence of God's energy in His creation. So this is not believe but a scientific method.

You can say that Krishna Consciousness (KC) is a scientific method (as Srila Prabhupada certainly did). But, in what manner is it scientific? Wouldn't you say, KC, is a process by which, if one follows diligently, a reproduceable result is obtained? That's the basis of science: the ability to reproduce a certain effect.

However, as pointed out in Nectar of Instruction, we *cannot* assume we have the taste for the ultimate sweetness.

The term "bona fide" is bandied about a lot by the aspiring Vaishnavas, but what does it mean literally? Literally it means "good faith". It does *not* mean "authorized by God", "infallible" or any other such thing.

Initially, in our inquiries, whether they be spiritual or scientific we must accept a higher authority on "good faith" since we lack the vision, taste, and insight to comprehend the spiritual, scientific, or mathematical principles they are teaching.

In time, based on the results we get, we will see whether our faith was well-placed or not. In time our understanding will grow, perhaps by our own efforts, but, in the case of spirit, through the Mercy of the Lord.

Still, whether it's science or religion, faith is required, Suchandra Prabhu.

This is already a long post, but I hope to post something about just what Sri Krishna's role in creation is. It is very nicely presented in Brahma Samhita and elsewhere, and should further illuminate this topic.

Gaura Hari Bol!!! Jaya Gurudev!!

The envelope was addressed by Rev. Daniel Maziarz, from the Essene School of Life. I have no idea who this guy is or why he left this at my door, or what the Essene School of Life is.

Daniel Maziarz is my father. He was initiated as Dharmadhyaksa Dasa by Srila AC Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada. You can find him in the Conversations. He wrote a few articles for Back to Godhead, and was a very active campus preacher in the 70's. In the 80's he edited and co-wrote a large coffee-table type book called "Vaishnava India" with Geary Sheridan and other devotees.

Dharma, as he is known by his friends, has been living near the New Dwaraka temple in L.A. for about ten years now, and should be a familiar face at Govinda's.

The "Essene School of Life" is a non-profit organization that Dharma set up to undertake distribution (independent of other organizations) of spiritual principles to interested parties (mostly New Agers). It has been mostly dormant for the last several years.

Please keep my father in your prayers, Prabhus. Currently he is very depressed and is suffering a crisis of faith due to the failure of various materialistic endeavors which he had undertaken. Despite his self-proclaimed status as a "sahajiya", his heart is good, and I know, at his core, he desires to serve the Vaishnavas.

I'm amazed that, this small gesture he made many months ago, when he was in better spirits, is still giving some pleasure to the Vaishnavas. I just left a phone message for him expressing my amazement.

All Glories to the Assembled Devotees!!!!

Are women allowed to visit the temple when they are menstruating? If the answer is no. Can you tell me why?

 

Hare Krishna!

I haven't heard that women shouldn't visit the temple when they are menstruating (as Ms. Pitts answered), but I do believe women do not usually cook for or offer puja to the Deities when menstruating (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

The on and on repeated phrase by modern scientist is, evolution had 1 million years to develop all this biological diversity on planet earth.

This seems their only comment after discovering all these overwhelming wonders of nature. They know clearly that just one single living cell's functioning works more complex than a Boeing 747 airplane, still they dont consider to acknowledge that the creation is just too perfect in order to make all this develop just by uncontrolled mechanical accidents.

That's a fascinating article about insect flight, Suchandra Prabhu, and, while I agree with you for the most part, the argument that our universe could not have become what it is simply by chance is easily refuted logically (if not spiritually).

If you're willing to concede that there exists a finite probability that a particular natural process (a process which is possible) will occur in a given period of time, then, over an infinite period of time, that process is *guaranteed* to happen. If you grant (ignoring the soul for a moment) that life arises from series of mechanical processes, each with a finite probability of occurring, then, over an infinite amount of time

So, when you use the "1 million years" figure (I don't know where you got that, the Earth is estimated to be 4.55 billion years. According to this: http://geol.queensu.ca/museum/exhibits/archean/archean.html it is believed that there has been life on Earth for 3.5 billion years.), that is not really fair, because, it does not take into account the entire universe.

3.5 billion years is a long time. Then, consider how many innumerable planets there are and the fact that, according to scientific principles there is no beginning or end to time. So, it's altogether plausible that, after innumerable failures, on our planet, the dice rolled just right and here we are.

This particular argument that you present has been a favorite of aspiring Vaishnavas for a long while (I remember it from my childhood in ISKCON). Unfortunately, it's a very hollow argument that is best abandoned lest reasonable folks assume the person bandying the argument about is a fool (as you blithely dismiss the scientists as being fools).

While I whole-heartedly would agree with the assertion that way too much faith is placed in science these days, to the point where it has become a religion of sorts. Scientific principles have been twisted and abused in the same manner as the priciples of capitalism and communism, and, in fact, there is no "pure science". Special interests, whether private industry or government exert way too much influence over the scientific process for it to be considered unbiased.

That said, science is a *tool* (or should be), and not a blueprint for living. One cannot deny the results (both beneficial and harmful) of science. Science has facilitated so many things (including spreading the Mercy of Mahaprabhu), so what is the point of denigrating or condescending to the scientists?

Simply put, faith is required at some point. One cannot logically prove the existence of God (at least not without granting many assumptions).

In the logical paradigm, the world most certainly *could* have arisen by chance. However, to the Vaishnava, "not a blade of grass moves without the will of the Lord". The Vaishnava sees the Lord as the "Cause of all Causes".

All I am requesting is the address of genuine Tantrik but if you find it offensive, please do not reply. These mantras, pujas etc. does not have effect on these ghosts.

Out of curiosity, what would a Tantrik do that is more effective than mantras, pujas, etc.?

If this wasnt so the original teaching of krishna 5000 years ago and Lord Caitanyas teachings would soon become distorted by speculations and become tarnished. The disciplic succession would break up and the science of devotional service As It Is would be lost.

Sorry to say, but this is not what *would* happen, this is exactly what *did* happen. If you study your Gaudiya Vaishnava history, you'll see that, by the time of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur, Gaudiya Vaishnavism was "in a shambles". Things *had* gotten distorted to the point where the birthplace of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had been lost.

It was Bhaktivinode who reformed Gaudiya Vaishnavism, rediscovered the birthplace of Mahaprabhu, etc., decrying the numerous impostors.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta carried on his father's transcendental activities. In fact, one could say he "innovated" in terms of the nature and role of sannyas in the Gaudiya tradition.

As for the disciplic succession, it is not a list of "begats" such as one might find in the Bible. If you look at any of the versions of the Gaudiya sampradaya, you will notice chronological gaps, and large ones. The sampradaya isn't a formality, it is a spiritual current (as noted by a previous poster).

Who says what the disciplic succession is? Not you or I, Prabhu. Gurudev says.

Therefore the genuine spiritual master is of supermost importance and if anyone teaches different tattvas then previous spiritual masters belonging to a genuine sampradaya he should be rejected, like you are letting a hot potetoe fall to the ground.

Like I said, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta "innovated". While I'd be the first to admit that his innovations were not philosophical innovations, but adjustments to external factors for the sake of preaching, caution is urged in just what we drop like a hot potato.

At one point (before Kali Yuga), so many austerities were required to make spiritual advancement. Then, though the mercy of the Lord, the yuga-dharma of Hari Nama Sankirtan was given. The wonders, glory, and mercy of the Lord are infinite, and, thus, ever-fresh.

So whoever follows the principles of freedom and practices bhakti yoga as it is prescribed in the revealed scriptures, who can controll the urges of the senses and never falls down, who chants the holy name of the Lord he can make disciple all over the world.

But, Ching Hai has disciples all over the world. Does that mean she meets the other criteria?

How many disciples did Gaura Kishor Das Babaji have (I believe the correct answer is "one")? Does that have any relevance as to his worth to the Gaudiya Vaishnavas?

It is dependend on more then just teachings, i can also repeat teachings all day long and they most certainly can match siddhanta, but if i dont follow, if i dont chant, not offer my prasadam and have no spiritual master my self who is genuine and fits the description of what a genuine spiritual master is, then how can i say i am in the disciplic succession?

 

Teachings can be repeated by any tom dick and harry, this does not make them members of the genuine sampradaya.

Exactly. This is where you trip yourself up. One can perfectly maintain appearances and still be a snake. One can expertly quote shastra and still be a sense-enjoyer. Just because somebody says things that *seem* (to us with our imperfect vision) to correlate with the teachings of the previous acharyas, doesn't mean that they are fully realized.

Sorry to nit-pick here (though it's what I do best), but one does not offer prasadam. One offers bhoga to the Lord and gratefully takes the Lord's remnants as prasadam.

Ultimately, we are all relying on the mercy of the Lord for guidance and shelter.

Murali Mohan Prabhu, Well now that changes everything. Your guru never gave Gita Govinda katha to his disciples and that makes perfect sense. Yet still if you assumed that he did, it is a good thing that you did not doubt him, either way.

Thank you Prabhu for your merciful words.

It appears I have John Kerry's gift for communication and being misunderstood.

I had cited my Gurudeva's recitation of Gita Govinda (which, it has been clarified for all, he learned as a boy (his father (if my porous memory correctly serves) was a noted (in the region) professional singer)) in Sanskrit for his non-Sanskrit speaking disciples as an example of his mood of *caution*. It is my offense to have presented it in a way that you could misinterpret as a "my guru can do, but others can not", when that was the exact opposite of my intention.

We can have faith in our guru without declaring or subtly inferring that another's guru is a "cheap imitation". Such a stance makes two-way and open communication impossible.

So very true. I still fail to see how, in this particular thread, I subtly inferred (or grossly declared) that anyone's guru is a "cheap imitation". When I said I was not qualified to judge, I meant exactly that.

I am not qualified to judge my *own* Guru's qualifications, and, it is not his qualifications that led me to seek his shelter. I found myself *charmed* by Gurudeva's sweet, humble nature during a time when I was *desperate* for relief from my miseries (that time was particularly desperate though, certainly, from day to day, I cling to "sanity" with my fingernails).

Your guru has the right to create a fence between his and other Gaudiya Math missions especially if they have strong differences.

Gurudeva's more intimate servitors might have a different perspective, but I have seen no evidence of any fence-building on the part of Srila Govinda Maharaja.

Rather (and let me follow his example), his example is one of fidelity. He is whole-heartedly focusing on nourishing and maintaining the mission of his Gurudev to the exclusion of all other considerations.

But to use the same language and stance as one's guru in the internet setting is a kind of denial of the reality of the situation in cyberspace.

Once again, please do not confuse Gurudeva with me. I do *not* use his language as my own (a direct quote is a direct quote, paraphrasing is paraphrasing, and I try to qualify my speculations as such and not state them as fact). Citing Param-Gurudeva's use of the "Fools rush in..." quote was not directed at anybody in particular, but to illustrate a principle. How the principle is applied is left as an exercise to the reader.

Either we are trying to communicate or just make propaganda.

While I might make bold declarations for the sake of rhetoric, I certainly hope my inner motivation is discourse and not propaganda (my conscious motive certainly is not to propagandize). I welcome corrections from such kind souls as yourself. In these discussions, I certainly have gained valuable perspective and read relevant scriptural references offered by others for my benefit.

For the record, I now wish I could remove the glib Monty Python quote from the opening post of this thread, but have found that I cannot do so with my current priveleges.

Despite being a slave to my mind, I'm hoping I can take my heart's advice to sit on my tongue for a while (maybe a long while), take the medicine of Krishna Nam and sadhu-sanga, and make some atonement for my offenses.

Yours worthlessly,

--MMd

In the vishnupuran, it is stated that there are 4 or 5 muni that wanted to visit shri vishnu in vaikunth. But since jay and vijay were preventing them, those muni gave both of them a curse which was they would have to be born on earth 3 times. 1) as Hiranyakashyap and Hiranyakashyapu 2) ravan and kumbhkaran and 3) kans and shishupal. And in all 3 births, Narayan would kill them and grant them liberation. this happened because jay and vijaya had arrogance due to their position of being guards at vaikunth.

If memory serves, Jaya and Vijaya had a choice in their punishment. They could take X (where X is much larger than 3) number of births as the devotee of the Lord, or the 3 births as demons. For Jaya and Viyaja, it was a no-brainer. They wanted to serve their pennance and return to Vaikuntha as quickly as possible.

P.S. Also there is that "relevant quote from the holy Monty Python's Meaning of Life." One cannot represent the conception of Guru Maharaja and be so glib with an off color statement such as you have made. In our daily lives we Westerners may be conditioned to take obscene material as something normal, but Guru Maharaja and Swami Maharaja would be shocked by such a statement, certainly because in this context it is concerning not foolishly rushing into the highest lila. In the least others will think that Govinda Maharaja's disciples are uneducated and untrained. At worst, some will jump to conclusions and make some aparadha against Govinda Maharaja. Again, be very careful what you say if you identify yourself as a member of the Sri Caitanya Saraswat Math on an internet forum. Please do not misrepresent our Guardians, for some reaction will certanly come.

Yes, Prabhu!! You are so correct. Really, I should sign each of my posts with a disclaimer that I am a hypocrite who does not follow his Gurudeva's instructions while begging others to do so.

The title I chose for this thread applies equally to those rushing into reading intimate pastimes as it does to me having the audacity to try to shed light on the matter with my own speculative comments, and quotes from Guru Varga which I can barely comprehend (if at all).

Surely, prefacing a quote from Guru Maharaj with an off-color quote from Monty Python (it *is* an illustrative quote, is it not (if glib) ?) is offensive, and I shall get the appropriate reaction. If Gurudev was present before me (or the next time I have his darshan), perhaps I would be blessed by a thrashing.

Thank you for your kind and gentle correction, and for making clear to all on this forum that I am *not* representative of the quality of my superior Godbrothers and Godsisters, and do not in any way embody my Gurudeva's mood of devotion.

Gurudeva's mood is so sweet and magnanimous, while I am so bitter, envious, and a slave to my mind.

Jaya Gurudeva!!! Jaya Gaura Bhakta Vrinda!!!

Srila Govinda Maharaja never recited Gita Govinda in English for his Western disciples. Actually he sang some sanskrit stanzas of it that he learned as a young boy, and then laughed that it was alright because the Westerners could not understand what he was singing. We need to be careful about what we say . If we are not sure then don't say it, especially about Gurudeva. This wrong information will give people a wrong idea. This is not good.

Thank you for making that abundantly clear (his recitation being in Sanskrit). I thought I had done so, but, obviously, I left much room for misunderstanding.

Also, thanks for clarifying that Gurudeva learned Gita Govinda as a child and not during his service to his Guru Maharaja. This was not clear to me.

We will leave you on your own to enjoy thinking about the many details of nitya-lila that are contained in Gita Govinda, for we have much work to do in this material world cleaning pots and throwing out garbage.

Thank you, Muralidhar for providing a more perfect answer to the Guest's questions than I ever could!

Of course, as I am here at work, avoiding cleaning the pots and thowing out the garbage, let me post a further quote from Prapanna-Jivanamrita to further illustrate the mood of Param-Gurudev.

From (thank you again Prabhu): http://www.mandala.com.au/prapanna/preface.html#TWO

According to the intensity of surrender - to the point of no return - the quality of the magnitude of truth encountered may be measured. The inner sweetness of the truth and its infinite characteristic attracts the devotees' hearts to the highest degree, so much that they never feel any satisfaction of achievement in what is actually the acme of their highest fortune. In Vaikuntha, only peacefulness and servitorship are present, with a hint of friendship. If we commit the offense of giving more attention to law than to love, we will be 'cast down' from Goloka to Vaikuntha: Goloka is the land of love, and there the inhabitants know nothing more. And by love is meant self-sacrifice and self-forgetfulness for the service of Krsna, without a care for one's good or bad future - total risk in the extreme.

So, one could certainly (mis)interpret this to mean "yes, take the 'total risk' of reading the intimate details (as service to Krishna)", if not for the qualifying "According to the intensity of surrender". The mood of surrender is: You give me what I need; you know better than I do what will be my proper postion and engagement.

But what is the "Real Thing"? And then what is the "cheap imitation"?

Simple. The "Real Thing" is that which is given directly by the Lord and His Representative. "Cheap imitation" is that which comes from our own speculation, concoction, misinterpretation, etc.

..."or if he is qualified to recite these pastimes to you"? It seems that originally raised the specter of "cheap imitation" exactly at this point when you started this thread.

 

...

 

So your guru can tell Gita Govinda to Western disciples, although his guru forbid it and Sripad Narayana Maharaja may not be quailified to give Hari katha on rasik subjects? Why? Is it just ma guru jagat guru? Is not an unqualified reciter of rasik Hari kathas the very definition of "cheap imitation"? Try to look more closely at what you are writing an see if you are being influenced by a sectarian view. Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur wrote in Krsna Samhita that sectarianism is a natural byproduct of the Absolute Truth. He further explained that it is a difficult obstacle to overcome especially for kannisthas like ourselves.

No need to twist my words. I hoped my meaning was abundantly clear--I am not qualified to say who is qualified and who is not. If you are asking for my own worthless opinion, I am inclined to believe that Sripad Narayan Maharaj *is* who his disciples have faith he is, regardless of any special rasa he might have with the Guru Varga from whom I seek shelter (and, really, this is nothing I should mention, given that I've never heard Gurudev make mention of this).

So many wonderful Vaishnava well-wishers, "Uncles", "Aunts", friends, etc. from my childhood and beyond have taken shelter of Narayan Maharaj. Surely, the Lord is protecting and nurturing them through His servant.

As for my Gurudeva's qualification to recite Gita Govinda in Sanskrit to his Sanskrit-illiterate Western disciples, I have no doubt whatsoever. His Gurudev invested all of his faith, insight, and potency in Srila Govinda Maharaja. In everything he does, Gurudev is the perfect model of a Vaishnava. His study of Shastra was directly supervised by his Gurudev. He read what Param-Gurudev instructed him to read, and, in cases, heard Shastra directly from Srila Sridhar Maharaj (without reading first).

Narayan Maharaj was brought by Anadi Prabhu into the conversation from which this thread was born, as being the source of his own greed for hearing the intimate pastimes. Certainly, I could have ignored his mention, and proceeded strictly discussing the subject matter, but I wished to offer no disrespect by ignoring. I hope I have offered no disrespect by mentioning him without adequate glorification.

That said, let my prayer to Gurudev and Thakur Bhaktivinode be to protect me from sectarianism!!

Dayal Nitai!!

To add something new to the discussion: the pastimes of Radha-Krishna and the Gopis are eternally ongoing, are they not? As they are eternally ongoing, are they not also eternally fresh and new? Despite the transcendental nature of Shastra, while it can give *entry* to the eternal pastimes (lila) of the Lord, can they contain the totality of the lila?

Yet, if the Lord chooses to, all can be revealed to us, yes?

It is something like Spiritual-Political Correctness, In other words if anybody else said this they would immediately be labeled a "sahajiya".

Ha ha ha!! That's rich, Prabhu!

Personally, the only aspirant I will label a "sahajiya" is myself. Of course, my birth father is a self-proclaimed sahajiya...

No doubt, I am a phony hypocrite, but, Gurudev is always extolling us to seek The Real Thing, and not to be satisfied with cheap imitation.

The quote you provide appears to be from:

Perfect Questions, Perfect Answers

http://www.krishna.com/e-books/Perfect_Questions_Perfect_Answers.pdf

Srila Prabhupada: Everything. He must be very beautiful, He must be very

wise, He must be very powerful, He must be very famous...

Bob: Is Krsna attractive to rascals?

Srila Prabhupada: Oh, yes! He was the greatest rascal also.

Bob: How is that?

Srila Prabhupada: [laughing] Because He was always teasing the gopis.

Syamasundara: Teasing?

Srila Prabhupada: Yes. Sometimes when Radharani would go out, Krsna

would attack Her, and when She would fall down--"Krsna, don't torture Me

in that way"--They would fall down, and Krsna would take the opportunity

and kiss Her. [He laughs.] So, Radharani was very pleased, but

superficially Krsna was the greatest rascal. So unless rascaldom is in

Krsna, how could rascaldom be existent in the world? Our formula of God

is that He is the source of everything. Unless rascaldom is in Krsna,

how can it be manifest... because He is the source of everything. But

His rascaldom is so nice that everyone worships His rascaldom.

Bob: What about the rascals who are not so nice?

Srila Prabhupada: No, rascaldom is not nice, but Krsna is absolute. He

is God. Therefore His rascaldom is also good. Krsna is all-good. God is

good.

Bob: Yes.

Srila Prabhupada: Therefore, when He becomes a rascal, that is also

good. That is Krsna. Rascaldom is not good, but when it is practiced by

Krsna, because He is absolutely good, that rascaldom is also good. This

one has to understand.

In the context of the conversation, it is clear to see that Srila Prabhupad is relating the intimate lila to demonstrate the nature of the Divine Autocrat--He can do as He pleases, and His pleasure is the nourishment for all that is. There is nothing salacious or cheap about this account.

As Anadi Prabhu points out, Vaishnavas progress at various paces. It is nobody's business (except Gurudev) to say who is qualified to hear/read the intimate pastimes.

However, as Param-Gurudev says, how can we know the Lord and His pastimes if He will not reveal them to us?

Murali Mohan Prabhu, the entire Prappana Jivanamrtam is here:

 

www.mandala.com.au/prapanna

Joy!! Thank you for pointing this out Muralidhar Prabhu!! I guess I did not look far enough in the Google results.

Perhaps this will save me a lot of typing in the future (though transcribing the words of the Master is a joyful toil).

Dandavat pranamas!

Some people may say that, but I did not. As Anadi Prabhu pointed out in the previous thread, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu places the attachment of the Gopis for Krishna in the highest position. About that there is no debate. All Gaudiya Vaishnavas loudly proclaim this.

In your quote, Srila Prabhupad is talking about *more* intimate things, but, really, he's is talking about the playful flirting of the Supreme and His Consort, and it is to illustrate a philosophical point. This is still not a recitation of Gita Govinda (in English; once my Gurudev recited Gita Govinda for some Western disciples saying: I only do this because you do not understand the words), or the Tenth Canto Rasa Lila depictions.

I'm not saying Srila Prabhupada never did reveal these things. I honestly would like someone to bring forth evidence of such an occurence if it exists. I simply have never heard of such a thing happening.

Some people say that Srila Prabhupada never spoke about the gopis, especially in public and especially not to new people. But this is not the case. The following is a conversation between Srila Prabhupada and a person who was not a devotee. He was Bob Cohen, a peace-core worker. Bob is asking, "Does the devotee keep his individual likes and dislikes?" Srila Prabhupada: "Yes, he keeps everything, but he gives preference to Krishna. Krishna says positively, 'I like these things'. We have to offer to Krishna what He likes, and then we will take the prasada. Krishna likes Radharani." So now Srila Prabhupada begins to speak about Radharani to a completely new person who doesn't know anything. "Krishna likes Radharani. Therefore all the gopis are trying to push Radharani to Krishna. 'Krishna likes this gopi. All right, let's push Her.' That is called Krishna consciousness." Bob said, "Is Krishna attractive to rascals?" Srila Prabhupada said, "Oh yes, He as the greatest rascal also." Then Bob asked, "How can you say that Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is a rascal?" Srila Prabhupada began to laugh. "Because He is always teasing the gopis. Yes. Sometimes, when Radharani would go out, Krishna would attack Her. And when She would fall down, She would say, 'O Krishna, don't torture Me in that way.' They would fall on the ground and Krishna would take an opportunity to kiss Her." Srila Prabhupada laughed again and said, "So Radharani was very pleased, but superficially Krishna was the greatest rascal. So unless rascaldom is in Krishna, then how could rascaldom be existent in this world?"