cbrahma

I got this response from a related site

I heard that in Sri Sri Ravishankar's AOL sessions, shedding the ego is one of the first teachings, where a member is asked to do things in full view of the other members. The things include crawling, barking like dog, dancing, singing, etc.--generally chores that would lesson the personal ego.

 

This description is really frightening. In the seventies and eighties there were a number of cults that used 'loss of ego' to justify all sorts of abusive excesses. EST is one classic case.

I can't imagine all the destructive practices that can be justified under the 'loss of ego' pretext.

Ego is such an abstract concept, hard to pin down. The only truly ego-less people I've met were mentally ill.

It's so convenient. A guru could commit all sorts of artrocities on a disciple like rape and justify it as an excercise for losing ego.

How horrifying. A religion in which a loving God is nominal.

The vedic texts - when properly advanced - agree with you on this point...we must understand that a guru is a teacher and - that is all.

bottom line - where I stand is nobody should be alllowed have that kind of power of anybody else.

Only if both parties are insincere can that happen - such a move by a guru is grounds to disassociate with such a guru - any sincere student would know that a guru cannot ask one to compromise the principles - especially in such a request of such 'service' - if a seeker falls for that line with some bogus guru - then - he [or she] is as much a cheater as the unqualified guru.

I am not organizing a propoganda. I am posting to a blog. Institutions organize propaganda. Institutions that need to increase their ranks by demanding diksa subjugation as a condition for God's love.

Your physical mobility is hardly the point. Potentially a diksa guru is supposed to be able to make any demands and the disciple is supposed to jump. Say a nice young boy is a disciple of a homosexual guru. That guru can demand sexual favors and the boy will believe he has to comply. Or in another instance somebody with a lot of money will believe he has to hand it all over to the 'loving' guru.

This kind of control is a cruel reality. Not proganda.

Well, I got initiated in ISKCON during the time of Srila Prabhupada and it was a known fact that I was independent and moved around from one temple to the next as I desired.

I was never the slave of the GCB or anything else.

 

Still, they gave me intiation becaue they said I was sincere.

 

Your propaganda that initiation is slavery is just patently false.

 

Ain't no guru that I have ever heard of that demands slavery from his disciple, as that goes against the principle of love.

 

Your complaint that initiation is slavery is just plain false allegations.

 

I have never seen any guru, real or bogus that demanded slavery, so you should taked your crock of false allegations elsewhere.

Cool. Then my hands are tied, along with my tongue. Can't duh ...uh..choose to get initiated..duh...

Tell it to a black person who had slave ancestors. There is a qualitative difference between living in a democracy and a despotism. Slavery is not philosophical. It is a painfully concrete state.

Slavery is inevitable.

Either we can be slaves of the Devotee or slaves of our senses or slaves of dogma and doctrine.

 

It is the consititutional position of the jiva to be slave.

If we refuse to be slaves of Krishna and his pure devotees, then we will be slaves of something else.

 

The real question is who or what do you want to be a slave of, because slavery to something or other is inevitable for a jivatma.

I don't what religious process you're affiliated with but diksa is diksa. Love is not ownership. The absolute demand for obedience is slavery, ownership, not love and certainly not freedom.

Enslavement is never the process of a vaisnava guru. If a so-called guru does not recognize that exchange of love between god and man is a freedom of choice (I.e. I freely choose to alter my lifestyle in order to be pleasing to the Supreme Lord), then there is no guru there. Anyone who denies freedom of choice is demoniac in this regard, and does not deliver god, rather delivers the anti-thesis of the Supreme Lord.

 

You are rather new here, and should recognize that most folks who write here are NOT proponants of a particular religious ideology. It is fine to critique writings that appear here, but try to know where the author is coming from before you try to draw conclusions based on a bias you may have for someone who may have caused a negative experiance.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

Yes but the diksa-enslavement process is dehumanizing. It cures the disease by eliminating the patient. By which I mean trading misery and suffering for the coma anesthestized state of 'surrender' where all conscious feeling and thought is dismissed as maya and irrelevant. A literal comatose would be preferable.

I actually don't care. Salvation is salvation. Resurrection is resurrection. However I get there as long as I do.

Which version of the Bible are you reading? In the Ethiopian Copts Bible (not the bible made by the servants of the Roman emporers), reincarnation is mentioned as a fact, in the book of enoch.

Now you quote Paul, a human as being doctrinal.

Catechism is a very early tradition. New Christians had to be taught the basic teachings of Christ. The Epistles or Letters of the Apostle helped to contribute to that teaching.

I'm not going to quibble in what form the Christians survive, but they do.

Sure beats millenia of transmigrations.

That's not home spun. Nevertheless salvation entails a lot more than ressurection of the body.

Catechism is another fabrication of the "church" of men.

 

The actual Christian doctrine is that souls live in limbo in death and in the grave and then they are resurrected from the grave...

Christians survive their bodies. Salvation is not the ressurection of the body, althought that is included. I suggest you take basic catechism.

When Jesus comes all the dead Christians in their graves will rise up and meet Jesus in the clouds.

 

This is the real Christian doctrine, not your homemade Christianity and idea of immediate salvation.

You expected Jesus to sit down and write Scripture? He was a Jew who reverenced Scripture, included in the very Bible you are trying to discredit.

Since you can't address the issues you try and make the whole thing evaporate. Christianity, the Bible is concoction. Christ never existed , Christ never said he was the Messiah.. etc... You have two thousand years of tradition and scholarship to address if you intend to just dismiss it as a fabrication.

The Holy Bible was not organized, assembled or actually approved or endorsed by Jesus.

The Holy Bible was assembled from various writings by the "Church" and the "Church" itself was given form and doctrine by men, not God.

 

Christianity as we know it today is the product of the "Church" of men, not the Son of God.

 

Maybe somebody should just isolate the teachings in a separate scripture and cut away all the doctrines and opinions of the "Church" and let Jesus' teachings stand alone for people to hear and make their own judgements on?

 

The Holy Bible is the product of man, not God.

 

The Ten commandments and Jesus sermons and teachings are the things that can really be said to be coming from God directly.

 

The "church" and the "Bible" have all been manufactured by religious zealots.

You prove to me how it says otherwise.

That is your own fabrication because the Christian doctrine does not say that.

 

The Chrisitan doctrine is that all souls wait in the grave till Jesus comes back someday and resurrects them from the dead.

 

There is no salvation until and unless that happens.

Salvation through Jesus is not a waiting game. It is a 'fait accompli'.

As for KC being a science, where is the empircal proof. In fact where is the empiricism at all? It's just a law book of offenses about so many little ritual behaviours. Makes me feel like a gerbil in a cage. Any system that promises punishment for speaking out the truth is hardly a science. Truth and complete discovery is the cornerstone of any scientific study.

 

Krishna consciousness is more complicated because it is a spiritual science -

Science is always more demanding than sentiment.

However, science produces tangible results whereas sentiment is just an idea, a faith with a promise of salvation on Judgement day.

 

Spiritual science can give salvation right here and now.

You don't have to put all your faith in some judgement day when you hope to get salvation on the day that Christ returns to Earth from the clouds.

But there isn't an implicit requirement of surrender to a human being going in like in the vaisnava sects. One doesn't even get in the door really, until one surrenders (that word gets used a lot, because it's very useful). The Christian rhetoric is more cognitive , believe, repent etc... In the uncontaminated version there is no pressure as such. Salvation is already accomplished. One is led by grace to follow and be transformed. I don't find that one bit as complicated as all the rules about offenses that get slapped on as soon as you are naive enough to buy the "Chant and be happy" slogan.

Because Christianity does focus on sin/guilt and pushes salvation and the sacrifice of Jesus - it does place an enormous psychological burden on it's adherents. The charlatan is able to dupe so many 'christians' precisely because he is preaching on the authority of the bible. Most of these charlatans are 'sola scriptura' types. The hypocrisy in their own lives in terms of what they do versus what they say is what always leads to scandal. There will always be materialists who use scripture to benefit themselves. They will always be the biggest hypocrits and they are generally easy to see through if your a little bit introspective.

 

Be that as it may - no matter what brand of Christianity you follow - there will be leaders who guide the congregation by setting up the liturgy and the focus of the church. They will set the agenda for how they themselves and those who are members of their society interface with the world and 'share the good news'.

 

In all religious traditions there is a need for people who actually have transformed their lives and who embody the teachings in their words and actions. These are the people that make the tradition worth being involved in - because by their example people can gain inspiration to better their own lives and live ever closer and closer to their ideal.

If you find Christianity the path that wish to follow - by all means do so.

 

I'd like to ask you what exactly you hope to accomplish by denigrating the path of others?

 

Guru tattva is obviously a difficult tattva to understand and it is quite obvious that whatever level of involvement you have had with Gaudiya Vaishnavism, you have not properly understood this tattva.

 

When Krsna, in the Bhagavad gita (which you have read), says 'try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master' he makes it clear and concise what he is talking about. He says about such a person - he has seen the truth - tattva darshinah.

 

Such a person isn't just a person who has read a lot of books or has learned a particular set of rituals - this is a person who has gone beyond the mind and ritual and has actually developed his heart in relation to God. He is speaking from experience and he can share his 'heart experience' with others.

 

How did this person get such an experience? Submission and service. Saranagati means dying to live - ultimately totally giving yourself. This, by the way, is also what is taught by Christ as the absolute necessity of one who wants to call himself his follower.

 

There are more similarities between Christainity and Gaudiya Vaishnavism than there are differences. Still, there are significant differences and it is these differences that give impetus for different people to approach God through these similar but different traditions.

 

Gaudiya Vaishnavism isn't focused on salvation - the focus in Gaudiya Vaishnavism is service and surrender - not something forced - but in relationship with God in his most intimate setting.

 

At any rate you follow a different path and you are interested in a different aspect of God than Gaudiya Vaishnava's are.

 

I don't think you will gain much of value in terms of following your path here, especially since you are so negatively disposed toward the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. Due to your personal outlook I would venture to say that even if someone said something that might help you in your spiritual journey - you most likely would not hear it or benefit from it since you disrespect the tradition and those who choose to follow it.

 

I can appreciate Christianity and Christians who live a genuinely spiritual life, but only so far, because their goal is so different from my own. In general terms - yes I certainly appreciate a spirit of giving and selfless serving - but I don't find it very helpful for me beyond that.

I began by expressing why I wanted to stay with my Christian faith rather than pursue the treacherous complicated path of chanting. And I am little more than vexed at the misrepresentation of chanting as being 'simple' without any hard rules. That is simply a lie. I don't like being lied to. I see nothing wrong in expressing that fact in a public forum.

I disagree with your claim that orientalism has come and gone in the west...eastern philosophy and related influences are firmly entrenched in western culture now, as is western culture in the east...whether these facts are "good", "bad", or just neutral has to be an individual call or a matter of taste.

I think it goes deeper than taste. There's no doubt that the Oriental invasion as left is indelible mark. But I don't read it any more as the 'thing to do'. The image of the Hindu swami, the Bhuddist priest (less so) is no longer exotic and glamorous. In fact it is tarnished by so many scandals. I see this as a good and wonderful thing that these unscrupulous pseudo-mystic snake-oil merchants have lost credibility.

No real need to mention the televangelists and various other Christian hucksters...old news, but I do mention them because you can apply the same standards of discernment to them as to the phony gurus...my point is the baby-bathwater one. I'm not tossing Jesus Christ or Krishna or the great scriptures that they inspired because some of their followers misbehaved in the past and continue to do so. I'm my own spiritual man, capable of independent and critical thought; you are as well.

 

Christian hypocrisy, at least on the Protestant side, has depended more on trickery than the religious demand for complete submission to a human authority. That one is harder for the Christian preacher/pastor to pull off.

When the price of admission is 'surrender' then exploitation is a no brainer from that point on.

There is a going of consciousness, an attainment of mental state regardless of religious affiliation. If you think that you are already there, then realize it by your actions and trascendant consciousness. Without those symptom there certainly is a going. By the way the SB says the material manifestation is 'located' in the spiritual sky. It speaks of journeys and travelling beyond the 'covering' of false ego. Sounds like geography to me.

Even the yogic process tries to raise the life airs of the body up the thousand petal cakra and release the soul at death. Lots of comings and goings.

There is no going, there is no becoming. This is bogus christian thought process. The supreme abode is not a destination or a geographical location.

 

We are what we are, even in our forgetfulness of who we are. We dont become gopis or gopas, we are gopas and gopis, warriors, acaryas, demigods.

 

This bhakti yoga process enables rememberance of our reality. The acarya does not teach us who we will become, rather teaches the reality of who we really are.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

We stir up our own dung. We should be fixed in happiness-distress. If our peace is that fragile, then we need to revisit our spritual center.

Of course, there are people who get their kicks by disturbing others but the poster you questioned has a lot more to offer than that.

Why stir up the dung all the time. We see the truth in a particular way. We are all conditioned so we want reassurance of our little reality. When we don't get it we try to influence or control others to come to our way of thinking. I do it too, and I'm addicted to it. But you know, sometimes it gets old unlike the Holy Name of Krsna which is ever fresh. Unfortunately I have no realization of that so I have no attraction for Krsna Nama. But instead of following the instructions of the saints as a remedy, I just take out my frustrations of others and try to control. Such is the disease of material consciousness.

Oh I can think of worse things than upsetting vapuvadis. I think it's their natural state anyway.

I'm just saying that all the devotees on all sides of this ongoing debate would agree with Guruvani's post and become very happy (by reading the post) if he left out his attack on the "vapuvadis". Tis the season to be jolly and not attack the vapuvadis tra la la la la, la la la la! (Wait a minute are you sure that was non-alchoholic soynog?)

I don't see the logic. Affirming the vibration , the vani, over physical presence, vapu shouldn't flip anybody out if they are listening to a bona fide authority, living or otherwise.

Suppose, the only post you gave on this thread was #1 and you edited out this:

 

Every devotee and aspiring devotee would have to agree with you and relish what you wrote and quoted. But noooooooooo, you have to write:

 

...and flip out every practioner who has a living siksa or diksa guru!

You best go through them quotes because the facts are the facts and Jesus never said he was the messiah - people

assume he said this but he didn't because he isn't.

<CENTER>John

Chapter 4</CENTER><DT>25 <DD><SUP>10</SUP> The woman said to him, "I know that the Messiah is coming, the one called the Anointed; when he comes, he will tell us everything." <DT>26 <DD>Jesus said to her, "I am he, <SUP>11</SUP> the one who is speaking with you."

There are many other verses but I'm not inclined to pursue such a pointless excercise. Your bald and laughable assertion about the facts proves nothing.

As for the prophecy about the crucifixion.

Zechariah 12:10 (NIV) "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

Psalms 22:16 (NIV) Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.

Your obviously Jewish conviction that Jesus could not possibly be the Messiah flies in the face of over two thousand years of testimony to the contrary. When is the actual Messiah to come then?

</DD>

If you're going to devote yourself to this path - then - you aught to have proper understanding of Jesus and - that includes understanding that he wasn't the predicted messiah - the facts on this are clear - i was wondering about your thoughts on this

 

None of the voluminous references proves Jesus was not the Messiah. Actually He Himself claimed to be. His riding into Jerusalem on a donkey was exactly to fulfill the messianic phrophecy. He questioned Peter as to his true identity. When Peter responded in language that identified Him as the Messiah, Jesus told him it was not eyes of flesh that revealed this to him (Peter), but His father in heaven. It was after this that Jesus announced Peter would be the rock of His church.

So I guess Jesus was either was a nutcake or an evil man. Nice try.

Let's not forget slavery was a commonplace at the time Paul wrote the slave passage. So the analogy is just that - an analogy.

Oh there are all kinds of 'hard' teachings that Christ gave that religious totalitarians and despots cling to and build on, totally out of context of his main message of course.

They do this in the same way the Pharisees condemned Jesus on many occasions for breaking the Sabbath etc...

Jesus IS the Law incarnate. He IS the fulfillment of the law. He spoke these words after the Beatitudes. They are not in condemnation, but a promise.

Legalism, subjugation to human self-appointed religionists, is the stuff of religious violence of the kind that inspire suicide bombers and arbortion clinic bombing. Fanatics love power hierarchies and lots and lots of laws.

Because their impulse is to control and condemn, not to serve.

Christ discipleship is not slavish. It is an act of grace not works, faith not legal purity. Most importantly Christ ought to be worshipped and followed - because he is God incarnate.

For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

-- Matthew 5:18-20

 

 

...Having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.

-- Romans 6:22

So many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. Violence is being inflicted in Iraq at the moment under that rubric. Even Bush sees himself mandated by God. India's history is red with blood shed. The crusades ravaged the land with pillaging, rape and destruction in their wake. Innocent people were tortured and killed in the Inquisition 'for the good of their souls' etc... More recently the brutalities and murders in ISKCON.

All of it can be accounted for by one principle - Absolute subjugation to a group or an individual. God is Love. Freedom is the essential condition of love. Even Jesus did not expect total prostration, in fact forbade it.

Totalitarian enslavement of mind and soul is not of God. It is darkness, evil.

You have high hopes don't you. My understanding is that you don't get there unless you're devoted and devotees don't worry about their rasa, they just serve.

i.e. male friends of God rather than female beloveds?

I have a Bhagavad Gita. There is no need to copy-paste entire purports. Besides I've read it in its entirety. I still refuse to subjugate my soul and mind entirely to another human being. It is incompatible with Judao-Christian teaching and more importantly my own conscience , the still small voice within. It is easily the origin of all the corruption I have known in Eastern religions, especially the ones transplanted here. Luckily Eastern gurus are no longer fashionable like they were in the sixties and seventies. By now most of them have been exposed as charlatans. In the case of Bhaktivedant swami, his organization has been exposed time and time again as corrupt. Do not proselityze me with this kind of Hinduism. Except possibly with Buddhism I think we've come to a period of Western history when Orientalism is an idea whose time has come and gone.

Here is the verse and purport I mentioned earlier regarding blind following.

 

 

 

<CENTER>