cbrahma

 

<CENTER>Chapter 9. The Most Confidential Knowledge</CENTER>

 

TEXT 11

 

avajananti mam mudha

manusim tanum asritam

param bhavam ajananto

mama bhuta-mahesvaram

SYNONYMS

 

avajananti--deride; mam--Me; mudhah--foolish men; manusim--in human form; tanum--body; asritam--assuming; param--transcendental; bhavam--nature; ajanantah--not knowing; mama--Mine; bhuta--everything that be; maha-isvaram--the supreme proprietor.

 

 

TRANSLATION

 

Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be.

 

 

PURPORT

 

From the other explanations of the previous verses in this chapter, it is clear that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, although appearing like a human being, is not a common man. The Personality of Godhead, who conducts the creation, maintenance and annihilation of the complete cosmic manifestation, cannot be a human being. Yet there are many foolish men who consider Krsna to be merely a powerful man and nothing more. Actually, He is the original Supreme Personality, as is confirmed in the Brahma-samhita (isvarah paramah krsnah); He is the Supreme Lord.

There are many isvaras, controllers, and one appears greater than another. In the ordinary management of affairs in the material world, we find some official or director, and above him there is a secretary, and above him a minister, and above him a president. Each of them is a controller, but one is controlled by another. In the Brahma-samhita it is said that Krsna is the supreme controller; there are many controllers undoubtedly, both in the material and spiritual world, but Krsna is the supreme controller (isvarah paramah krsnah) and His body is sac-cid-ananda, nonmaterial.

Material bodies cannot perform the wonderful acts described in previous verses. His body is eternal, blissful and full of knowledge. Although He is not a common man, the foolish deride Him and consider Him to be a man. His body is called here manusim because He is acting just like a man, a friend of Arjuna's, a politician involved in the Battle of Kuruksetra. In so many ways He is acting just like an ordinary man, but actually His body is sac-cid-ananda-vigraha--eternal bliss and knowledge absolute. This is confirmed in the Vedic language also (sac-cid-ananda-rupaya krsnaya): "I offer my obeisances unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna, who is the eternal blissful form of knowledge." There are other descriptions in the Vedic language also. Tam ekam govindam: "You are Govinda, the pleasure of the senses and the cows." Sac-cid-ananda-vigraham: "And Your form is transcendental, full of knowledge, bliss and eternality."

Despite the transcendental qualities of Lord Krsna's body, its full bliss and knowledge, there are many so-called scholars and commentators of Bhagavad-gita who deride Krsna as an ordinary man. The scholar may be born an extraordinary man due to his previous good work, but this conception of Sri Krsna is due to a poor fund of knowledge. Therefore he is called mudha, for only foolish persons consider Krsna to be an ordinary human being because they do not know the confidential activities of the Supreme Lord and His different energies. They do not know that Krsna's body is a symbol of complete knowledge and bliss, that He is the proprietor of everything that be and that He can award liberation to anyone. Because they do not know that Krsna has so many transcendental qualifications, they deride Him.

Nor do they know that the appearance of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in this material world is a manifestation of His internal energy. He is the master of the material energy. As has been explained in several places (mama maya duratyaya), He claims that the material energy, although very powerful, is under His control, and whoever surrenders unto Him can get out of the control of this material energy. If a soul surrendered to Krsna can get out of the influence of material energy, then how can the Supreme Lord, who conducts the creation, maintenance and annihilation of the whole cosmic nature, have a material body like us? So this conception of Krsna is complete foolishness. Foolish persons, however, cannot conceive that the Personality of Godhead, Krsna, appearing just like an ordinary man, can be the controller of all the atoms and of the gigantic manifestation of the universal form. The biggest and the minutest are beyond their conception, so they cannot imagine that a form like that of a human being can simultaneously control the infinite and the minute. Actually although He is controlling the infinite and the finite, He is apart from all this manifestation. It is clearly stated concerning His yogam aisvaram, His inconceivable transcendental energy, that He can control the infinite and the finite simultaneously and that He can remain aloof from them. Although the foolish cannot imagine how Krsna, who appears just like a human being, can control the infinite and the finite, those who are pure devotees accept this, for they know that Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore they completely surrender unto Him and engage in Krsna consciousness, devotional service of the Lord.

There are many controversies amongst the impersonalists and the personalists about the Lord's appearance as a human being. But if we consult Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam, the authoritative texts for understanding the science of Krsna, then we can understand that Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He is not an ordinary man, although He appeared on this earth as an ordinary human. In the Srimad-Bhagavatam, First Canto, First Chapter, when the sages inquire about the activities of Krsna, it is stated that His appearance as a man bewilders the foolish. No human being could perform the wonderful acts that Krsna performed while He was present on this earth. When Krsna appeared before His father and mother, Vasudeva and Devaki, He appeared with four hands, but after the prayers of the parents, He transformed Himself into an ordinary child. His appearance as an ordinary human being is one of the features of His transcendental body. In the Eleventh Chapter of the Gita also it is stated, tenaiva rupena etc. Arjuna prayed to see again that form of four hands, and when Krsna was thus petitioned by Arjuna, He again assumed His original form. All these different features of the Supreme Lord are certainly not those of an ordinary human being.

Some of those who deride Krsna, who are infected with the Mayavadi philosophy, quote the following verse from the Srimad-Bhagavatam to prove that Krsna is just an ordinary man. Aham sarvesu bhutesu bhutatmavasthitah sada: "The Supreme is present in every living entity." (Bhag. 3.29.21) We should better take note of this particular verse from the Vaisnava acaryas like Jiva Gosvami instead of following the interpretation of unauthorized persons who deride Krsna. Jiva Gosvami, commenting on this verse, says that Krsna, in His plenary expansion as Paramatma, is situated in the moving and the nonmoving entities as the Supersoul, so any neophyte devotee who simply gives his attention to the arca-murti, the form of the Supreme Lord in the temple, and does not respect other living entities is uselessly worshiping the form of the Lord in the temple. There are three kinds of devotees of the Lord, and the neophyte is in the lowest stage. The neophyte devotee gives more attention to the Deity in the temple than to other devotees, so Jiva Gosvami warns that this sort of mentality should be corrected. A devotee should see that Krsna is present in everyone's heart as Paramatma; therefore every body is the embodiment or the temple of the Supreme Lord, and as such, as one offers respect to the temple of the Lord, he should similarly properly respect each and every body in whom the Paramatma dwells. Everyone should therefore be given proper respect and should not be neglected.

There are also many impersonalists who deride temple worship. They say that since God is everywhere, why should one restrict himself to temple worship? But if God is everywhere, is He not in the temple or in the Deity? Although the personalist and the impersonalist will fight with one another perpetually, a perfect devotee in Krsna consciousness knows that although Krsna is the Supreme Personality, He is all-pervading, as is confirmed in the Brahma-samhita. Although His personal abode is Goloka Vrndavana and He is always staying there, still, by His different manifestations of energy and by His plenary expansion, He is present everywhere in all parts of the material and spiritual creations.

Actually Advaita has been the most appealing since the time of its inception. It quickly rose to prominence and has stayed on top since the last 1300 years. So it is not just the modern mind, even medieval minds found Advaita to be the most rational.

 

A point I have raised on this forum in the past - how is it possible for a God to have a human form? We have our eyes and nose for server specific bodily functions. A transcendental God does not require sense organs and would look nothing like a human.

 

Cheers

He meant everything he wrote...because he knew the intelligent would see after reading the middle section. Its brilliant.

 

The middle section is the best book I have ever read, and convinced me (an argumentative) of Sri Krsna. As I said...the Samhita is an commentary written by an uttama for the madhayama.

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 have told you before it is not Srila Narayana Maharaja.

 

Yes he told me directly via google talk.

 

This book is a unique presentation by Thakura for the argumentative, who do not accept the majority of commentaries that are written for neophyte.

 

Uttama have no need of commentary. Madhyama often tend to be impersonalist. The book is a masterpiece...directed toward a specific audience.

 

Quote:

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: rgb(102,102,102) 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: rgb(102,102,102) 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(102,102,102) 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: rgb(102,102,102) 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>The expert topmost persons have no direct need for this book other than to strengthen their own conclusions. Still, they should discuss this book with due respect in order to benefit the madhyama-adhikaris. Therefore it is the madhyama-adhikaris who are the proper candidates for studying this book. All the above-mentioned three categories of people are qualified to study Shrimad Bhagavatam, yet most of the commentaries on this matchless book are composed for the benefit of the neophytes. The commentators were all swanlike persons, and they have exhibited more compassion towards the neophytes than towards the madhyamas. Whenever they discuss jnana, they are referring to brahma-jnana, or the impersonal understanding of the Absolute Truth. Therefore modern speculators are not benefited. Nowadays many people of our country discuss foreign literature and science with a desire to scrutinize its significance. They quickly become faithless after observing the indirect presentations4 by the writers of the scripture and the scriptural commentaries that are appropriate for the above-mentioned neophytes. They then either adopt a different religion or become famous by introducing a new one. The danger with this is that such people uselessly waste their time inventing a new level of understanding while leaving aside the previous mahajanas' perfect path, which automatically uplifts one from a lower qualification to a higher one. If there were some literatures appropriate for the madhyama-adhikaris to discuss, then no anarthas, or unwanted things, in the form of sub-religion, cheating religion, or irreligion would have entered India. The principal purpose of this book is to fulfill the above-mentioned requirement. Actually this book will directly and indirectly benefit all three types of persons—the uttama, madhyama, and kanishtha. Therefore they should all respect this book. BVT from intro </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

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.

As I said cbrahma, in regards to this book, I am following Gurudeva. I asked him these very things. I do not expect you to follow me, following him.

 

I wish not to argue on this point. But would suggest you read the full book again...and draw your own conclusion.

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.

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>The expert topmost persons have no direct need for this book other than to strengthen their own conclusions. Still, they should discuss this book with due respect in order to benefit the madhyama-adhikaris. Therefore it is the madhyama-adhikaris who are the proper candidates for studying this book. All the above-mentioned three categories of people are qualified to study Shrimad Bhagavatam, yet most of the commentaries on this matchless book are composed for the benefit of the neophytes. The commentators were all swanlike persons, and they have exhibited more compassion towards the neophytes than towards the madhyamas. Whenever they discuss jnana, they are referring to brahma-jnana, or the impersonal understanding of the Absolute Truth. Therefore modern speculators are not benefited. Nowadays many people of our country discuss foreign literature and science with a desire to scrutinize its significance. They quickly become faithless after observing the indirect presentations4 by the writers of the scripture and the scriptural commentaries that are appropriate for the above-mentioned neophytes. They then either adopt a different religion or become famous by introducing a new one. The danger with this is that such people uselessly waste their time inventing a new level of understanding while leaving aside the previous mahajanas' perfect path, which automatically uplifts one from a lower qualification to a higher one. If there were some literatures appropriate for the madhyama-adhikaris to discuss, then no anarthas, or unwanted things, in the form of sub-religion, cheating religion, or irreligion would have entered India. The principal purpose of this book is to fulfill the above-mentioned requirement. Actually this book will directly and indirectly benefit all three types of persons—the uttama, madhyama, and kanishtha. Therefore they should all respect this book. BVT from intro </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

 

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.

Have you read Thakura's introduction to the book C? Many teachers in our line say similar.

 

click here for the intro Sri Krsna Samhita.

 

He even uses western dates and other non-orthodox stuff to sway the Indian intelligensia. Then he brings it on home in the central part of the book....

 

The central portion (the main part) of the Samhita...he then gives the vedic commentary. The intro was a pre-dinner mint to draw the intelligensia in. The middle section is brilliant...a masterpiece. It is a maha-bhagavata commentary of the Bhagavatam. If it is understood by realization...no doubt will remain that Sri Krsna is the Supreme Personality. click here to read it.

 

It is my favorite book. It is uttama.

 

 

That is sad...Prabhupada accepted Jesus. I am with you mate.

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.

He was preaching to the christian tainted modern (19th century) Indian intellectual in the above article. Trying to wake them up to their great heritage. He augmented a modern day rejuvination of Gaudiya Vaisnavism...which eventually spread across the whole globe.

 

Whether his approach is accepted by people like you is another thing. But the result is that many western boys worship Krsna...and are gradually making their way home back to Godhead. As you say...maybe they will get there after several more births.

 

Thank God us western boys got to hear of Krsna (not just Krsna as a demigod or stepping stone to the void or impersonal brahman which pervades the west thx to Vivekananda, Yogananda and the likes). Visnu is kind to all his children. Please extend that example as his representative. You are perfect in your theology...now use compassionate intelligence to convince your audience. Ofcourse maybe your way is compassioante and I fail to see that.

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.

But to prove that the "I" exists as undifferentiated consciousness (which is what advaita is about) is easy because it's self-evident.

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.

I meant to say it's not easy for educated people to believe in a blue-skinned peron playing the flute. As to 'somebody' is conscious, the advaitin will argue that 'somebody' is just an illusion. As proof, he'll ask you to search for this 'somebody' either within or without. In doing so, you will realize that what you call "I" is never restricted to a certain individual, and therefore this consciousness must be impersonal. Hence the conclusion of advaita: Brahman Satya, Jagat Mithya.

 

All this isn't my view, because I am vaishnava. I am just giving a good idea of what advaita is about, and why it appeals to the modern mind. And it's no coincidence that vaishnavism in the west always attracts hippies/dropouts more than it does intellectuals. Isn't that odd?

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

Sectarianism is a natural byproduct of the Absolute Truth. When acaryas first ascertain and instruct the Truth, it is not polluted with sectarianism. But the rules and regulations received through disciplic succession regarding the goal and the method of achieving it are changed in due course of time according to the mentality and locale of the people. A rule that is followed by one society is not necessarily accepted in another society. That is why one community is different from another. As a community gradually develops more respect for its own standards, it develops hatred towards other communities and considers their standards inferior. These sectarian symptoms are seen in all countries since time immemorial. This is prominent amongst neophytes and found to some extent amongst madhyama-adhikaris. Amongst uttama-adhikaris, however, there is no trace of sectarianism. Adherence to a particular standard is the prominent symptom of a society. There are three types of standards—alocakagata, alocanagata and alocyagata. Alocakagata is when sectarianists accept some external signs. Examples of alocakagata are tilaka, neck beads, saffron robes, and the baptism that is practiced abroad. The different activities practiced in the process of worship are called alocanagata. Examples of alocanagata are sacrifices, austerities, fire sacrifices, vows, studying scriptures, deity worship, constructing temples, respecting the purity of various trees and rivers, dressing like sannyasis, acting like acaryas, dressing like brahmacaris or grhasthas, closing one's eyes, respecting particular types of books, rules and regulations in eating, and respecting the purity of particular times and places. The examples of alocyagata are attributing personalism or impersonalism on the Supreme Lord, installing deities, exhibiting the mood of an incarnation of the Lord, speculating on heaven and hell, and describing the future destination of the soul. The different forms of these spiritual activities create divisions of sectarianism. Differences that arise from places, times, languages, behaviors, foods, dresses, and natures of various communities are incorporated within people's spiritual practices and gradually make one community so completely different from another community that even the consideration that everyone is a human being may cease to exist. Due to these differences there is disagreement, cessation of social intercourse, and fighting, even up to the point of killing on another. When an ass-like mentality becomes prominent within the kanishta-adhikaris, they certainly indulge in these things. But if they develop a swanlike mentality, then they do not take part in quarrels; rather, they endeavor to attain a higher level. Madhyama-adhikaris do not quarrel so much about external standards, but they are always attacked by philosophical disagreements. Sometimes they condemn the standards as superior. They condemn the neophytes' deity worship in order to establish the worship-able Lord as formless. In such cases, they are also considered ass-like people. Otherwise, if they had a swanlike mentality and a desire to attain a higher level, they would respect others' practices and inquire about higher topics. Contradictions actually arise only due to ass-like mentality. Swanlike persons consider the necessity for different practices to one's qualification, so they are naturally detached from sectarian quarrels. In this regard, it should be understood that both ass-like and swanlike people are found amongst the kanishta-adhikaris and madhyama-adhikaris.

Source: Sri Krishna-samhita By Bhaktivinoda Thakur

 

 

The idea of an organized church in an intelligible form, indeed, marks the close of the living spiritual movement. The great ecclesiastical establishments are the dikes and dams to retain the current that cannot be held by any such contrivances. They, indeed, indicate a desire on the part of the masses to exploit a spiritual movement for their own purpose. They also unmistakably indicate the end of the absolute and unconventional guidance of the bona-fide spiritual teacher. The people of this world understand preventive systems, they have no idea at all of the unprevented positive eternal life. Neither can there be any earthy contrivance for the permanent preservation of the life eternal on this mundane plane on the popular scale.

Those are, therefore, greatly mistaken who are disposed to look forward to the amelioration of the worldly state in any worldly sense from the worldly success of any really spiritual movement. It is these worldly expectants who become the patrons of the mischievous race of the pseudo-teachers of religion, the Putanas, whose congenial function is to stifle the theistic disposition at the very moment of its suspected appearance. But the theistic disposition can never be stifled by the efforts of those Putanas. The Putanas have power only over the atheist. It is a thankless but salutary task which they perform for the benefit of their unwilling victims.

But as soon as theistic disposition proper makes its appearance in the pure cognitive essence of the awakened soul, the Putanas are decisively silenced at the very earliest stage of their encounter with the new-born Krishna. The would-be slayer of herself slain. This is the reward of the negative services that the Putanas unwittingly render to the cause of theism by strangling all hypocritical demonstrations against their own hypocrisy. But Putana does not at all like to receive her reward in only form which involves the total destruction of her wrong personality. King Kamsa also does not like to lose the services of the most trusted of his agents. The effective silencing of the whole race of pseudo-teachers of religion is the first clear indication of the appearance of the Absolute on the mundane plane. The bona-fide teacher of the Absolute, heralds the Advent of Krishna by his uncompromising campaign against the pseudo-teachers of religion.

by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur

 

 

 

So obviously my tiresome belief has not been wrenched from my rectum.

Though a Vaishnava, I feel advaita appeals to the modern mind, because it doesn't depend much on fairy tales, superstition, faith etc.

 

The modern mind refuses to believe in a creator, so if Vaishnavas tell him God is a blue-skinned person (and yes, he's got a name!), they're not gonna take it seriously. OTOH, comparing the world to a dream appeals to the modern mind, so much so several movies have been made on this fascinating theme.

 

As to pramana, it's virutally impossible to convince people of the reality of, say varaha avatar that lifted the earth. But to prove that the "I" exists as undifferentiated consciousness (which is what advaita is about) is easy because it's self-evident.

 

For these and many other reasons, advaita seems to tower over vaishnava and other schools of thought, despite Prabhupada and others doing so much to spread vaishnava dharma and krishna bhakti. The modern mind just can't accept these things, when the pull of advaita is so strong.

 

This is my observation, and I feel it will remain this way for some time to come.

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.

Anything artificial is bad.

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.

I was aware of that cbrahma, but this 'expert' debator uses so many tricks to his advanrage (so he thinks)....I cannot waste my times pointing them all out. I would be here for hours. And still we would not having a meeting point.

 

Instead I chose to show him the personal aspect...rather than debate what is and what is not a vaisnava.

 

He considers himself a vaisnava...I do not consider myself one.

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)

 

 

 

Poor dark, always using the ploy of personal attack in debate. Maybe I am an old fashioned debator lol.

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

Or are we simply aspiring servants of a higher plane (dependant upon mercy)?

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

Debate prabhu is your qualification...due to the good fortune of being born in the sacred land of the ganga. I was not raised with such an exalted heritage...and am not qualified as you are. In this area your sastric knowledge is vast...and I am your servant.

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.

The individuals who take advantage of monastic life benefit and society benefits by supporting the efforts toward God consciousness in the citizens.

Not trying to sell you anything. Can't wait until you get past this need to argue with everything anybody says.

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.

Better monastaries than hellish factories.

 

Well perhaps we have no perfect examples in recent history but that is not the point. Can't you see the value in a society structured so that everyone makes spiritual advancement even while engaged in their ordinary work on up to supporting those who try to go 100% into a life of bhajan and contemplation?

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.

Renunciation is a big topic. Better to renouce the world then become more entangled in it. You provide proof that renunciation alone will not lead to love of Krishna but that has never been in question.

 

These particular monks and nund were not just remouncing their were chanting and praying an actively seekinga personal relationship with God.

 

The structure of today's society looks down on such places as a waste of time whereas a proper human society would see providing such places as a main focal point for the public welfare.

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.

That referrence doesn't relate to the context of the conversation cbrahma.

Renunciation is the context.

ARTIFICIAL RENUNCIATION IS NOT FAVORABLE FOR DEVOTIONAL SERVICE

In the Eleventh Canto, Twentieth Chapter, verse 31, of

Srimad-Bhagavatam , Krsna says, "My dear Uddhava, for persons

who are seriously engaged in My service, the cultivation of

philosophical speculation and artificial renunciation are not

very favorable. When a person becomes My devotee he

automatically attains the fruits of the renunciation of material

enjoyment, and he gets sufficient knowledge to understand the

Absolute Truth." That is the test of advancement in devotional

service. A devotee cannot be in darkness, because the Lord shows

him special favor and enlightens him from within.

In the Eleventh Canto, Twentieth Chapter, verses 32 and 33,

of Srimad-Bhagavatam the Lord further instructs Uddhava, "My

dear friend, the profits derived from fruitive activities,

austerities, the culture of philosophical knowledge,

renunciation, the practice of mystic yoga , charity and all

similar auspicious activities are automatically achieved by My

devotees--those who are simply attached to Me by loving service.

These devotees have everything at their disposal, but they desire

nothing outside of My devotional service. If ever a devotee

should desire some material profit, like promotion to the

heavenly planets, or some spiritual profit--to go to the

Vaikunthas--by My causeless mercy his desires are very easily

fulfilled."

(NOD ch. 14, pages 113-114)

1- CONSTITUTIONALLY GURU

A SANNYASI IS CONSTITUTIONALLY GURU OF ALL DIVISIONS

The society of human beings is naturally divided into

eight by orders and statuses of life-the four divisions of

occupation and four divisions of cultural advancement. The

intelligent class, the administrative class, the productive class

and the laborer class are the four divisions of occupation. And

the student life, the householder's life, retired life and

renounced life are the four statuses of cultural advancement

towards the path of spiritual realization. Out of these, the

renounced order of life, or the order of sannyasa, is considered

the highest of all, and a sannyasi is constitutionally the

spiritual master for all the orders and divisions.

(Bhag. 1.3.13 purp.)