The other side of my thoughts on Puri

[Guest guest]

Hi Manas,

 

Your feelings are justified. I presented a pretty one sided view.

 

After I wrote that, I visited some other aspiring Western Vaisnavas and

asked them what they think our Guru Varga, namely, the Gaudiya Math

Acaryas including Bhaktivedanta Swami, and the collective seniour

devotees present, including a number of men and woman in their middle

ages, having been devotees for 20 years or more, unanimously agrees that

our Gurus were against the policies of the Jaganath Puri Temple on the

same grounds you state.

 

I was a bit taken back, having thought I heard a different approach

once, and somehow feeling it in myself a bit.

 

I myself am able, by my karma, to be very easily speaking on behalf of

the Autocratic Theocratic view of Orthodox Hinduism. But oddly, for

myself, actually, I often cannot feel it myself. It's a dichotomy I live

out for reasons of my various karmas and conditionings.

 

I personally am one of those who judges people solely by their

character. I was raised in a very multi-racial multi-cultural Oakland

California, in the era of Post Martin Luther King effects, and present

day with the Black Panthers, the SLA, and overall general Hippie

Activism in the 60's and 70's peace and love era. That's in me.

 

I was in Berkeley with the Army National Guard fully bayonetted 6 rows

deep all the way down the main streets surrounding the University in

response to Vietnam and the Kent State killings by the National Guard.

In other words, if you know this era and area at all, it was the home of

the Hippies in those days, the stage of the rock and roll drug

revolution, anti-Vietnam activism, and other things which represented

revolution by a large part of the youth against American culture up to

that point, which contained more gross materialism, and great amounts of

White Superiority presence in America. In the early sixties, Martin

Luther King changed America through his very successful civil rights

movement on behalf of the African Americans and others. If you know the

era I grew up in, and where I grew up, you realize I was IMMERSED in

this consciousness in a very big way.

 

I went to High School in a Catholic High School which was eavenly 1/3rd

Chicano, 1/3 African American, and 1/3 White. There were no fights in 4

years. In the period of Oakland and California that I grew up in, at

least in this Catholic High School in one of the worst areas of poverty

and crime in Oakland, there was absolutely a mood of non-prejudice based

on race or culture. Everybody was treated equally. I had friends in all

categories. I "slept over" and was in rock bands with, went to parties

with, grew up with, African Americans, lots of them in close proximity,

and Chicanos equally. I know both of these cultures intimitely at least

as far as Oakland goes.

 

I was deeply involved with Franciscan priests in High School. I was

going to the Seminary to become one. There was ABSOLUTELY a mood of

non-prejudice based on race. It wasn't even an issue. I grew up where we

all brothers and sisters, and mostly I was with people who would add

"we're ALL Gods children". That's absolutely Catholic, and definitely

Franciscan.

 

That's how I was raised. That's how I am personally actually.

 

I do however resort to only one last thought in favor of Puri's ways,

leaving aside all religious considerations, philosophical

considerations, etc., and say this:

 

Enough already with disrupting indiginous cultures. Leave standing that

which remains if it be non-violent and it wants not to be invaded.

 

I think these both apply to modern Puri. I know for sure that they have

fought off government and populous and international opinion battles

already in recent years. They clearly consistantly vote amongst

themselves to not change this policy.

 

So I'm saying, let's learn from Tibet and other invaded places, that

some places, should just be left alone.

 

On that grounds I think we could back off? That's like calling the

philosophical battle a non-issue. Then it just becomes something to

discuss in National Geographic, for Westerners or the whole world to

marvel over- "a strict religious practice which by seeming definition

defies it's own dictum as if blind to obvious reality".

 

On the other hand, some might argue, that taking birth within their

restrictive definitions is somehow special. They might have some reason

to believe that. There probably is some sort of religious definition on

their end that's meaningful to them, and so then again it's really up to

us as to whether we're going to bother them constantly because one of

their beliefs rubs our intellect the wrong way.

 

But the kind, socially conscious, and non-interferring me says "since

they ain't hurting us, why not just let them have it their way in their place".

 

Then, if someone of that mood comes forth in the world and speaks that

mood out, that too, what of it? It's something authentic from a certain

sub section of the Hindu population- it too is just an offering to the

reader, not something that is being demanded.

 

So I'm for non-interference in other words. Especially when it comes to

still standing ancient cultures and beliefs. At least it's old and

interesting, provocative. I really doubt that anyone in the West is

going to ACTUALLY start to feel that they are less. I think pretty much

EVERYONE would see it the way Martin Luther King would see it. I think

even Gandhi fought against it. I think it's pretty obvious that the only

people that REALLY let if affect them is the priests or council in

control in Puri itself.

 

I haven't ever met anyone who REALLY FULLY believed in those things who

lived at all in any part of the modern India or any other part of the

world. I've met those kind of believers only in the villages in India,

for what that's worth.

 

So you see, I can see it both ways. Like I said, I just have some sort

of tendency to be able to repeat what sounds like Orthodox Hindu logic

or philosophy. Some of it I really believe, but some of it rubs me after

I write it, sometimes.

 

This is because I'm in motion regarding realizations. Kindof at a high

speed these days.

 

One more thing, the Brihat Parashara Hora Sastra says that the student

of Jyotish must be known to the teacher, yet we see all teachers we've

seen so far are teaching people they've never met through the internet,

books, software, lectures, etc. Obviously, Jyotish wouldn't spread if to

learn it you had to go to India, stay and get to know a teacher, and if

qualified in character, then trained manually. That would take time. Few

would do it. Then those who did could come back and teach those they

know, but this process would be slow, though it could happen.

 

So, most of us are products of "breaking the rules". Interesting thought.

 

My Guru taught "mercy before justice", meaning, that in this age of

Kali, in our line, Sri Caitanya and Lord Nityananda, gave out their

jewels to everyone equally, regardless of race or caste. Sri Caitanya

went along with Caste things in some places, not attempting to change

them, but he himself taught that it did not apply to Krishna Bhakti at

least. And he like the Gita and Bhagavatam, praised this as the Supreme

Yoga. So there too, He who lived in Puri, taught otherwise.

 

Thanks for listening,

 

Das Goravani

 

 

 

 

 

 

2852 Willamette St # 353

Eugene OR USA 97405

 

or

Fax: 541-343-0344

 

"Goravani Jyotish"

Vedic/Hindu Astrology Software