jijaji

Theist:

I wonder why the fuss over what iskcon sannyasi's say about sex.I prefer to hear from SP's tapes.

jijaji:

You seem kind of young or something (no offence) but where do you think the sexual attitudes currently in Iskcon/Gaudiya Math came from?

Just to let you know ..some of us here have been involved in this stuff for some 30 years or longer. Not that that in itself proves anything, but I'm just saying a few of us have been around the block on these issues a few times and have spent a good deal of time studying them.

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-09-2002).]

If a Mahabharata war had actually been fought on the scale reported, nearly five million fighting men killed each other in an 18-day battle between Delhi and Thanesar; about 130,000 chariots (with their horses), an equal number of elephants and thrice that many riding horses were deployed. This means at least as many camp-followers and attendants as fighters. A host of this size could not be supplied without a total population of 200 millions, which India did not attain till the British period, and could not have reached without plentiful and cheap iron and steel for ploughshares and farmers' tools. Iron was certainly not available in any quantity to Indian peasants before the 6th century BC. The greatest army camp credibly reported was of 400,000 men under Chandragupta Maurya, who commanded the surplus of the newly developed Gangetic basin. The terms patti, gulma etc., given as tactical units in the M'bh did not acquire that meaning till after the Mauryans. The heroes fought with bows and arrows from their chariots, as if the numerous cavalry did not exist; but cavalry which appeared comparatively late in ancient Indian warfare, made the fighting chariots obsolete as was proved by Alexander in the Punjab.

The point is karthik_v that many take all 100,000 verses to be the original scripture written by Vyasa when it most certainly is not.

Originally posted by Rati:

Two words: poetic license

from 8,000 to 100,000 verses is a pretty liberal poetic license.

Especially when today some folk take all 100,000 verses to be aparushea, when in fact they were inserted at a latter time for various reasons.

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-09-2002).]

theist:

Orange polyester?I hope at least it was a dhoti and not a leisure suit with a wide white belt and white shoes.

jijaji:

LOL ..that made my day very funny indeed!

There are of course more modern teachers of Advaita who do not place importance on all the strictness and taboos on sex, it's just not a concerm among those circles.

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-09-2002).]

Meditation—Subjective and Objective

Meditation is of two types: subjective and objective. Objective meditation is concentration of the mind on an object. The object may be the form of a deity, light, sky, etc. or some qualities like love, compassion, strength or one’s own self objectified. Consciousness is focussed on the object by an effort of will. Objective meditation is called upasana.

Subjective meditation is called nididhyasana or atma-vicara. Here there is no focussing of consciousness or effort of will. It is rather an attempt to seek the source of consciousness, to trace one’s "I" back to its roots. It is a process in which the ego, instead of rushing towards objects as it constantly does, withdraws into its own original source—the Atman.

The majority of spiritual aspirants find nididhyasana, subjective meditation, difficult to practice. They succeed in tracing their "I" back only up to a certain point. To penetrate further backward is possible only for a mind which is properly sharpened through training and strengthened by the observance of continence. Upasana or objective meditation gives the mind the necessary training. After practicing upasana for some time it becomes easier to practice nididhyasana. In fact, Madhusudana Sarasvati in his Advaita Siddhi classifies aspirants for jnana into two groups: kritopasti (those who have attained proficiency in upasana) and akritopasti (those who go directly to inquiry without practicing upasana).

According to Mandana and some of the earlier schools of Advaitins, upasana can give rise to direct realization of Nirguna Brahman (the Absolute without attributes). But Sri Sankara and his followers hold the view that upasana will lead only to the realization of Saguna Brahman (Reality with attributes). Sankara states that the benefit derived from upasana is either worldly prosperity (abhyudaya) or "gradual liberation" (krama-mukti). In other words, upasana is only a preparation for nididhyasana. On the other hand, Sri Ramanuja holds the view that upasana can lead to full liberation. He even identifies it with bhakti.

The difference between upasana and nididhyasana as two different disciplines has also been clearly pointed out by Ramatirtha in his well-known commentary on the Vedanta Sara.1 Vidyaranya too has made this distinction by describing upasana as vastu-tantra (object-oriented) and nididhyasana as kartri-tantra (subject-oriented).

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Alexander hardly proved anything in Punjab. What can one really prove after getting defeated by Porus in just 8 hours and after losing 75% of his forces? His toughest battle before the one on Hydespes was against Darius III, in which he lost 16% of the forces. Darius III himself lost 22% and was routed. Of course, the Eurocentric historians presented a very different picture. Never ask the uncomfortable question as to how someone can emerge the winner after losing 75% of his forces and getting critically injured himself. Also, please don't ask me as to where Bucephalus, the city that Alexander the tyrant built in Punjab after his "victory" is. Fertile imaginations, especially the ones used for wiping off wounded Greek pride and resurrected by Eurocentrics, leave no trace.

good points! damm your smart!

love it!

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-09-2002).]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

3 possibilities. One, Mahabharat happened in a different yuga and there was a massive destruction afterwords erasing all traces.

 

> That is only a speculative possibility and does not go along with scriptual quotes as saying that right after Krishna left the planet Kali Yuga was usherd in..

Just a BIG MAYBE...

 

 

Two, Mahabharat happened in a different plane or dimension and not on this physical earth. Three, there have been obvious interpolations and we need not take these details too seriously. Or should I say all the 3?

 

> You are right about the interpolations, present Mahabharata scholars tend to accept that the original Mahabharata called simply 'The Jaya' was only 8,000 verses and was added upon to become 'The Bharata' which was 24,000 until finally it grew to become 100,000 known as the 'Mahabharata'. So yea lots and lots of 'INTERPOLATION'

Again to guess it happened on 'Another Plane' is nothing but a guess as well..kinda grasping at straws..certainly Madhva never said that.

 

BTW, even our GV acaryas have, at times, blindly accepted the baseless dates given by western historians. One such example being SP blindly accepting the date of Buddha. Some mutts, like the Kanchi Sankara mutt, have been more objective in this regard. They never toe the western atheistic lines. They go by srutis and accept the smritis only if they follow the shrutis. False history has no place of significance for them.

 

> Ok

 

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-09-2002).]

Of course it's exaggeration...

A Common Disease

By surrounding himself with true believers, Waldo fell into the trap of taking himself too seriously.

This led to unhappiness and ill health.

When he asked Ralph, one of the few who had penetrated his multilevel cover stories, what he thought the problem was,

Ralph replied..

"You're suffering from hardening of the orthodoxies."

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-08-2002).]

Brahmacarya: Brahmacarya refers to a state of mind in which we see everyone and everything as an expression of the Supreme. To practice Brahmacarya, we must open our minds to delve into the hidden depths of creation and to see that there is a single energy and a single consciousness pervading all forms. The word Brahmacarya is a composite of two words, i.e. Brahma, the Supreme, and carya, to observe. (Contrary to popular Indian meaning, it does not mean celibacy.)

Why are all these so-called renounced celibates always so concerned about married peoples private lives?

Because they are affected by SEX in two ways;

1. Fear

2. Fascination

And they go back and forth between these extremes, other wise they would not have to 'Fight the Flesh'

God created me with natural urges and desires, these celibate-preist types are against God I say!!!

They are always condemming that which God blessed me with.

God is all good and supplies us with the ability to enjoy and prosper in the world while we are on the path to the spiritual world.

Many will tell you to give up everything here to attain the eternal relm.

This is putting the horse before the cart.

Celibacy HAPPENS to one like the falling of a leaf...not imposed...after one has realization of the divine on such a level one no longer is attracted to this side.

The practice of 'Celibacy' is a sham because Celibacy is something that happens to you through spiritual attainment, whereby you become disinterested in sense pleasures. You don't condemm you just are unaffected by callings of the senses as they are insignificant to what is happening inside you spiritually.

That is something that cannot be PRACTICED!!

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-08-2002).]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

A disciple asked: Which of the 2 is better, Advaita or atheism?

 

The response was: Which of the 2 is better, yellow stool or brown stool?

 

 

sounds like a very sick fanatic...

Originally posted by karthik_v:

I have written on this before. While every school has looked at sense enjoyment as an obstacle to ultimate realization, this takes extreme forms in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. If we take sex for example, Srila Prabhupad restricts even Grahasthas to having sex only once a month and that to for begetting religious children. I am unaware if this has any shastric basis. If we look at most ancient books, including the ones in Tamil, they place no such restriction. On the contrary, books like Thirumanthiram do offer tantric insights into sex. If we look at any ancient temple, we do find explicit depictions of sexual acts. Before GV, no acarya, be it Sri Ramanuja or Adi Sankara, put such restrictions on sex. This has often made me wonder why such extreme restrictions are found in GV. I am yet to get a convincing answer for this.

 

My understanding is that, in Sanatana dharma, there no such thing as giving up sense enjoyment. You just transcend that. Can you really transcend by artificial renunciation? Artificial renunciation, not only leads to fanaticism, but in most cases you fall down more miserably. What is the point in pretending to have given up sex, when you ultimately end up marrying somebody's ex-wife whom you used to address mataji? Yet, every ISKCON speaker will urge impressionable young men to renounce sex. I find that terrible. I have come across many 20+ boys, who have pathetic conceptions of sex. I have also wondered as to why the same speaker never urged the young man to give up his job. Is a job that pays $8000 a month less addictive than sex?

 

Is there any shastric injunction against sex enjoyment between a man and his wife?

Right On..!

more later.....

All seekers please examine carefully what each religious belief system asks of you, keeping in mind three rules:

1.What you are required to believe is what the system cannot prove.

2.Anything that you are asked to keep secret is of more value to the teacher than to the student.

3.*Any practice that is forbidden offers something that the system cannot successfully replace with an alternative.

Q:

"Don't you believe that giving up the pleasures of the senses will produce a different consciousness?"

A:

"My personal experience, is that it produced the consciousness of fanaticism."

Originally posted by abhi_the_great:

I got this reply from one of the senior disciples of Srila Prabhupad.

 

Here is what Srila Prabhupada says:

 

> The followers of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu never accepted the Mayavada

> order of sannyasa, and for this they cannot be blamed. Sri Caitanya

> Mahaprabhu accepted Sridhara Svami, who was a tridandi-sannyasi, but

> the Mayavadi sannyasis, not understanding Sridhara Svami, sometimes

> think that Sridhara Svami belonged to the Mayavada ekadanda-sannyasa

> community. Actually this was not the case."

 

--Caitanya-caritamrta Madya-lila 3.6, purport

 

If I recall, I've seen someplace--maybe in the Sat Sandarbhas--that

Sridhara Svami has in a few places given concessions to the Mayavadis,

as something of a preaching tactic. But that is far different from

"combining Advaita and Devotionalism."

Here's the REAL historical FACTS about Sridhar Svamin..he was an Advaitavadin plan & simple!

Chaitanya & Sridhar Svami...

Sri Krishna Chaitanya, the famous Saint of Nadia, Bengal, India, accepted only one commentary on Bhagavata Purana as being valid. That commentary was written by the famous Sridhar Svami years before Sri Chaitanya had settled in the great city of Puri on the Western coast of India.

Sridhar Svami had been the 10th Shankaracarya of the Shankara Govardhan Math of Puri. Interestingly enough, despite his background, Sridhar Svami also saw the Bhagavata Purana as the shining sound incarnation of Krishna for Kali Yuga as did Sri Chaitanya.

Sridhar Swami, reached his intellectual peak at a hill top shrine known as Kapilash in Orissa which served as his abode in the 14th Century A.D. The treatises on "Srimad Bhagavat Geeta", "Vishnu Purana" & "Sripadyabali" were written here by Sridhar Swami during his long stay.

That Sri Chaitanya accepted Sridhars Svami’s commentary above all others, including Madhvas, whom Gaudiyas claim lineage from, is a puzzle in itself.

Was it because Sridhar Svamin belonged to Shankaras sampradaya, which Sri Chaitanya took Sannyass Diksha into?

Does it have anything to do with the influence Sridhar Svamis commentary had on the region where Sri Chaitanya had moved immediately after he took Sanyass? Because at the time of Sri Chaitanya’s arrival in Orrisa the whole atmosphere was steeped in the Holy memory of Sridhar Svami.

Sri Chaitanyas acceptance of Sridhar Svamins Bhagavatam (a known advaitin) over and above the then available Vaishnava commentaries is worthy of our investigation.

Sri Chaitanya came to settle in Puri after he had taken sanyass from the Advaitin Keshava Bharati. It is contended by his followers that Sri Chaitanyas reason for taking initiation from Keshava Bharati was because it was the then accepted and most known form of Sannyass at that time. They also say that Sri Chaitanya had devised a plan to save the fallen souls of Kali Yuga by taking this Sannyass, thus giving people the chance to bow to him and be saved by that very act.

But we ask why did Sri Chaitanyas Gurus Isvara Puri and Madhavendra Puri accept Sanyass into the Madhva Sampradaya or did they?

In Sri Chaitanys biographies he is described as having the ability to convert one into a devotee of Krishna, by one having a mere glance of him dancing in Kirtan. In fact whole villages were converted in this way. Why then the need to accept Sanyass from a school of thought that was opposed to his dualistic teachings of Krishna Bhakti?

I reposted an earlier..but deleted it thinking I should let the past go and be here now!!

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-08-2002).]

I have had the experience of trying to tell certain christians that Jesus was a JEW.

Born a Jew, Lived a Jew and Died a Jew.

Yet they refuse to accept that FACT in some crazy insane way because it goes against their conditioned conceptions of the churches 'Christ'.

Palestinian oppression unseen by americans?

Do people even care what is going on in this land that is referred to by some as Palestine and by others as Israel? If people did, wouldn't someone have the courage to write about it? Does anyone even know what is really going on over there, or do people just accept the so-called "facts" they read in the biased and distorted newspapers everyday?

Allow me to explain some real "facts" to you, whoever you may be. I should know something about this place because I was just there in the summer of 1999. Forty days in a historical land like this and you are bound to discover some things.

Palestine and Israel refer to the land located in the southwestern part of Asia between Jordan and Egypt.

Some of the land may belong to the Palestinians on paper, but this is definitely not true in reality. Anyone who visits Palestine will realize that Palestinians don't truly own the land when they see all of the Israeli settlements there.

The Israeli people choose to settle in this land when there is a vast amount of barren land in territories occupied by Israel.

The greed and selfishness of these people absolutely amazed me. Do they have any decency? Do they not remember how the Palestinians welcomed them into their land and allowed them to live there when they were being persecuted by so many people before and after World War II? Do they not remember how they took the Palestinian state and made it their own state of Israel? Do they even care?

The bottom line is that the Palestinians are being oppressed by the "children of Israel." You tell me if you think that not being able to go to the beach and swim without showing your passport to an Israeli soldier is oppression.

You tell me if you think that having the electricity go out constantly at the hands of the ruling government is not oppression.

You tell me if you think that not being able to go and pray in a place that is sacred to you no matter what you say is oppression.

You tell me if you think that being treated differently because you are Palestinian is oppression.

I certainly think it is.

The truth is that most Palestinians cannot go to Jerusalem and pray to God in one of the holiest places in the religion of Islam. My family and I were allowed to go because we have American passports. Although we were still ridiculed by the Israeli soldiers over there.

When you pass the border between the Gaza Strip (Palestinian land) and Israel, you have to "check-in" with an Israeli soldier and wait until he checks your passport and logs you into the computer. If the computers are down, you have to wait. You will not be allowed to leave the Gaza Strip without having a Palestinian passport in hand.

The Palestinian people want their own state, just like the Jews wanted their own state in 1948 and established it on Palestinian territory. As long as the Israelis do not give us back the land that is rightfully ours and give us the human freedom and dignity we deserve, we can forget any hope of peace.

It will not happen. May the One and Almighty God give victory to the just and punish the oppressors.

The Bhakti Movement 800 A.D - 1700 A.D.

Bhakti movement in Medieval India is responsible for the many rites and rituals associated with the worship of God by Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs of Indian subcontinent. For example, Kirtan at a Hindu Temple, Qawalli at a Dargah (by Muslims), and singing of Gurbani at a Gurdwara are all derived from the Bhakti movement of medieval India (800-1700). "The word bhakti is derived from Bhakta meaning to serve, honour, revere, love and adore. In the religious idiom, it is attachment or fervent devotion to God and is defined as "that particular affection which is generated by the knowledge of the attributes of the Adorable One."

From Ratis Linkpage on Vidyapati;

"Vidyapati’s most enduring contribution to Indian literature, indeed what he has been remembered for in the last few hundred years, is a corpus of over five hundred love songs. The subject of these songs, which were composed between 1380 and 1406, is the love of Krishna and Radha; surprisingly, perhaps, Vidyapati himself was not a Krishna bhakta, not even a Vaishnava. Vidyapati lived for another forty odd years, dying around 1448, but he never returned to the theme of Krishna and Radha, and indeed in the later compositions his attention was riveted on Shiva and Durga."

Most Gaudiya Vaishnavas do not understand the implications of this. Thanks for the link.

jijaji

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-07-2002).]

Sorry Shiva he is correct.

Sounds like you are referring to how the Gaudiya Math portrayed Gaudiya Vaishnavism in the period just before Bhaktivinode, as being nothing but fallen debached Sahajiyas. Which is a total exaggeration and misrepresention of Historical fact.

jijaji

Indeed...

The Chaitanya sect some time after it's birth was affiliated as a sub-branch of the Madhva-sect which was the most influential in Bengal before the time of Chaitanya.

It is said that Chaitanya himself was brought up in the Madhva tradition. His predecessor, Advaita, as well as many of his influentilial relatives and associates had close connection with Madhvaism.

Madhavendra Puri was the initiator of the bhakti movement in Bengal before Sri Chaitanya. Iswar Puri and Madhavendra Puri, the two preceptors of Chaitanya, are claimed to have been ascetics of the Madhva-sect. But the Madhva-sect itself never mentioned the names of Madhavendra Puri or Iswar Puri in the list of succession prepared by R.G. Bhadarkar from thr original lists produced from Miraj, Belgaum and Poona. Baladeva's list differs materially from this more authentic list. Anandin in his commentary on Prabodhananda's Chaitanya Chandrarita claims that Chaitanya Himself and his followers were the founders of the Bengal Sampradaya and owed nothing to the Gurus of any other Sampradaya. Madhvaism or affiliation to the Madhva-sect is never acknowledged in the important authoritative biographies of Chaitanya nor in the words of the Vrndavana Gosvamis. Only Kavi Karnapura, in his Gauraganoddesha dipika, described Madhavendra Puri, Iswar Puri and Chaitanya as Madhva ascetics. But in the drama Chaitanya Chandrodaya, Kavi Karnapura never mentioned Madhavendra Puri as a Madhva ascetic. On the other hand, Chaitanya was a sannyasi of the advaitavadin order. Baladeva Visyabhusan, in his Govinda bhasya on Vedanta sutra and in his Prameya-Ratnavali attribute Madhva affiliation when giving the Guru-Parampara. He also describes Chaitanya as a Madhva ascetic, reason being his guru Radha Damodara appears to have been considerably influenced by Madhva in his Vedanta-syamantaka, and the disciple Baladeva had strong leanings towards Madhvism which is clear from his erudite writings in Prameya-ratnavali.

Chaitanya formally belonged to the dasnami order of Sankara Sannyasis, though Vaishnava Bhakti movement had nothing to do with the extreme advaitavada of Shankara. Barring these two authors, there is no mention anywhere that Madhavendra Puri or his disciple Iswar Puri were Madhva-ascetics. Perhaps Kavi Karnapura and Baladeva Vidyabhusan derived the list from the same source. There is no evidence that Madhavendra Puri or Iswar Puri or Advaita had Madhva outlook. The sannyas name of Madhva was Ananda Tirtha. He himself was a sannyasi of the Shankara order. But both Madhavendra and Iswar were Puris not Tirthas, while Keshava Bharati belonged to the bharati order of Shankara. At Puri, Chaitanya was introduced to Vasudev Sarvabauma as a sannyasi of the Bharati order of Shankara. Chaitanyas sannyas was through advaita parampara. His indulgence in singing and dancing is in direct disapproval of Madhva doctrine. All the facts jointly go against Chaitanyas alleged connection with Madvaism. S.K.De, on the origins of Chaitanyaism is of the opinion that Chaitanya never belonged to the Madhva-sect, or was never influenced by Madvaism, on the other hand, he stated that Madhavendra Puri and his disciple, Iswar Puri were Shankarite sannyasis of the same order to which Sridhara Swami belonged. Madhavendra Puri sowed the seed of Bhakti in the soil of Bengal and Chaitanya is the ‘Noble Tree’ of that seed. Chaitanya took initation from Madhvendra Puri’s disciple Iswar Puri…

Originally posted by jijaji:

When Hindu teachings 1st came west in the late 1800's - early 1900's it seems various schools left out more esoteric practices. In the Kriya community today there is much controversy over Yogananda not teaching to his western audience 'complete Kriya', he is alleged to have left out the 'Kechari Mudra' which more orthodox Kriya schools in India claim is essential to the authentic practice of Kriya Yoga. Also Vivekananda stressed more of a 'Vedanta for the West' teaching... a bit packaged for his audience as well, certainly in contrast to Ramakrishna's extreme 'Kali Bhakti' with ecstatic devotional eruptions similar to Sri Chaitanyas divine madness.

And who can forget The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi with his 'don't tell anyone' keep em silent 'Bija Mantras' coming to introduce his newly interpreted version of Shankaras teachings (complete without Mahavakyas and all!!)

Many of these missionary movements were spurred by the 'Hindu Reinassance' which was a rivialistic mood that swept India in the 1800's. Many of them were severly stricken with hyper-maslucline disorder and had primitive attitudes towards women as many of their ancestors in the "MIDDLE AGES" did.

So it does not suprise me at all that 'Certain Gaudiyas' chose not to mention the fact that their esoteric Meditation praction consisted of imagining oneself as a 'FEMALE' wearing a 'SARI' with nice hair etc etc. They left that out because all the other 'Sanyassins' from the other 'Missionary Schools' were all Male-Dominated.

Part of the reason me thinks...

 

jijaji

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-01-2002).]