madanbhakta

Thank you for providing that article. It does remind me though that I am somewhat in a pickle, because I have a same-sex (particularly non-sexual) relationship with a significant other. We are both male, and both Gaudiya Vaishnavas, although we are both from two different Missions. We both aspire to become initiated some day.

I am wondering how such a call to gender roles come to play with such relationships. In any case, I do not mind taking the role of a servitor, and seeing him as my 'gurudeva'. If I can make him happy, then Krishna will be happy with me.

At the moment, I am studying Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math and their guru-acharya, Srila Govinda Maharaj. I have read only a fraction of the books of his predecessor, Srila Sridhar Maharaj, and I was impressed of the balance between sentimentality towards Krishna as Supreme God and the logic he presented.

If you ever read "Sri Guru and His Grace" by Srila Sridhar Maharaj, he talks about how the guru is as good as God Himself on Earth, being a representative of Krishna, and by surrendering to a Vaishnava, and only by prapatti, we can come back Home, back to God. By both philosophy and sentimentality, we can surely reach the spiritual world of Krishna!

The point is, can you ultimately trust your guru to teach you, to take all of your karma and go back to God? Does he blatantly claim with pompousness that he is God Himself, or does he, with great humility, claim to be the servant of the servants of God? If yes, then you are ready for initiation, especially under your chosen guru. If he is not 'bona fide' then your search must go on.

One can never come to Krishna in full immensity until one surrenders to a realised spiritual master.

Hare Krishna!

In my limited Gaudiya understanding, Maha-Vishnu is an expansion of Lord Krishna. Maha-Vishnu is the incarnation of Lord Krishna in the aspect of Creator, then divided into Kshirodakashayi-Vishnu (Dweller in the heart of every living being, Paramaatmaa, etc.) and Garbhodakashayi-Vishnu (Creator and Dweller in the Macrocosmic forms, universes, etc.).

Worship of Krishna is worshipping all His incarnations and demigods. He is fully sufficient.

Jai Sri Krishna!

As others have already observed, the name "Hindu" is derived from a word used by foreigners to describe people living in ancient India. Over time it has come to refer to the many and sundry traditions that at least theoretically accept the authority of the Veda. There is nothing wrong with such a usage provided that people don't read too much into it.

 

The problems start when some people (usually Hindu) start speaking of "Hinduism" as if it is single religion, usually by attributing many ideas to the "Hindu religion" that are in fact beliefs of Advaita or neo-Advaita.

 

Unfortunately, iskcon usage also perpetuates this when iskcon people blindly criticize the term "Hindu" without understanding context. It's all very nice and good to speak of "Vaishnava" as a spiritual designation, but the fact of the matter is that most Hindus are not Vaishnavas, and for the purposes of discussion it is convenient to have one term to describe all of the Veda-derived religions rather than saying, "Vaishnavas, Shaktas, Shaivites, Smarthas, nyayis, yogis, etc" every time one would otherwise have just said "Hindu."

It's crazy, but I do believe that in order to keep the definition of Hinduism objective, it is imperative to teach that not all 'Hindus' (those who accept the Vedas as supreme; the definition doesn't imply whether a certain interpretation is orthodox or not) adhere to Adwaitic concepts or those of the Neo-Vedantic movement.

ISKCON does have this continual problem with using Hindu, but at the same time, although Srila Prabhupada said to his followers that his society was for Krishna Consciousness, and not 'Hinduism,' the ISKCON website has the Heart of Hinduism webpage at the same time! But non-ISKCON Gaudiya Vaishnavites have no problem with using the term 'Hindu'. It is quite annoying, especially even in the objective sense of the term, Hinduism has so many philosophies, and Adwaita Vedanta is only one of the many.

http://www.wva-vvrs.org/nectar/letter4.htm

Too bad it can not be clear cut and one can say "I believe in Shaivism" or "Vaishnavism is my own religion" or "I am a Shakta, and I worship Shakti" kind of thing. To correspond on how some people may use 'Vaishnava' as a blanketing term, when I am with people who may be sensitive to the word 'Hindu' I just use the 'Vedic religions - religions that derived themselves from the Veda'.

Yes the central messages of many religions may be universal; the problem begins when they fancy that their labels and boxes are also universal, and all must enter their box.

It is indeed strange how labels work. ISKCON presents itself, as per Srila Prabhupada, as a non-sectarian movement, but they are dubbed the 'Hare Krishnas' and given such a label, that many people unfamiliar with Vaishnavism call it the 'Hare Krishna religion.'

True, but there are lots of factors behind this mentality. It has quite a bit of self-defense in the face of other world-religions proclaiming superiority in corresponding ways. Several theories regarding the Aryan-invasion, Christian influence on Hinduism, the backward nature of Hinduism, etc. were played decisively during the British rule to undermine Hinduism: we still suffer from such inferiority-complexes and blame ourselves and our religion with half-baked understanding. Those who want out of such try and cling their egos to these special features of the religion.

 

To quote the Lord Macauley's address to the British Parliament Feb 2 1835:

 

I have traveled across length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief, such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of high caliber, that I do not [think] we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage. Therefore I propose we replace the ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is Good and greater than their own, they will loose their self esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.

 

By no small means has this fellow's statement proven prophetic !! But one wonders what he saw; somehow he saw the living Message behind the outer infrastructures (like varna, etc): he was able to sense that the religion worked and also how to damage its working.

<!-- END MAIN APPLICATION CONTENT -->

What a terrible ideal... but it seems that the strength of India has been its spiritual wealth... but yes, in times of such statements, I know that Vaishnavism is a wonderful, although with the tendencies of orthodoxy and orthopraxy, religion, and Shaivism too.

Yes definitely I would recommend. Perhaps you can try other forums. I am familiar with Sri Vaishnavas of Sri Ramanujacharya. If you are in Canada, there should be Vaishnava organizations and temples.

As far as I know (living in Western Canada) only ISKCON and other Gaudiya Vaishnava devotees are apparent. There is a Pushtimargiya presence in Ontario, but that is about it.

Yes, of course the Shaiva Siddhanta has strong holdings in South India and Sri Lanka. Satguru Shivaya Subramuniyaswami established a center at Hawaii, philosophically with a greater leaning toward Advaita (although he rejects the total position) than the center in South India. But they trace their lineage back to times gone by and are part of the "Kailasa parampara". I guessed you meant this group since you said "Church"; they specifically want to bring in such an organization-principle to establish the "organized world-religion" position for Hinduism. That's fine, all relevant in the right context.

 

It is interesting that the Guru was initially associated with the Smarthas (liberal Hindus), in particular with the Vedanta group from Ramakrishna mission. Later he rejected them, as well as the projection of the Bhagavad Gita as the Bible of Hinduism, which he saw as a preaching of violence. He went to Sri Lanka and became a staunch Shaivite. His take on the Gita also shows how Hinduism can defy the intellectual grasp, especially for those coming from other cultures. One must look to the history of the people to see how the Message permeated the lives.

Well, I know that Satguru Shivaya Subramuniyaswami wanted to establish an organisation to protect Shaiva Dharma and called it the 'Shaiva Siddhanta Church' and such is its proper name (I believe he began preaching in the mid-1950's so the label may have been appropriate back then).

But I appreciate their Church's work because of how they represent the openness of Shaiva Dharma to non-Indian peoples. Although I reject Shaiva Siddhanta, since it is mainly impersonalist, I do not ignore their sincerity in their devotion to Lord Shiva. Actually, my online friend is a closeted Shaivite who is Caucasian.

Anyways, as a Vaishnava, it is very difficult. I say this because to a Vaishnava, Shiva has always been a servant of God, not God Himself. Many Vaishnavas would be uncomfortable being lumped with Shaivas, Shaktas, and 'liberal Hindus.' I do not have too much of a problem, but the due to the call for disassociation with impersonalists and impersonalism, we can not but only hang with Vaishnava Hindus...

Welcome to Audarya Fellowship!

 

I have said this before. There is a separate section exclusively assigned for the Hare Krishnas on this forum. For some reason, they seem to be unable to grasp the concept. Instead, they have all converged on the generic siprituality section and made it their playground where vaishnava = gaudiya vaishnava and or anything else they choose to redefine as from time to time based on circumstances. As for acknowledging other brances of Vaishnavas the reaction is who, what, where???

 

You a Sri Vaishnava are just as unwelcome as a Shaiva or anyone else for the simple reason that you do not agree with them on everything as evident by beggar challenging your presence here for not accepting Gaudiya scripture as authority.

 

Cheers

Shvu,

Haribol!

I do not want to take away from the main topic of this forum, but it does say 'Vaishnava' and not 'Gaudiya Vaishnava' so any Vaishnavite is welcome to give his or her respective answer to the question.

Being a practitioner of Gaudiya Vaishnavism myself, I do realise that not all Vaishnavites will accept Upadeshamrita, Chaitanya-Charitamrita, Bhakti-rasamrita-sindu, Hari-bhakti-vilasa, Brahma-samhita, and other Gaudiya Scriptures. Furthermore, I still accept all Vaishnavites as my brothers and sisters in God, whether Sri, Pushtimargi, Nimbarki, or Gaudiya.

As a Gaudiya, I accept and am aware of the other branches of Vaishnavism.

Radhe Shyam.

I was also wondering about this, because at the moment I am studying the writings of Srila Sridhar Maharaj, and the more that divulge with Srila Govinda Maharaj's devotees, the more that I feel that Srila Govinda Maharaj is my own guru... but who knows that until I am totally ready...

Anyways, it is likely that the people who I will meet will be from ISKCON. And being attracted (romantically, not sexually) to those of the same-sex, it will be a great demand of tolerance on many peoples' sides. I do expect myself to follow no illicit sex, but at the same time, I have attachments to companionship.

But yes, marriage is considered a secular institution outside of Gaudiya philosophy. Maybe one day I will meet my Krishna conscious man, or maybe I will be led a life as a single person. Who knows? ^___^ But love Krishna within whoever you wish!

bhaktajan,

After contemplation and talking about the issue with other devotees, I was thinking of this verse when I was making my mention, by Srila Pabhupada:

"The chanting should be hears, however, from the lips of a pure devotee of the Lord, so that immediate effect can be achieved. As far as possible, chanting from the lips of a nondevotee should be avoided, as much as milk touched by the lips of a serpent causes poisonous effect."

As well as some of the Ten Offenses to the Holy Name:

5 - To give some interpretation on the holy name of the Lord.

6 - To consider the glories of the holy name of the Lord as imagination.

9 - It is an offense to preach the glories of the holy name of the Lord to the faithless.

10 - If one has heard the glories of the transcendental holy name of the Lord but nevertheless continues in a materialistic concept of life, thinking “I am this body and everything belonging to this body is mine [aham mameti],” and does not show respect and love for the chanting of the Hare Krsna maha-mantra, that is an offense.

My own fear is that when spreading the Mahamantra, people may hold on to these mayavadi and impersonalist views, yet still chant the Holy Name of Krishna. I now understand that we must spread the Holy Name, but only intimate the details if they choose to become devotees.

Jaya Radhe,

madanbhakta

 

We must quote sastra when expressing a scriptural maxim:

 

Sri Caitanya Caramrita lila Madhya 15.109 —“By chanting the holy name of the Lord, one dissolves his entanglement in material activities. After this, one becomes very much attracted to Krsna, and thus dormant love for Krsna is awakened.

 

CC Madhya 15.110 —“‘The holy name of Lord Krsna is an attractive feature for many saintly, liberal people. It is the annihilator of all sinful reactions and is so powerful that, save for the dumb who cannot chant it, it is readily available to everyone, including the lowest type of man, the candala. The holy name of Krsna is the controller of the opulence of liberation, and it is identical with Krsna. When a person simply chants the holy name with his tongue, immediate effects are produced. Chanting the holy name does not depend on initiation, pious activities or the purascarya regulative principles generally observed before initiation. The holy name does not wait for any of these activities. It is self-sufficient.’”

But how can we go about such without thinking of how Lord Chaitanya Himself used the Qur'an to argue that Vaishnava morals and the personality of God was found in the Qur'an itself? Surely, perhaps the Qur'an may be a crude Vaishnavite literature, or perhaps not. However, Lord Chaitanya used it as an argumentative tactic and eventually won the hearts of the Muslims.

Srila Prabhupada was spreading Vaishnavism as the path of Krishna-bhakti. There is definitely no doubt about that.

My learning comes from Srila Prabhupada and Srila Sridhar Maharaj. I am a Gaudiya Vaishnava. It wasn't the terms that Srila Prabhupada argued, since he said that a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. can practice bhakti through chanting Hare Krishna. But it is the attachment to those names, and not the Holy Name, that make the illusion.

It may be true God has no religion, nationality or sex. It may also be true for the individual soul. In practice however, the person comes with such baggage, so the equation and its parameters must be relevant at that level, so that we can get out of that level.

You say it, Lilaji!

I understand though that such designations are necessary because we are necessarily part of this material shakti of God, differentiated due to the results of past karma. From this perspective, it does remind me of the accounts of ISKCON with its earlier adherents saying "I am not this body; I am spirit soul."

Also, from this supposed 'reality' of an undesignated God and soul and the reality of our material existence dependent upon labels to distinguish paths and philosophies, this understanding would make many of the religions quite universal.

Theoretically speaking, when we say "Hindu", it is not to demean another religion but to identify our religious position, family and community. When Sri Prabhupada says "Hindu while preaching", it is not simply to pander to people's ignorance but to validate the word at its proper level of discussion; we cannot belittle the usage. When he rejects "Hindu", the connotation is different: there it is a rejection of the "superiority" mentality that can come with such identification.

 

If I am asked "Who are you?", I might say "I am krishnaleela [my name]", not "I have no name, I am only the atma, etc,".

I have never thought that Srila Prabhupada would use his constant examples of "I may be a Hindu, and you may be a Christian..." would refer to people using labels and names as an exercise in superiority before!

But when I hear statements from Hindus of 'all paths lead to God' 'Hinduism is the oldest religion on Earth' (for the assertion that old = original or best), or that 'all religions came from Sanaatana Dharma, Hinduism', it makes me think of how many Hindu souls' egos would float from such statements.

I often feel that too many Western Advaitins and Hare Krishnas unnecessarily cringe at the label 'Hindu' without even establishing a solid definition first. Why not embrace another label? It won't hurt your soul!

As for Hinduism and 'India', they are inseparable. India is the birthplace of the religion, and is similar to Hindus as Jerusalem for the Jews and Mecca for the Muslims. But one does not have to be Indian (as per today's criterions) to identify oneself as Hindu; the reference is to the principles followed rather than to the birth-land or residence.

I guess. But Even with Judaism (there used to be an active preaching edge with Hinduism before the World Wars, and conversion is definitely allowed within the religion) or Islam, there is not much of a focus on a centralised people. But then again, I think of the inherent Arabic influences of Islam, the subtleties of Iranian culture in the Baha'i Faith, the European ways and music in Christianity, and the Semitic influence in Judaism.

Nevertheless, Hinduism, seemingly being the oldest form of religion in the world, has grown so intertwined with India that it is so difficult to separate them. Indian culture and Hindu culture are almost one and the same. From gender roles, to respect of elders and family, and the arts that are Hindu-influenced are also inevitably Indian-influenced.

Yes, of course it preaches, especially today. The world is much smaller. You are right also that the Hindu in general is not actively seeking converts from other religions, but there is the internal tradition of vada between schools of thought. But such an aspect is not a definition of "Hindu": Lord Chaitanya is a great Bhaktha and for the majority of Hindus, Bhakthi is understood as central. He was calling for all to sing the name of the Lord, more than to profess a certain dvaitha faith and beat down on mayavadis. Hindus identify with him directly and of course to Sri Krishna. There is no "fringe" with Sri Chaitanya; only sampradaya differences.

I have heard some people (rather with pettiness) say that Hare Krishnas are not Hindu because they are active preachers. Such a statement veritably reeks of superiority-vs-inferiority.

Lord Chaitanya was very interesting. At one point of view, His movement of Krishna-bhakti and sankirtana was a successful movement in breaking down sectarian barriers and uniting peoples of differing varnas and outside perspectives with a unifying practice. Yet the 'brahma-madhva-gaudiya sampradaya' seems to differentiate from other sampradayas or congregations. One ISKCON devotee told me that although all Vaishnavites are Vaishnava, eventually there will be only one sampradaya (Gaudiya) and that ISKCON will lead them.

But hey, Lord Chaitanya's movement prophesied that the Holy Name will be spread all over the world, into every town and village. Perhaps in time, we may be able to tell...

Yes, this is something subtle. That is why I said the definition is relevant only in the right context. In the world-religion setting, it is important to present the fundamentals, give that top-down picture, so that others can relate to it. But if the Hindus just pander to such idea, they might be selling themselves out, creating an image that does not fit the grander nature of their religion. Recall the ideal comes from "God has no religion or nationality", God also sees your heart more than your construction creed and formula. Wicca is perhaps idealizing such a position; I don't care to beat them down.

 

BUT the Hinduism is a living example of that ideal brought forth in religious lives of the millions. We cannot comprehend how all it works, for if we try, we start writing formulas and messing up. Just observe and know the grandeur. The urbaner is lost to the meaning and running for easy definitions; the person outside wants to belittle it and call the Whole as a sum of basically-independent parts. And in our ignorance, we want to preach, correct and make all fit the box-mentality we have entered.

 

We have to consider this aspect carefully.

One could say that by this very definition, God is Hindu, because there is no straight definition of the religion, yet the many philosophical traditions seem to have very similar practices, beliefs and terminology. Only the theology and God-focus differs.

This is true for most Hindus who adhere to a fixed sampradaya. But we tend not to find such Hindus who adhere!! That is a different matter.

Hey, I pretty much follow the bandwagon as one of those non-Indians who chose the Gaudiya sampradaya, thanks to the efforts of ISKCON and Srila Prabhupada in presenting the tradition. And it is a very beautiful tradition of which speaks of raso vai sah.

Although I wish I could hang out with other Vaishnavas who are part of Nimbarkacharya's (Nimbarki), Ramanujacharya's (Sri) and Vallabhacharya's (Pushtimargiya) congregations. The only association I have had is one who is a Nimbarki and another who was part of ISKCON and is now coming into Pushtimarg, both on Facebook. XD

I suppose you are referring to the one in Hawaii. I have great respect for them and their position with regard to Hindu unity. See, the position of Hinduism as a world religion requires this sort of boxing, and in that context, we have to join hands even as we present our different final viewpoints and ways of worship. Our main traditions began in one land, are co-related, have primary scripture as Vedas, and so on. Krishna is God-incarnate for dvaitins and advaitins alike. And there are all the subtleties of Hinduism that relate us and cannot be brushed aside.

 

The Shaiva Siddhanta Church (at least its founder) in Hawaii is not particularly admiring of the Bhagavad Gita, and as the connotation "liberal Hindus" show, not of that group as well. Let that be: I fall in that group (!!) and don't agree with all they say, but my focus like theirs is the Whole. It does not matter that they differ from me, so long as in the context of world-religions, there is that Hindu solidarity.

Well, Shaivites, from what I know from Satguru Shivaya Subramuniyaswami's books, is that Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita are Vaishnava Scriptures, and that the Tirumantiram should be read instead.

I assumed the Shaiva Siddhanta Church had many branches, but I guess they only have one in Hawai'i. In any case, their literature and books and the distribution of them is amazing. I have great respect for their attempt to crystallise the essence of Shaiva Siddhanta sampradaya and to continue its existence. Just as ISKCON seems to be the main representative of Vaishnavism in the West, the Shaiva Siddhanta Church represents Shaivite Hinduism in the West as well.

I guess it is better to have distant family than no family at all, lol. It is important that we are recognised as legitimate forms of spiritual and religious practice, for I know that some countries do not even recognise Hinduism as a religion, but a cultural construct limited to its 'founding peoples'.

I used to argue in these forums against people of other sampradayas; all fun, but now it has become a pain to do any such for the central Hindu-unity is lacking across the forums. So that is the only thing I care about.

Aww, but uniting Hindus are fun! Although there are slight nuances that can not be ignored (for example, the Chaitanya follower should not listen to commentaries of the Bhagavad Gita or of Krishna unless they are some form of Vaishnavite and come from a personalist perspective).

Besides, I find it much fun to tell people that I am a Filipino-Canadian Hindu. It certainly becomes a teaching tool for me to show how diverse Hinduism can be.

Jaya Radhe, Radhe Shyam!

madanbhakta

Haribol, krishnaleela!

Although I take both siksha learning from Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada, and slowly and most elegantly from Srila Sridhar Maharaj, I try to make myself aware that Srila Prabhupada essentially wanted all peoples from different religions to take up some form of bhakti practice, and in my limited and biased perspective, although he did use 'Hindu' at times to people when preaching, he proclaimed that his teachings were not Hindu because God has no religion.

I believe that he wanted this distinction because, in my limited understanding, a) Hindoo referred to those who were born in India or have Indian ethnicity, and thus a term latent of geographical and regional bias, and b) he could also have been referring to the so-called 'liberal Hinduism' as well as their worship of the 'demigods' save Vishnu/Krishna. Most other Gaudiya Vaishnavites outside ISKCON have no real problem of using 'Hindu' as long as the term is defined objectively, as according to belief in the Vedas.

At times, with certain people, I usually just say that Gaudiya philosophy is on the 'fringe' of Hindu Dharma, simply because Lord Chaitanya Himself, unlike most of the 'Hindu' sampradayas, called for active preaching. But then again, although people say that Hinduism doesn't preach, I believe it does in a subtle way. Travelling swamis do not travel for nothing!

And I do agree that the term 'Hindu' can largely ignore the more cultural and regional subtleties of religious practice. But at the same time, Wicca, a Neo-Pagan religion, proclaims itself as a religion with no constructed creed or central cult creed, object, formula, etc.

Even with Gaudiya Vaishnavism, ISKCON's version of it seems to have crystallised the philosophy through their 'four regulative principles' and the goals of the Society. In other Gaudiya organisations, there is a somewhat lack of a centralised creed that would even define a Vaishnava.

I do like how Hinduism is a living tradition, or at least Chaitanya Vaishnavism, for the beliefs are carried on through the guru and their writings. The Guru-shastras are almost as good as the Vedas themselves!

I have often wondered whether one should even separate the supposed 'denominations' of Shaivism, Shaktism, Vaishnavism, and liberal Hinduism or not. I am aware that the Shaiva Siddhanta Church, although their material is largely Shaivite, likes to include the 'denominations' whilst ISKCON, a large and preaching Gaudiya organisation, rejects bunching them together.

I have no idea where I stand myself, but it can be very difficult when it comes to describing myself outside of the 'Hindu' fold as a Hindu myself.

Anyways, as Gaudiya preachers always say, "We are spiritually individualised souls, not these material bodies." Any designation, from Gaudiya, Hindu, Vaishnava, and even 'Hare Krishna' (a designation which I strongly dislike) are all self-imposed by the false ego. So it is all irrelevant in the spiritual planes.

Jaya Radhe,

madanbhakta

Hi madanbhaktha, as I said the context of the definition is important. I was afraid my proposed "objective" definition was too academic to include the majority who are also to be included as Hindus, so sought to clarify. Yes, Hinduism can be taken as a world religion and approached in the sense that you and most others in urban settings (including myself) do. I am also happy on your position of being Vaishnava-Hindu.

 

But the nature of the development of "Hinduism" is not entirely top-down. The sampradaya for most is local-tradition of worship, passed down the generations in family or village setting. And each person has a unique way of connecting to that Divine-behind-Existence. We have to see the tree in each such flower. It is different with linearly-organized religions where every member attests to a common formula, a scripture, a founder, a personality, a God. When I said "world religion", I meant it in the context of such organization (not the particular Indian nationality), which is not an inherent feature of Hinduism. Yes, we have sampradayas and scriptures, but that is but one aspect of Hinduism and its continuing evolution. The Hindu may not know the Vedas but may not be deprived or ignorant: that person's life may be in consonance with the Vedic message "All existence is Divine. Learn to see that Divinity everywhere"; that is how the message has permeated the people.

 

(We have to resist the temptation of grading our religion with the gradesheet of other religions).

Anyway, this is what Srila Sridhar Maharaj has to say about it:

http://www.vtweb.com/gosai/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vishnu_mjs/jiva/jiva.html

http://www.vtweb.com/gosai/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vishnu_mjs/jiva/origin_ssm.html

Dear Ron,

Allah-u-Abha, and Haribol!

Thank you for sharing the Baha'i interpretations of Vaishnava Scriptures (which do not speak to all Hindus, since Shaivites do not accept Mahabharata, Ramayana, or Bhagavad Gita). And if Baha'u'llah is an incarnation or 'Manifestation of God for the Hindus of this Age,' the supposed 'Nineth Avatar of Lord Krishna,' Lord Krishna as revealed in the Gita prefers that we worship His form, Shyamasundara (His beautiful form as a blackish raincloud), and remember Him. At about the end of Chapter Nine, Krishna says that anyone who worships His form (as He manifested Himself during that incarnation) will surely come to Him, and of course, Bhagavad Gita 18:66 was very clear.

Also, as a Gaudiya, we believe that when Lord Chaitanya came on this Earth, He gave us the Holy Name of Lord Krishna as Naam-avatara that will bring the Age of Truth. This Naam-avatar, or incarnation of the Holy Name, is the Name of Lord Krishna: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare. Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare. We believe that the true universal religion is the chanting of the Names of God, whether it be 'Allah' 'Jehovah' 'Yahweh' 'Waheguru' 'Amitabha' 'Al-Abha' 'Ahura Mazda' or 'Krishna'.

Although we are part of Sanaatana Dharma, and are part of 'Hinduism' God consciousness goes beyond our sacraments and Indic-inspired practices. The chanting of the Name of God is blissful and is sufficient in this age for development of devotional love (bhakti). You chant 'Allah-u-Abha' and we chant 'Hare Krishna'. The essence is the same. To us, Naam-avatara is Kalki-avatara, not Baha'u'llah, although He may be accepted as an expansion of Lord Krishna in the form of a God-conscious Man. The Hare Krishna Mahamantra is Vishnu-yasha, or the Glory of Vishnu, not Baha'u'llah.

Many blessings of Krishna to you,

madanbhakta.

I don't know much, and I have no guru shastra behind my back on this one, but in my understanding, all individual souls began to dwell in jiva-shakti, not in antaranga-shakti, where the abode of Krishna is. We actually serve Krishna in the marginal potency, or tatastha-shakti/jiva-shakti, and then become attracted to the material world (maya-shakti or bahiranga-shakti). From my neophyte understanding, it was our false-ego and to serve it rather than to serve God that brought us down.

When we 'fall' onto the material world, we can be in the realm of the demigods, in a hellish existence on Earth, or go directly to Krishna-dhama (via vaidhi-bhakti [loving devotional service through Scriptural orthopraxy], which develops ragaatmika [spontaneous love] and mukti [liberation]), enveloped by His antaranga-shakti (internal potency, or spiritual energy).

1. Antaranga-shakti (internal potency / spiritual energy, also called Krishnaloka, the Kingdom of God)

2. Tatastha-shakti (marginal potency / marginal energy, also called jiva-shakti, because it is the realm of servant souls of Krishna; it dwells between the upper antaranga-shakti and the lower bahiranga-shakti)

3. bahiranga-shakti (external potency / material energy, the realm of material existence)

A diagram of Krishna's shaktis would help a lot. And if anyone has any guru-shastras to help with this and remove my mayic understanding, that would be great!

Having drunk coffee for such a long time, I am slowly getting off my addictions to hot chocolate and am drinking decaf coffee (and all its wonderful chemicals to make it decaffeinated). I still drink and eat chocolate, but I am trying to eat the stuff in moderation now. I have been having trouble sleeping for the past month though.

Even the smell of caffeinated coffee can stimulate a person. It's crazy how much of a Starbucks society we now live in. And as a result of my friend being a barista there, he developed a kidney stone from too much coffee.

Now I just need to exercise and emphasise those greens...

Jaya Radhe!

If you follow Gaudiya philosophy, many may argue that you should not be deviating from what Lord Chaitanya Himself taught us. There have been many who have been making up their own mantras, saying "Nitai-Gaura, Radhe Shyam, Hare Krishna, Hare Ram," but if we are to follow shastra, we should learn to appreciate the Names of God, Haraa, Krishna, and Raama. This is the mantra that has the power to bring bhakti and liberation according to the Scriptures, and those sixteen Names, especially if to come to Krishna-bhakti, should be left unchanged.

However, if you don't follow Gaudiya philosophy, then you can chant anything you want. However, don't chant it at the temples or in front of Gaudiya devotees, lol.

Haribol!

From what I can see, the movement is certainly growing up, although it's reputation has been permanently blackened by corrupt demoniacs. Having come to the temple since November and still getting to befriend the devotees and doing service, I find my experiences rather positive, save for the fact that I feel inclined towards a Gaudiya Vaishnava guru outside of the movement.

More and more devotees are living at home and establishing families. I know for a fact that taking sannyasi is ultimately difficult and is actually pushed against in the Age of Kali. Also, the women seem quite happy, and I know that homosexuality is not much of an issue (except for the illicit sex) either. But the actual amount of followers are small, compared to the guests that they receive for their Sunday Love Feast. It is rather unfortunate, but at the same time, the blackened reputation of morally corrupt individuals did ruin it for everyone.

You don't need to 'join' the temple just to visit it; going to the Sunday Love Feast would be the safest and most wonderful opportunity to experience the glory of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Try reading the books, eat their prasadam, dance and chant the Mahamantra. I am sure you'll grow to love it!

Danielle, thank you for sharing your unfortunate experience. It is from your experience and many others that make me hesitant to receive initiation from the gurus within ISKCON. Being that it is a big organisation and that there are so many gurus within the system along with a lot of politics, I often worry about it. And I really am beginning to like Srila Sridhar Maharaj's writings too.

Anyways, God bless, and Jaya Radhe!

Haribol, Nevermore!

Although I am not part of ISKCON, I can surely try to help by providing on why I have chosen Vaishnavism, specifically Gaudiya Vaishnavism as my religion. ISKCON, or the International Society of Krishna Consciousness, is only one (and the biggest) of the many organisations out there that teach Gaudiya philosophy.

Everyone is always hankering for pleasure, love, beauty, and attraction. We go through life trying to apply these aesthetic attributes to material things, but when in reality, it is Krishna who is the Reservoir of Pleasure, the Lord of Love, the Most Beautiful, and the All-Attractive One. Developing a relationship with Krishna, chanting His Holy Name, worshipping His Lotus Feet, and dedicating everything to Him in total surrender (sharanagati) and faith (shraddha) brings us to His Abode when we leave this Earth. Everything is only for Him, and He is the True Husband.

Lord Chaitanya, a Bengali reformer, spiritual devotee and incarnation of Krishna, taught us to develop love for God through chanting His Holy Name: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare. Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare. When we dance for Krishna, sing for Krishna, talk of Krishna, eat for Krishna, sleep for Krishna, pray to Krishna, He promises us in the Scriptures that we will come to Him.

That's why the Srimad-Bhagavatam says "Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Krishnas tu bhagavaan swayam.

Sarva-dharmaan parityajya, maam ekam sharanam vraja. Abandon all kinds of religion and surrender to Me alone. Bhagavad Gita, 18:66.

As for demonic activity, we must have total faith that Krishna will protect us and save us. The Mantra and chanting it invokes His Presence, and devotees have total confidence in the power of Krishna. Demons fear in Krishna's Name; there haven't been any 'exorcisms' or 'hallucinogenic experiences' in ISKCON that I know of. If you are experiencing hallucinations, I would advise a doctor before ascribing spiritual attributions to the occurences.

Hare Krishna!

Thanks for the information provided. Now I am realising the value of a guru in once life.

 

For the sake of knowlege, can you tell the defernce between dvaiti and advaiti.

From my limited knowledge, and adwaitin, or impersonalist, believes that the purpose in life is to merge into oneness with God, saying that everyone and everything is also God, but we have forgotten our eternal identity as God. It is monism, pantheism. This is Shankaracharya's teaching, but Vallabhi Vaishnavas also are adwaitic.

A dwaitin is one who believes that the individual soul (jivatma) and God are eternally separate. In the Gaudiya tradition, the soul is an eternal servant of Krishna who dwelled in Krishnaloka, but somehow came into the material world. Maya is this forgetfulness of one's relationship with the Lord. Ramanujacharya pretty much taught a dwaitic form of philosophy. It is monotheistic and/or panentheistic.

Whoever has better knowledge can correct me.

When I must identify myself to someone from India I say:

 

"I am harekrsna-harerama people"

 

So indoubtably you too are a: "harekrsna-harerama people"

 

Try it, see how you like it. We could always do some adjustments. A tuck here, a tuck there. You'll look marvelous.

 

Why don't they call Christians, "Our Fathers"?

 

Also, in the western world the phrase "Hare Krishna" has a superlative sonic quality that can't be surpassed.

 

Remember: The first thing to instill in a neophyte or especially a non-believer is Krishna's name, form etc. How long do you resist saying the maha-mantra to a stranger's face?

 

ys,

Bhaktajan

Bhaktajan,

From what I am taught, we should not be teaching the Holy Name to just anyone, especially those who may make an offense to the Holy Name of Lord Krishna. There are the 10 offenses to the Name, for one, and secondly, we must be careful and even avoid naamabhasa, that is, saying the Name in the attitude of neutrality.

If they are willing to learn and respect Krishna, and even grow to love Him, we may reveal His Name. But the Mahamantra should be passed to those who are willing to develop love for Krishna or God. For it is not in the chanting of the Holy Name, but rather of the service rendered beneath the sacred syllables that Krishna looks after.

Plus, 'Hare Krishna' as a religious designation always evokes ISKCON, and I am presently associating with Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math with present-day guru-acharya Srila Govinda Maharaj. The Gaudiya parampara also includes Tripurari Swami's group and Narayana Maharaj and his Sri Gaudiya Vedanta Society.

It is a nice idea, and I will definitely ponder upon it. Thank you!

LOL, if people were called by what they chanted, Baha'is would be "Allah-u-Abhas," Muslims would be "Bismillahis" or "Allah-u-Akbars," Jews could be "Shmas" and Buddhists would be "Namo-Amitabhas." Just a fun thought...

madanbhakta

Agree with this. you are not taking the point of vedas. vedas are the basics of hinduism. Krishna was an avtara not a god. In a lot of ancient temples they are not doing the rituals and mantras for krishna, but they are doing it for loard vishnu. never forgot about omkara and trimoortis.

The Trimurti are all Krishna. Vishnu is the avatara of Krishna like brahman, and Shiva and Brahma are avataras of Krishna as well in the forms of servants to Krishna. Even the Omkara is the symbol for Krishna, because Krishna is brahman, paramatma and bhagavan, Om Tat Sat, and Saccidananda-vigraha. Thus, Omkara, which is the essential base sound of the Vedas, means Krishna, for Krishna is the Source of all things. Bhagavad Gita is the essence of Vedic teaching, and if we read the Gita, we must therefore conclude that the Vedas teach of Krishna according to His form as brahman.

The Srimad-Bhagavatam, or Bhagavata Purana, is considered the best of Puranas because it has been called the cream of the Vedas. It is the essence of what the Vedas attempt to teach in eternal servitude to God. It says in SB 1.3.28:

"ete camsa-kalah pumsah

krsnas tu bhagavan svayam

indrari-vyakulam lokam

mrdayanti yuge yuge"

"All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Sri Krsna is the original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists. The Lord incarnates to protect the theists."

When one reads the Gita, one can see that Krishna makes a difference between Himself and other people's souls. If we take it with a plain reading, without interpreting it with metaphorical Adwaita, we can see the philosophy of acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva. The conclusions are quite clear that Krishna is the Supreme Conception of God, and His avatars continually teach this supremacy.

Question. Can any other relegion converted to hindu?. If yes how?

Well, it depends on where you go. The Arya Samaj, who reject 'idol worship' and only follow the Vedas, have a 'purification ceremony' that one can go into. But otherwise, there is no conversion in Hinduism, because Hinduism is Sanaatana Dharma; it is the Eternal Duty for every individual soul.

Now, for the sampradayic denominations...

If you are a Shaivite, if you wish to 'become a Hindu,' one must let go of any organisation except Shaiva Dharma. They also take a Naamakarana Sanskara and change both first and last names. Those who have only one Sanskrit devotional name are usually called 'Ardha-Hindu' or half-Hindu. One can also follow the sampradayas by submitting themselves into a guru-sisya relationship and become initiated.

For Vaishnavites, at least from the Gaudiya standpoint, there is no real conversion; one can just adopt Vaishnava Dharma and begin. However, unless one submits emself to a guru, then there is no true learning. Thus, initiation can also make the Vaishnavite (although it is not limited to that).

For Shaktas, I believe that they also have sampradayas, but I do not know how they allow non-Shaktas into their fold.

These are all ethical conversions. But in Hinduism, there is no 'conversion' really, only affirmations of identity. Although I personally believe in Gaudiya Vedanta and practice the Gaudiya tradition, I can not call myself a true Vaishnava until I have become initiated and receive a guru to teach me of Krishna.

If Sanaatana Dharma means the Eternal Duty, and every soul (jiva) is part of this eternal servitude to Krishna, God, then every soul is a Vaishnava. The only thing necessary for them to become Vaishnava (a servant of Lord Vishnu/Krishna/God) in the sense of recovering one's true identity as an eternal slave to Krishna, is to practice bhakti (devotional service), shraddha (faith) and sharanagati (self-surrender).

Hindu word was come from the word sindu. It is used for addressing the people who lived in sindu valleys. This people spared across ffice:smarttags" /><st1:country-region><st1:place>India</st1:place></st1:country-region> and to some other nations. You can be a hindu by birth only. I mean the real hindu.

Yes, it was used to refer to the people who lived in the Sindhu valley. But hey, if they spread out, then how can they be Hindu (Sindhu) if they don't live there anymore? Many words of the 'sexual revolution' had words that indefinitely changed meaning ('gay' for one). Language changes.

But Hinduism (yes, with it's -ism) has grown to become the equivalent of "Vedic Dharma" (Vaidika Dharma) and encompasses anyone who believes in the Vedas as authoritative.

By this new and growing definition, I am a Hindu. And when I mention to other people that I am a Hindu, I use it as an opportunity to teach that most of Sanaatana Dharma is not polytheistic as some people think, but has monotheistic and panentheistic leanings (monistic and pantheistic if one goes with the Adwaitic schools), especially in regards to Shaktism, Vaishnavism and Shaivism.

Shaiva Siddhanta Church, as well as Gaudiya Vaishnavites and I don't look too lovingly on what Satguru Shivaya Subramuniyamiswami labelled 'liberal Hinduism' where Vaishnavite and Shaivite pantheons meet into one temple.

Personally I believe Jesus is God Almighty as the Bible says. And my knee bows to him, my tongue confesses and I account to Him.

 

He is all. Absolutely everything. The alpha and omega, beginning and end. All that existed, exists and yet to come. What else is there save Jesus?

Baha'u'llah said: "He that hath Me not is bereft of all things."

Muhammad is mentioned in the Qur'an as the "Mercy for the world."

Buddha said that "I was born into the world as the King of Truth for the salvation of the world."

Jesus said to worship the Father.

Krishna said "I am the seed-giving Father."

Krishna said "Forgoing all religious injunctions, take exclusive refuge in me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear."

Krishna said "Fix your mind on me. Be my devotee! Sacrifice for me. Offer obeisance unto me. Absorbed thus in me alone, you shall come to me."

Krishna said "...those great souls who take refuge in the divine nature worship me with undeviated minds, knowing me to be the origin of all things and imperishable."

When you have read the Gita with a plain reading, then come back to me.

Peace to all,

sorry to say im a non vegeterian, I was raised this way, and at 18 i still live with my parents. but nonetheless I want to chant Hare Krsna, is there anyway I can chant until i become a vegeterian.any advice or tips will be greatly appreciated.Peace

Hay iamwhatisayiam, Haribol!

I am 19 myself, and I still live with my mother. My whole family (extended) and all are Filipino Christians, coming from various sects of Christianity, and I am the only one who has deviated from that norm. I simply see Gaudiya philosophy as my personal way of life, and even moreso, Krishna is my love!

If you are independent like me, then I am sure that you can begin cooking food for yourself. If you are served by the cooking of your mother or father, then you will have to wait until you can move out to wholly practice bhakti yoga.

Just chant as you feel for now; if you only feel like doing one round, or sixteen rounds, then do it. There is no reason why you can't! ^___^ Krishna knows your heart, and I am sure He also knows of your sincerity to know Him and love Him through His Name. Just continue chanting, reading Scripture, hanging out with devotees, and eat as much vegetarian food as possible (first dedicating it to Krishna. "Lord Krishna, I just want to offer this food as an oblation of my servitude for Thee." Just say something from your heart and chant the Mahamantra a few times... you can memorise the Sanskrit prayers later ).

Eat prasadam, dance, and chant. That's what Prabhupada wanted!

Radhe Shyam,

madanbhakta.