madanbhakta

Well, in my limited understanding, not only are the demigods accordingly to the status of angels, they are also emanations, or manifestations of Krishna's shakti in material creation (bahiranga shakti). It says in the Gita that the one who worships the demigods actually worship Krishna, but in a wrong way, and that He is the receiver of all prayers and worship, the Reservoir of All Pleasures. Thus, Shiva, Brahma, Ganesha, Varuna, Indra, etc. are created emanations of Krishna's (or Vishnu's) bahiranga shakti (and Parvati, Saraswati, Durga, Kali, etc. are emanations of Radharani's [or Lakshmi's] shakti). But we are called by the Gita to worship Lord Krishna, or God, and not His emanation. Even our souls are emanations of Krishna's shakti. So if one were to look at it from the demigods-as--former-mortals vantage point, then one can also say that why worship a servant of God, when we are called to directly worship God? Why look at the finger pointing at the moon, when one can look at the moon itself? Personally, and I do not know if this is Vaishnava, I see the demigods as also differing facets of Godhead, but Krishna clearly states in the Gita that worship of Him is Supreme. Thus, while there are many conceptions of God, and the sages call Him by many names, the Krishna conception of God is the Highest, as shown in Srimad-Bhagavatam and Bhagavad Gita via a plain reading. If there is any guru-shastra or Scriptures on this, that would be helpful! ^___^ madanbhakta.

Dearest Shushan, I have only been associating with ISKCON since November, but I know for a fact that ISKCON is only a Society to help us become devotees, surrendered, spiritually-realised souls for Krishna. And although you may not agree with the writings of the gurus, I still believe that reading them would be of great benefit. Reading the writings of Srila Sridhar Maharaj has definitely left a mark on how starkingly different Krishna consciousness or conceptions of Krishna can be by looking it at different angles. Some people find it very difficult for certain parts of Gaudiya practice. For example, I have a more difficult time understanding why ISKCON devotees do not eat mushrooms (which are in the mode of ignorance) when eggplant, tomatoes and potatoes are in the same mode as well. Illicit sex is not a big problem for me though, although I know of a devotee whose one large contention is with this 'regulative principle'. Eh, regarding chocolate, only the more fundamentalist devotees are adamant about others not eating chocolate. But most Gaudiya devotees, both ISKCON-related and non-ISKCON-related, enjoy a cup of hot chocolate. According to ISKCON, tofu and soy are not offerable to Krishna, whilst in Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math, tofu and soy are definitely offerable, especially with vegan devotees! In SCS Math actually, the harmonium is not used specifically because worship music should not gratify the senses and to awaken a simple devotional love for God through our voices, the mrdanga and karataalas. Poverty (spiritual) is a virtue, and the story of Narada Muni and the elephant going through the eye of a needle is a wonderful example. So just because some devotees gratify their senses with very tasty prasadam, does not mean that you have to as well. I personally try not to eat eggplant, although I enjoy it when it is cooked by others. Onions and garlic are only eaten in situations where it would be rude to remove them, and meat is absolutely forbidden for myself. We are coming deeper and deeper into Kali Yuga, and thus allowances can be made. I have made the decision to only read books that preach of God-consciousness; I have several translations of the Qur'an, Bible, Baha'i Writings, along with my Vedic literatures. My music can be anything clean, but worship music should be simple. I offer everything, even when eating out in restaurants, to Krishna, and I try not to hang with drug-abusers, alcoholics, impersonalists, sex-addicts, etc. and try to hang with more God-loving peoples. Patience is necessary for spiritual progression. If we are too hard on ourselves, then we become simply frustrated. Srila Sridhar Maharaj said: "The center of all attraction is Krishna. His attraction is by beauty, by charm, and by love - and not by coercion and force. That is the Krishna conception of Godhead." With Krishna, there is no official policy. I and all others have no right to judge your spiritual capacity but Krishna alone. ISKCON, the gurus, and other Gaudiya organisations are tools to help one to become conscious of Krishna's presence as the ultimate conception of Beauty and Love. As soon as we create disharmony, then Krishna is displeased. If every soul is a Vaishnavite, an eternal servant of God, then we must try not to offend anyone. If Krishna is your Ishta-Deva, then listen to Him, pray to Him, and love Him as best you can. Chant His Name, continue associating with devotees, offer every foodstuff, action, suffering and sin to Krishna, and always think of Him constantly. Perhaps Krishna's mercy will grace you when you leave this earthly life. And of course, love your friends and family as servants of God, and worship Paramatma through them all. madanbhakta.

Forgive my naivetes, but although I am not even initiated under a guru, I still call myself a Hindu because of my practices. I practice Hare Krishna mantra-yoga via japa, puja time to time, darshana, read the Scriptures of Srimad-Bhagavatam, Bhagavad-Gita and guru-shastras, and of course, believe ultimately in the Supremacy and authority of the Vedas. I believe in Gaudiya Vedanta, and thus part of the Gaudiya Sampradaya of Vaishnavism. I am a Vaishnavite Hindu. I dislike the name 'Hare Krishna' because it is too ISKCON-specific; the Gaudiya tradition is by far large and each organisation, matha and temple seem to even have a different bhava. Actually, I loathe the name 'Hare Krishna' as a name of what I follow. It is too specific to ISKCON, and I prefer to be called Gaudiya, (Chaitanya/Gaudiya) Vaishnavite, or Hindu, or a mixture of the three. But I refuse to be called or be known by the name 'Hare Krishna'. That is our mantra, not our philosophy (Acintya-bheda-abheda, Gaudiya Vedanta). As Hinduism is becoming a world religion and is being more and more open to Westerners, it has ceased to be associated with Indian peoples (the 'Hindoos') and describes those who follow the Vedas and Sanaatana Dharma. The belief in their authoritativeness is more important than their interpretations. Many Hindus themselves claim that Hinduism is the Mother Religion and the origin of all religions. And of course, the Shaiva Siddhanta Church uses 'Hinduism' frequently to mask their strong Shaivite orientation (and indeed, I was sorely disappointed that their magazine, under the assumption that it would have allowed Shaktas, Vaishnavites, and 'liberal Hindus,' was totally Shaiva Dharma). Why can't Gaudiya Vaishnavites do similarily? As much as the Shaiva, Vaishnava, Smarta and Shakta paramparas (and 'liberal Hindus, if you want to count them) are constantly changing social contexts yet adhering to traditional beliefs, the word 'Hinduism' constantly changes along. As par BG 18:66, labels are still inevitable due to being an intrinsic part of maya-shakti in this short lifespan. I just try not to be so attached to them, for with attachment comes the ceasing of pure servitude, surrender and loving devotion without arguing over proper apellations. Therefore, I am a Filipino Hindu, and I am proud to be so. However, I am a Gaudiya Vedantin, rejecting the Adwaita philosophy that is so seemingly popular nowadays with the liberal, almagation-of-Shaivite-and-Vaishnavite-pantheons temples.