cbrahma

Every book has a purpose, and to some extent a target audience. Bhaktivinode states the general purpose , but does not limit it to his target audience as though he was so intent on getting the madhayma preachers' attention that he had to make up things that were asiddhantic. He is neither a politician, nor a diplomat, nor an ad man. That mundane perception of BT is offensive.

I don't recall any such thing as you telling me who your guru was. You've kept that a tight secret on this forum. But it really doesn't matter who says it. I think it is offensive to pass off the universality of Bhaktivinode's statements as a preaching strategy merely, as though he didnt' 'really' mean them to be taken literally. Certainly he intends a certain class to get the most benefit as he says himself. He also claims it is benefical for all classes.

And Gurudeva told you verbatim? Humm. Well these interpretations are questionable when closely reading the text. Gurudev I presume is Narayana Maharaj. Oh gosh. No wonder.

There is no evidence he's trying to 'draw in' anybody by being unorthodox or secular like an ad line just for the marketing value. His intro needs no explanation. It means what it says. You've been talking to DW too much. It doesn't seem like you have any consistent belief system.

I'm not sure that you're qualified to read intentions into Bhaktivinode's writings. His target audience would be anybody favorable, intellectual or not.

Please don't explain away Bhaktivinode's wonderful essay as a preaching strategy - that is how Prabhupada's statements about Jesus being a Vaisnava are explained away.

Self evident? Hardly. Not to me it isn't. An impersonal "I" is a contradiction in terms. It is a Subject without subjectivity. And individual without individuality. A philosophical freak.

Nobody is arguing that nobody is conscious. This is realization? Of what may I ask? And whose realization? The non-self is under illusion? How can a non-entity be in any state whatsoever - the non-existent has no attributes. Pure nonsense.

Well tiresome cuts both ways. There is religion and there is religiosity. One too easily converts into the other. Religion is according to SP, love of God. Religiosity is made up of the external institutional artifacts (lovely architecture) and ritualisms that divide and distinguish those who claim to love of God. It issues in virulent sectarianism as is evidenced on this forum every day by members who will remain nameless, lest they post again. Bhaktivinode Thakur and his Siksa disciple Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaj were very clear in their denunciation of religiosity. I will for your benefit provide the definitive quotes So obviously my tiresome belief has not been wrenched from my rectum.

Are you saying that Krsna is a fairy tale? I have a 'modern mind' and I have no problem believing God is a person, because personhood is synonomous with consciousness. Somebody is conscious. There is no such thing as disembodied consciousness. There can be unconsciousness of one's individuality as in a dream state, or insanity, and that is a form of consciousness. But pure consciousness is active and personal. The static state of impersonal awareness is the endpoint of the ascending process or of jnana yoga, the sayuja-mukti. But it is not stable and subject to fall down. To say it is appealing is a contradiction in terms , because there can be no bliss no ananda in an impersonal state.

On the one hand it seems, unless we go to a temple, have Deity worship in our home, (our somebody's home) there is no advancement. On the other hand Prabhupada was eminently practical as can be understood by the above quote. I cannot and will not have Deities in my home - it is impractical (and therefore artificial) with my life style. But thank you for outlining the black and white requirements which clearly exclude me and countless others from participating in the bhakti marga.

It's a fatal flaw in his argument. You are wasting time debating with him under any circumstance. He is an entrenched racist Indian traditionalist. He speaks for all 'real' Vaisnavas. Once one assumes a 'vox populi' , or better yet a 'vox dei', there is nothing left to say to him. He is right because of who and what he is. You will notice that contradicting him always means you are an ignorant fool outside the fold of the all-knowing Vedantists. It is a strategy I coin the 'esoteric' gambit or the Emperor's clothes. If you're not one of the elite, no amount of logical argumentation, or substantive quotation will qualify you to be right. (DW will respond of course, but he is on my ignore list. You called the genie out of the bottle, or should I say the Pandora's box. He's all yours)

Ad hominem is always the last resort of debators who have hit the wall of their intellectual bankruptcy.

You fell into the trap bija. The list he gave does not contain items of the same kind. Vaisnavism is not a religion.

You will never get anywhere with DW because you have been disqualifed by birth.

If monastaries were so spiritual then where are the results? An occasional retreat doesn't need architecture. The idea that you have to physically go somewhere for spiritual advancement is like the materialists who take yoga classes. You are feeding into the cleric churchianity model. Maya is in the heart and mind - changing location doesn't get rid of her. All you have to do is live in a temple for a while and it becomes painfully obvious.

How do you know this? That individuals benefit by becoming clerics. And how is society benefiting? I will ignore your sweeping cyber-psychology generalization. I have no such need. I just don't agree with your clericist view of spirituality.

I don't offer my food so it doesn't matter to me one way or the other - but to exclude things like beets is verging on fanaticism or at least Smarta brahmana. If you are going to get that nit-picking then you should be performing full on deity worship in which case milk products are required.

Monastaries were factories for cranking out clerics. The church was a monopoly of feudal serfdom. You will never sell me on the idea of an elitist clergy paid for by the sweat of the 'less spiritual'. History has already passed sentence.

I'm really not sure if society was better off with monasteries. I really don't get how a sequestered group of religious orders are the answer to the problems of materialism. There is no evidence that was the case in the Middle Ages or at any other time when the monastic orders thrived. If churchianity was so uplifting I wonder what would have motivated Dante to put clergy in the seventh circle of hell?

No it's not just a side. Materiality is all dark. Trying to acheive a spiritual goal by some obssessive material practice no matter how austere, will be dark on all sides.

Renunciation is the context.