Guest guest Posted August 6, 2002 Report Share Posted August 6, 2002 Dear Das, That's a good preamble and I think it may take some time for the body of your understanding to take shape so that your thoughts express the gift I believe you wish to offer us. I should explain that as a person raised in New York and stayed on the East Coast, I have not been not aware of who Prahupada is or was, other than reading these posts. Here are some things I jotted down after reading what you wrote: To each his own (Guru, spiritually uplifting resonator.) To all, love for who you are...because all are God's...and thus all are my brothers and sisters. "I Am the Individual Who is fully expressed through your existence--all of you," said God. "I do not desire any of you to turn from Me," said God, "but to love one another, and in so loving, find Me." When I was a young girl I was told fairy tales. In Elementary school I read all the fairy tale books in the school library. Now I take with me the lessons and morality of those stories. But I forgot many of the character's names. The Christ Spirit is not a wrong concept--I think the Jewish people still look for it--what was wrong was the concept of sadness and martyrdom rather than joy and joyful giving of self to aid others. ECayce said Jesus laughed and joked on the way to the Cross! History omitted that. Saturn overtook Piscean love and made it a religion of rote instead of showing the Way as being founded on immutable Laws of Life, Truth, and boundless Love. They interpreted the letter of the law, not the spirit of fairness. Human law binds us, Divine Law frees us. See the good in all things. "There is too much misery in the world," I wrote to a movie director in the early 90's, "it is time to show the goodness". He later wrote Schindler's List, a movie celebration of compassionate courage in the face of incredible danger. The value of a historical person is not in his life but what his life means to you in your life. I had teachers I adored and ones I abhorred. I like to think of my favorites the most. They helped me realize I am capable of doing more and better than I had done before. When I believed them and followed through on their encouragement, I found their belief in me was vindicated. To debate a religious figure is the same thing as discussing politics. What's in it for you personally, to champion or pan another human being? You may not like this or that religion, but there are those who see clearly, no matter what religious group they belong to. Well, folks, that's what this discussion inspired me to jot down. Have a happy Tuesday evening! Love to all, Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2002 Report Share Posted August 6, 2002 Dear Robert, all Devotees of Prabhupada present, and others, About my post about "Prabhupada" (reminder, a phrase now, an institution, a metaphor grande) I realize that letter is shocking. This is because it's never done like that, that someone writes in opposition to Prabhupada. Really, Prabhupada disciples have rarely heard a devotee come forward like that. It's very rare. This is partly because of the recent memory of Sulocan das, shot dead through the head while parked in his vehicle near the Los Angeles temple by another devotee, because Sulocan was writing negative stuff about one of the Guru's, which turned out to be true. Although devotees like Robert will shrug this off, I used to also, I am using it because I have changed. This one event shows in material fact, a living principle within our movement, which is that you cannot, shall not, dare not, ever, criticize Prabhupada, or anyone like him, which is virtually everyone who led any part of Gaudiya Vaisnavism in any way in the past as well. So there's a ton of perfect Saints you have to listen to and never step on. So many birthdays and deathdays to honor. Guru is a BIG deal. So that's why Robert can't get over it. He cannot believe I would do this. He's only one voice so it seems, but believe me, any Prabhupada disciple, well many, will react just like that, quite blindly. They won't consider the points, because they can't. That part of their personality has been trained to keep totally quiet in utter submission. That's why I was telling that other devotee "Drop the learned humility stuff and dare to ask questions". So, no, I do not take it back. I just re-read my letter. It was blatant commentary of my opinions on an institution I used to be a part of, and about that institutions founder, and all of what I'm talking about took place on either American (usually) or Indian countrys and cities, were well documented events, and in fact, alot of what I wrote about I learned from "Prabhupada disciples", usually bragging about how gutsy Gurudev was in all his actions and so on. If you like, you can bring up any part of my post and I will try to defend it appropriately. I noticed that I used a fair amount of casualness, as if talking to people who agree with me, as if on home turf and totally safe. I realize this brash display of bravado on such a "sensitive topic" seems wholly unjust given the nobility of the character being discussed. However, that is partly exactly the art. It's not effective unless it's full. Robert, what about Jesus? You know, he used to be a big cheese, and our forefathers worshipped him. Now you go to another and you don't pray to Jesus maybe. Most "devotees" don't. So sometimes, times change. Things move on. It's strange, but true, that there was a time when it was all correct- Prabhupada and that whole thing we did. But now it's not like it was, and much of what we did then does nothing now. There's no effect practically. Something very key is missing, and I'm sure you agree with this. Well you know, I also say, that I now turn my back on the image of Jesus I was taught. I don't agree. I have my own mind about Spiritual Life and even magic coming from Saints. I don't buy the Christian version of Jesus. Likewise, I don't buy the Prabhupada disciples version of Prabhupada. I don't. I don't buy Prabhupada's version of Prabhupada either. If I had to face him today, I would have to tell him that he like everyone is under his chart. If he disagreed with me, a very interesting Vedic based discussion would ensue, but he always said, luckily, that he was following his chart. This means, he did not create himself through surrender. Just as I have not, in this life, created my 9th house Jupiter. It was there at birth and it's operating. This is the truth. Not some other conception. This is why it is more "standard" for a Saint to be humble and meek. Those are the final qualities, not the qualities needed for the journey. You see, we were not asking to be Vaisnavas, though we should, and that's how it should start. You see, if you want to be a Vaisnava, it is properly BEGUN if you GO TO the GURU and ASK for his mercy. But we didn't know to do that, since we were Americans with "no knowledge" as he used to say. So, he had to COME TO US which turns the equation around. So he HAD TO have certain agressive qualities to carry out the mission. That is what made him special. He had those qualities. Those qualities needed to START AND SPREAD a vaisnava institution, which is in itself a TOTAL OXIMORON if you read anythiing of Thakur Bhaktivinode. None of this in other words, is the FAULT of Srila Prabhupada. The soul. He, like me, like we, are all, we are all, PUPPETTS. So, as one who is decidedly devoted to teaching spiritual thought, I find myself caught in this year, 2002, and I have to respond to the current event spiritual topics. This is my self granted duty. I'm just doing it because by my nature, I feel compelled. In my gathering of information for many years now, I have slowly come to the conclusions I stated in that post. Now I may have made an exageration or generalization here or there or even often, throughout that post, but I read down it quickly, and I think I simply stated truths, and I say there my opinion, but I think in a court of law say, you would find that the statements hold water. Holiness. What is that exactly? What makes Prabhupada special such that you say what you say about him? I had to think about that for years. After learning astrology, and taking up my well thought out position of predeterminism being "true", and free will being "apparent", my view of holiness changed drastically. Everyone became equalized as sentient witnesses in the same inexplicable wash of uncontrollable elements racing at our fragile and unstoppably dieing bodies. Charts, DNA and Genes are more holy to me than the particular life of a particular person. Prabhupada was a life created by God. The Sentient Being in that body is a sentient being, that's for sure, but to say that he is more than that is conjecture, faith, inference, and believing or having faith in "revelation" and so on. None of this is factual, it's faith. So, we have a choice as to whether we want to believe it or not. I do not believe as you do obviously, though sadly, we are so close, more so than distant, friend Robert. I simply cannot anymore say those corny phrases like "Nitya Sidha Bhakta" etc., because I recognize it as an Indian phrase, and I've seen other cultures with their similar phrases, but different people, and different concepts, but similar, and so, I just can't devote my life anymore to one particular little cult and it's leader. I think there's a place, where Prabhupada sits in the audience, quite far from the main stage, and I'm sitting near Him and can see him, perhaps his devotees with him, and in that place, I've been listening to the same lectures as him, say from his Guru, and on up the chain, the Bhagavatam he gave us, the Gita he gave us, and about Jyotish, a lecture which I noticed he didn't listen to in this life. No problem, but I did, so I have that knowledge to also deal with. I also sat through a lecture called "growing up in America in the 70's, and he was already too busy to go to that lecture at that time. So in that place, where we are equals, I look over at him and I have to decide for myself about him. Can you did that? Can you see that there is other ways to view the situation? I totally love him for his sacrifice. That does not mean he is perfect in every way. Those scriptural references that teach that, well, they're not practical, so I disregard them as not important. I take them as poetry, idealism, faith, belief, longing, willing, etc., but not fact, truth, rigid, believable, totally founded in reality, reliable, no no no. So, like Sridhar Maharaj said, the real Guru is the essence of the DEVELOPING teachings. They change and develop as consciousness does, because without the human mind mirror, where is religion? And is that mind static? No, it's ever increasing. The body of the Guru is dead. The teachings are the Guru. The real Guru is talking about the teachings. This is the Problem with ISKCON. It is all tied up in worshipping a dead body form. That's the problem. He's dead. That thing is dead. That's a body you're talking about. If you look at my letter, it's about principles of behavior and action, actually. The person whom I'm referring to and disagreeing with is not only a public figure, but dead, for 25 years now. This is America, there is freedom of religion. This is a Vedic related list but it is not sworn to uphold total blind devotion to Prabhupada as a Catholic Style Saint. I totally disagree that this is smart religion. I think ISKCON has made a big mistake deifying Prabhupada. They did this only because they were not willing to submit to each other, as well as, nobody had a feeling inside themselves that they knew for sure what they were doing. This I could clearly see. They were simply too young in every way. Nobody's fault. But I'm not going to burry what I consider to be true and good commentary on factual history because of the religious beliefs of ardent followers. Like BV Raman said of Sri Caitanya "His followers have buried the facts of his death due to devotion"... something like that. It's the same with Prabhupada. The man, a human, is now a plastic and perfect icon and deity with no fault, who never sinned, and so on. It's just like Jesus, who also was a man. Spiritual life is not like this. This is wrong. I disagree with you. You're falling for the fake version. I know you want out. That's why you're writing to me like this. Sorry, that's what I believe. Now, when orthodoxy encounters this attitude I'm showing, they generally get very upset. I did, I know. I used to hate people who talked like I'm talking now. I understand. However, I still, even then, cannot stop myself from speaking my truth freely, and you can speak yours freely. Some people wrote me thank you letters. In fact, it's totally true that I got two thank you letters, one, yours, disagreement, and one in the middle. That's all. Pretty mute response. So either it doesn't go very far, or everybody's still thinking about it. I don't think it goes as far as we might think. I truly have gotten only 4 responses, two totally positive, both woman, and when you add me, you got three girls. ;-) Be complex- the man you are thinking of- it's images of a witness riding some clay years ago, appropriate to the time and place, you saw and learned, he's gone, he was cool, we all agree, but really, we still have to go on with the process of sorting out truth... and it seems to change over time, as we wake up more and more. We're waking up, and so is Prabhupada. This is my challenge. Do you think he's static? Do you think Krishna is static? Think about it. Is there world fixed, and Prabhupada has a permanent address there, on Swami lane or something? Nope. Those fixed Christian style ideas are over. Time for them to go, and also the "celibacy" that was so much a part of achieving those lofty goals nobody's ever seen, meanwhile here on Earth, all Hell is breaking lose because the Humans are being deprived based on these Gods and Heavens nobodys ever seen. Therefore, I say again, choose what works, and give back the black. I love Prabhupada, the person who cared to bring what he thought was good, to others he thought needed it, at his own risk and sacrifice. That person, I bow to. That person is my hero. It doesn't matter what his body looked like or what country it was from. The sacrifice is commendable. And other things. But the play he had to be a part of, just like Budha, makes his play, not permanent. It was too transitional. That's all I'm really saying, then in detail, because I'm smart, I'm showing others some detailed ways that such ideas can go astray, and did, and so on. It's all service. I'm gutsy, and a leader. I'm not offending the real Prabhupada. This is a high stakes game, and I know that. I'm standing up to you, ISKCON, IRM, Gaudiya Math, Jesus, St Paul, the Church, and anybody else on their side. What you're doing by making "holiness" is you are creating future celibate priests abusing little boys and girls. You are. Nobody with a normal sex life would do that. ISKCON had the same problems. This celibacy thing is new. It's not ancient. It's 2500 years old by Sankara, then Jesus, etc. It takes the best and makes them not breed too. Another bad side effect. How many children are going to have to grow up in "devotee families" being forced to cower under oppressive moods forced on them as if they were in the middle ages. It's crazy. I was humble a long time. We have to think. This was done wrong, and it's time to call the game. It starts with Jesus too. What is this big distraction of death, pain, suffering and martyrdom, original sin and all such sacrificial lambs, passovers, and rising from the dead for my sins.... Excuse me... I didn't ask to be a Jew, or a Christian, or have original sin. I never signed up. So I'm outta there. In the same way, I didn't join Hare Krishna to go along with all the stuff that got taught to me. I didn't. I joined to spread love of God and did that very little directly, actually. I accomplish much more now that I'm outside the movement. Actually, by challening me, you make me want to write more, and it could get worse, not just about Prabhupada, but about this whole negative era of religion, this last 2000 years or so. I say junk it. I don't see anything really positive coming out of it. It's a big maintainence organization devoted to itself, and not good for the people themselves. We all serve our purpose, and the bodies die. The witnesses learn, and ultimately, are not at fault, but are. God is the cause, and not. I can actually understand this. No problema. I'm ready to take on any comers. Peace dg told ya i'd be back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2002 Report Share Posted August 6, 2002 Dear Das, Yes, I need to challenge the views that you express. The feeling, the heart, and the sincerity are one thing - those parts are obvious in your writings. But the conception of truth, as you see it with eyes wide shut, is what I am taking to task. But there's another point that you are missing here also. And that is, that you cannot negotiate words that pierce the heart. If you think that my defense of Prabhupada falls according to the party line only, you do not know me. If you think that my attachment to, or devotion to Prabhupada amounts to the conditioning of the institution, then you are way off. I will make my position clear after responding to your points. You wrote: >I realize that letter is shocking. This is because it's >never done like that, that someone writes in opposition to >Prabhupada. Really, Prabhupada disciples have rarely heard a >devotee come forward like that. It's very rare. This is >partly because of the recent memory of Sulocan das, shot >dead through the head while parked in his vehicle near the >Los Angeles temple by another devotee, because Sulocan was >writing negative stuff about one of the Guru's, which turned >out to be true. Me: This is irrelevant to the challenges against Prabhupada himself. >Although devotees like Robert will shrug this off, I used to >also, I am using it because I have changed. This one event >shows in material fact, a living principle within our >movement, which is that you cannot, shall not, dare not, >ever, criticize Prabhupada, or anyone like him, which is >virtually everyone who led any part of Gaudiya Vaisnavism in >any way in the past as well. So there's a ton of perfect >Saints you have to listen to and never step on. So many >birthdays and deathdays to honor. Guru is a BIG deal. Yes, certainly, in any parampara, or disciplic lineage, there are certain standards that one follows based upon those set forth by the preceptors of that lineage. When Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu compared offenses at the feet of pure devotees of God to the "mad elephant", He did so to protect those who, like yourself, would compare the body, words, and person of such great souls to those of ordinary human beings. The Mad Elephant analogy is appropriate, as when that large animal enters into a garden, all the plants therein are destroyed. Similarly, the tender creepers of faith (sraddha) are virtually obliterated by such erroneous comparisons (of saints to ordinary men), and this is very dangerous in consideration of the human being's position in this world. Our position is something like the tortoise swimming in the ocean, who by chance raises his head to the surface of the water, and happens to put it through a hole in a piece of wood. In other words, it rarely, hardly ever, happens. Souls having attained the human form of life will come to understand the true science of God very rarely, if at all, and only then through the guidance of great bhaktas, or devotees, or saints. This is the venerable and impeccable position of the guru. Those who defile him, like you, do so at great risk. >So that's why Robert can't get over it. He cannot believe I >would do this. He's only one voice so it seems, but believe >me, any Prabhupada disciple, well many, will react just like >that, quite blindly. They won't consider the points, because >they can't. That part of their personality has been trained >to keep totally quiet in utter submission. That's why I was >telling that other devotee "Drop the learned humility stuff >and dare to ask questions". Excuse me, Das. There is nothing that I have to "get over". I am fully content in my realizations of truth, as heard from my guru, who exhaustively explained them from the essences of Vedic scriptures. I have internal realizations of such teachings. What I can scarcely believe, is that someone like you, who has heard and learned Vedic scripture for years, whose guru Srila Sridhara Maharaja is one of the most venerable and respected of all, would choose to venture down such a "high risk" path. What points do I need to consider, according to you? You should consider that there is a difference between empirical analyses, like scientists and atheists, and that which intuition proves by its own illumination. If one does not have Sraddha, or faith, then he rests his case with Mercury - i.e., he cannot enter into higher realizations, the truths of which lie beyond the purview of direct perception. How much truth regarding an object can you see with the naked eye? Similarly, how much of the total truth of the universe or Godhead can you conceive of by thinking about it or studying it? And if I ask questions about such things, who is going to answer - you? Can you see and understand the sum total of the Moon, by looking at it through the branches of a tree (Chandra shakha nyaya)? So again I ask, what points are you asking me to consider? I've read all the negativity around certain characteristics of Prabhupada that you wrote, the ways of speaking to gurus of other religions, the manner of looking down his cane while focusing on an object of discussion, the manner of Kingliness in his way of preaching. So far, I haven't heard a single thing that illuminates my mind from your writings, only those things which attempt to gray out, or diminish the superhuman efforts or character of a great soul. You can call me blind, backward, or whatever, but my position stands: you are not just talking about the image, the body, or the concept of the man: you are criticizing his manner of being and moving throughout this world, i.e. the soul of the man himself. Nobody need hear of the flaws of ISKCON, and misbehaviors of some of its leadership, that's obvious. But when you discuss the flaws of the self-realized and perfect beings, then that's treading on thin ice at best. How do I know he was self-realized? Read the symptoms of such souls discussed in the Bhagavad-gita. Oh, you don't think the words of Sri Krsna in the Bhagavad- gita are the final truth? Can you really see the Moon through the branches of a tree? >So, no, I do not take it back. I just re-read my letter. It >was blatant commentary of my opinions on an institution I >used to be a part of, and about that institutions founder, >and all of what I'm talking about took place on either >American (usually) or Indian countrys and cities, were well >documented events, and in fact, alot of what I wrote about I >learned from "Prabhupada disciples", usually bragging about >how gutsy Gurudev was in all his actions and so on. I agree, that Gurudeva Srila Prabhupada was gutsy. Had he not been, then the whole of Krsna Consciousness and Vedic culture thereof, would still be sitting in India, and both you and I would probably be still smoking pot and speculating on Jung, Nitchze, and Ginsberg like we did in the 60's. I don't need to be reminded of what happened within the walls of the political institution of ISKCON. Indeed, I left ISKCON for those, and similar reasons. But the spirit of Prabhupada, his teachings, and ultimately of Sri Krsna rests within those who have achieved the blessings of the guru himself. It is not a concept, or a believe system that I had to be coerced into believing. You miss the point entirely, and only focus on the externals. You have not yet penetrated into the depths of the man, the philosophy, the truths, and the possibilities of a person existing in transcendence. >If you like, you can bring up any part of my post and I will >try to defend it appropriately. I noticed that I used a fair >amount of casualness, as if talking to people who agree with >me, as if on home turf and totally safe. I realize this >brash display of bravado on such a "sensitive topic" seems >wholly unjust given the nobility of the character being >discussed. No, I will not post blatant disrespect of a great personality on this list - I will not take that to my grave. By doing so, I (you) render a serious disservice to those who are trying to advance in consciousness, the path for which does indeed involve learning proper respect for the guru who carries the messages of Godhead. >Robert, what about Jesus? > >You know, he used to be a big cheese, and our forefathers >worshipped him. Now you go to another and you don't pray to >Jesus maybe. Most "devotees" don't. So sometimes, times >change. Things move on. It's strange, but true, that there >was a time when it was all correct- Prabhupada and that >whole thing we did. But now it's not like it was, and much >of what we did then does nothing now. There's no effect >practically. Something very key is missing, and I'm sure you >agree with this. What is missing, is the absorption of, and implementation of the teachings themselves. I think this is part of what you're saying, but you're contradicting yourself. If it is the teachings that are real and eternal, and not the person or the body, then spread those teachings. You are the one who is focusing on the body of the person, or the institution of the person, to the complete forgetfulness of the teachings themselves. You do not believe in the teachings, that is clear. By reference to the great souls, Sri Chaitanya referred to "Nitya-siddhas", i.e. eternally liberated souls. It is not just a term born out of cultural India. Sri Krsna, in the Gita, referred to "Mahatmas", or great souls, due to their continuous absorption in the Name, attributes, and transcendent realities of Godhead. These terms, and the persons being referred to are real, yet hard to meet, once in a lifetime, in fact, once in millions of lifetimes. Now, in this one lifetime a guy like me from San Francisco, or an Irish guy like you from Oakland, gets that opportunity. You have to be able to see the distinctions between them. Now, learn this from me: the teachings are eternal, as those which were freely distributed by Prabhupada and his true followers, were repeated verbatim from the words of Sri Krsna, Sri Chaitanya, the Bhagavatam, and every Vedic scripture. Yes, the institutions come and go. Yet, you choose to dwell on the negativity or the flaws of the institution, and forget all about the transcendent teachings which they served to promote. If you separate the rice from the chaff, then do you throw out both the chaff and the rice? When you say you "love" the man, what part do you love? And further, if you really loved the man, is it within your code of ethics to defile the person you love? >Holiness. What is that exactly? What makes Prabhupada >special such that you say what you say about him? If there is any doubt about the holiness of Prabhupada, maybe it comes out of lack of clarity regarding just what holiness is. Then why do you defile Prabhupada first, and then ask what holiness is later? Go back and read the Bhagavad-gita for an understanding of holiness - read what it says, about the actions and behaviors of persons in the mode (guna) of Goodness, Sattva-guna. Read all about the thoughts, the words, and the actions of Mahatmas, the great souls. Its all there for you to read. Why would such persons be singled out and described, if they only existed in our imagination? And if such persons do in fact exist, should we not try to understand them by the defining characteristics given in the scriptures? Now, what's puzzling to me, is that you treat someone as ordinary or common first, and then later ask what holiness is. (?) The best course, is to not openly discuss such topics publicly, whether you think you are right or not. I gave you this example in a private mail: it is like walking through a mine field, or playing Russian roulette: you can take that step, or pull the trigger, and nothing could happen. Or, you could just blow your head off. Better not to play the game. As you say, the risks are too high. >So in that place, where we are equals, I look over at him >and I have to decide for myself about him. > >Can you did that? Can you see that there is other ways to >view the situation? I totally love him for his sacrifice. >That does not mean he is perfect in every way. Those >scriptural references that teach that, well, they're not >practical, so I disregard them as not important. I take them >as poetry, idealism, faith, belief, longing, willing, etc., >but not fact, truth, rigid, believable, totally founded in >reality, reliable, no no no. Its a funny thing to me, after reading all your posts, that you exude the heart and energy of a man of faith, yet you put forth arguments like that of an atheist. You are a divided person, and this is the root cause of your depressions also. There is, on the one hand, a deeply sincere leaning toward spirituality, yet at the same time, a sharp denial around the inability to reconcile faith with reason, or belief with mental speculation. You have to take one side or the other, Das. So then, if the statements of Sri Krsna in the Gita are poetry, idealism, or belief, etc., and with no substance, then from whom shall I understand who is a saint, and who isn't? Shall I read the Bhagavad-gita as per Sri Krsna, or the Vedanta-sutra as per Vyasadeva, or the yoga-sutras as per Vasishta or Patanjali, or should I learn the truth as per Das Goravani? Your name is so very different from your approach! Das, means servant; Raghunandan means, "servant of Raghunath dasa Goswami (an intimate disciple of Sri Chaitanya)", and Goravani, really should be "Gauravani", which means words as uttered by Sri Chaitanya (Lord Gaurasundara)! Now, but thus far, you choose to equal the paying field, make all saints as if ordinary humans, make all teachings as if one guy's is just as good as the other's, and then be referred to as Das Goravani! (Yes, you are my friend, otherwise I would not be saying these things, and spending a whole afternoon trying to communicate with you). >So, like Sridhar Maharaj said, the real Guru is the essence >of the DEVELOPING teachings. They change and develop as >consciousness does, because without the human mind mirror, >where is religion? And is that mind static? No, it's ever >increasing. The body of the Guru is dead. The teachings are >the Guru. The real Guru is talking about the teachings. This >is the Problem with ISKCON. It is all tied up in worshipping >a dead body form. That's the problem. He's dead. That thing >is dead. That's a body you're talking about. This is exactly my argument too, and that's why I say you are contradicting yourself. I focus on the teachings, as they are eternal. However, you focus on the possibility that those teachings could be idealism and blind faith, and thus put forth, in essence, the arguments of an atheist. You need to find uniformity with what you are saying. >If you look at my letter, it's about principles of behavior >and action, actually. Not about teachings? >The person whom I'm referring to and >disagreeing with is not only a public figure, but dead, for >25 years now. This is America, there is freedom of religion. >This is a Vedic related list but it is not sworn to uphold >total blind devotion to Prabhupada as a Catholic Style Saint. Who ever said anything about swearing allegiance, if you do not wish to? What I am talking about, is the offering of respect where respect is due, and giving up the rude insistence that you can say what you want about any great soul, ignore the definitions of who is great and who is not, and fly in the face of all the savants before us who taught the proper protocol while speaking in spiritual circles. Furthermore, I never once felt that Prabhupada was "dead", since he left this world in 1977. I feel his presence always, now, and even while sleeping. What do you mean the person Prabhupada is dead? I feel the presence and spirit of your guru too, Srila Sridhara Maharaja. Do you think he is dead too? >I totally disagree that this is smart religion. I think >ISKCON has made a big mistake deifying Prabhupada. They did >this only because they were not willing to submit to each >other, as well as, nobody had a feeling inside themselves >that they knew for sure what they were doing. This I could >clearly see. They were simply too young in every way. It is better to Deify a deserving person, from the mentality of a young, or innocent devotee, than it is to disgrace such a person and his lineage, from the position of an adult or experienced ex-devotee. >It's the same with Prabhupada. The man, a human, is now a >plastic and perfect icon and deity with no fault, who never >sinned, and so on. It's just like Jesus, who also was a man. > >Spiritual life is not like this. This is wrong. I disagree >with you. You're falling for the fake version. First give me a universal vantage point from which to convince me what Spiritual life is. I am not going to run with your version of it, because it is bravado, or against the norm, or because you think you are coming from some kind of position liberated from convention and the ignorance of religious followers. So we are going to throw out thousands of years of teachings, just because Das Goravani had a problem with the institutional abuses of ISKCON? Fake version: you tell me what the real version is, Who the real God is, who that person is who should be revered and respected, and what are the means of attaining pure, liberated life. If you can convince me that you have a better version of it than Vyasadeva, Sri Chaitanya, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, and all coming down through Prabhupada, then I am all ears. You cannot separate the man from the teachings, or the person from the truths being presented. That is the grave mistake that you are making, and worse of all, you are doing it within the ear-range of over 700 people. Yes, you are back, Das, and I am glad for you. But give us your words of wisdom bearing in mind that there are some people in this medium, who have deep respect and love for saints, and who could care less about the disgruntled, ex-devotee side of yours, or the side abused by authority that wishes to put even Prabhupada in the same category as ordinary persons. With love to all, Robert ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Robert A. Koch, Vedic Astrologer Faculty Member, SJVC and ACVA visit <http://www.robertkoch.com> and, http://www.jyotishdiscovery.com or Ph: 541.318.0248 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2002 Report Share Posted August 6, 2002 Om sri ram, Dear Mr. Koch and mr. Das, pranam, Agreed I have no right to butt in. Bit I have been reading this ongoing dialogue for quite sometime now. I'm a fledgling in this field - spirituality, religion and evrything else are very big words for me. you're my seniors- forgive me for a small input if you think its irrelevant.Iwas reading sundar kand last night and there is this prasanga when bhagwan ram tells sugriva that the devotee has to tie the bonds of attachments- moha towards everybody -Janani,suta,janak,dara, and parivara etc. to the lords feet with a rope - it just means unconditional surrender. bhagwan Ram then proceeds on to say I live in the hearts of such people like money in the hearts of the greedy.Thers another one- after hanuman ji returns from lanka after savaging ravana's city with fire- he could have asked anything of prabhu- he just asks for prabhu bhakti - that means unconditional surrender and faith.And this I'm gradally discovering transalates into a lot of positivity and goodness allaround. All the gods' men have been saying this all along. Cynicism and criticism just lead to a lot of confusion.Doesn't guru mean someone who does away with darkness and lets the light shine through? Something very interesting happened last evening when I was putting my 10 yr. old son to bed? He asked- Mom why have we been destined - quite unfortunately so to be reincarnated as human beings when we with all our intelligence conciously choose to destroy God's bounty like the wild lfe, peace, forests etc.? Any answers? Care to read his chart?I was astounded to hear all this coming from a 10 year old. And we all call ourselves adults. namaste, Rambha.(a student - trying to learn jyotish.) - "Robert A. Koch" <rk <gjlist> Wednesday, August 07, 2002 6:27 AM Re: [GJ] Prabhupada Clarification #2 > Dear Das, > > Yes, I need to challenge the views that you express. The feeling, the > heart, and the sincerity are one thing - those parts are obvious in your > writings. But the conception of truth, as you see it with eyes wide shut, > is what I am taking to task. But there's another point that you are > missing here also. And that is, that you cannot negotiate words that > pierce the heart. If you think that my defense of Prabhupada falls > according to the party line only, you do not know me. If you think that my > attachment to, or devotion to Prabhupada amounts to the conditioning of the > institution, then you are way off. I will make my position clear after > responding to your points. > > You wrote: > > >I realize that letter is shocking. This is because it's > >never done like that, that someone writes in opposition to > >Prabhupada. Really, Prabhupada disciples have rarely heard a > >devotee come forward like that. It's very rare. This is > >partly because of the recent memory of Sulocan das, shot > >dead through the head while parked in his vehicle near the > >Los Angeles temple by another devotee, because Sulocan was > >writing negative stuff about one of the Guru's, which turned > >out to be true. > > Me: This is irrelevant to the challenges against Prabhupada himself. > > >Although devotees like Robert will shrug this off, I used to > >also, I am using it because I have changed. This one event > >shows in material fact, a living principle within our > >movement, which is that you cannot, shall not, dare not, > >ever, criticize Prabhupada, or anyone like him, which is > >virtually everyone who led any part of Gaudiya Vaisnavism in > >any way in the past as well. So there's a ton of perfect > >Saints you have to listen to and never step on. So many > >birthdays and deathdays to honor. Guru is a BIG deal. > > Yes, certainly, in any parampara, or disciplic lineage, there are certain > standards that one follows based upon those set forth by the preceptors of > that lineage. When Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu compared offenses at the feet > of pure devotees of God to the "mad elephant", He did so to protect those > who, like yourself, would compare the body, words, and person of such great > souls to those of ordinary human beings. The Mad Elephant analogy is > appropriate, as when that large animal enters into a garden, all the plants > therein are destroyed. Similarly, the tender creepers of faith (sraddha) > are virtually obliterated by such erroneous comparisons (of saints to > ordinary men), and this is very dangerous in consideration of the human > being's position in this world. Our position is something like the > tortoise swimming in the ocean, who by chance raises his head to the > surface of the water, and happens to put it through a hole in a piece of > wood. In other words, it rarely, hardly ever, happens. Souls having > attained the human form of life will come to understand the true science of > God very rarely, if at all, and only then through the guidance of great > bhaktas, or devotees, or saints. This is the venerable and impeccable > position of the guru. Those who defile him, like you, do so at great risk. > > >So that's why Robert can't get over it. He cannot believe I > >would do this. He's only one voice so it seems, but believe > >me, any Prabhupada disciple, well many, will react just like > >that, quite blindly. They won't consider the points, because > >they can't. That part of their personality has been trained > >to keep totally quiet in utter submission. That's why I was > >telling that other devotee "Drop the learned humility stuff > >and dare to ask questions". > > Excuse me, Das. There is nothing that I have to "get over". I am fully > content in my realizations of truth, as heard from my guru, who > exhaustively explained them from the essences of Vedic scriptures. I have > internal realizations of such teachings. What I can scarcely believe, is > that someone like you, who has heard and learned Vedic scripture for years, > whose guru Srila Sridhara Maharaja is one of the most venerable and > respected of all, would choose to venture down such a "high risk" > path. What points do I need to consider, according to you? You should > consider that there is a difference between empirical analyses, like > scientists and atheists, and that which intuition proves by its own > illumination. If one does not have Sraddha, or faith, then he rests his > case with Mercury - i.e., he cannot enter into higher realizations, the > truths of which lie beyond the purview of direct perception. How much > truth regarding an object can you see with the naked eye? Similarly, how > much of the total truth of the universe or Godhead can you conceive of by > thinking about it or studying it? And if I ask questions about such > things, who is going to answer - you? Can you see and understand the sum > total of the Moon, by looking at it through the branches of a tree (Chandra > shakha nyaya)? > > So again I ask, what points are you asking me to consider? I've read all > the negativity around certain characteristics of Prabhupada that you wrote, > the ways of speaking to gurus of other religions, the manner of looking > down his cane while focusing on an object of discussion, the manner of > Kingliness in his way of preaching. So far, I haven't heard a single thing > that illuminates my mind from your writings, only those things which > attempt to gray out, or diminish the superhuman efforts or character of a > great soul. You can call me blind, backward, or whatever, but my position > stands: you are not just talking about the image, the body, or the concept > of the man: you are criticizing his manner of being and moving throughout > this world, i.e. the soul of the man himself. Nobody need hear of the > flaws of ISKCON, and misbehaviors of some of its leadership, that's > obvious. But when you discuss the flaws of the self-realized and perfect > beings, then that's treading on thin ice at best. How do I know he was > self-realized? Read the symptoms of such souls discussed in the > Bhagavad-gita. Oh, you don't think the words of Sri Krsna in the Bhagavad- > gita are the final truth? Can you really see the Moon through the branches > of a tree? > > >So, no, I do not take it back. I just re-read my letter. It > >was blatant commentary of my opinions on an institution I > >used to be a part of, and about that institutions founder, > >and all of what I'm talking about took place on either > >American (usually) or Indian countrys and cities, were well > >documented events, and in fact, alot of what I wrote about I > >learned from "Prabhupada disciples", usually bragging about > >how gutsy Gurudev was in all his actions and so on. > > I agree, that Gurudeva Srila Prabhupada was gutsy. Had he not been, then > the whole of Krsna Consciousness and Vedic culture thereof, would still be > sitting in India, and both you and I would probably be still smoking pot > and speculating on Jung, Nitchze, and Ginsberg like we did in the 60's. I > don't need to be reminded of what happened within the walls of the > political institution of ISKCON. Indeed, I left ISKCON for those, and > similar reasons. But the spirit of Prabhupada, his teachings, and > ultimately of Sri Krsna rests within those who have achieved the blessings > of the guru himself. It is not a concept, or a believe system that I had > to be coerced into believing. You miss the point entirely, and only focus > on the externals. You have not yet penetrated into the depths of the man, > the philosophy, the truths, and the possibilities of a person existing in > transcendence. > > >If you like, you can bring up any part of my post and I will > >try to defend it appropriately. I noticed that I used a fair > >amount of casualness, as if talking to people who agree with > >me, as if on home turf and totally safe. I realize this > >brash display of bravado on such a "sensitive topic" seems > >wholly unjust given the nobility of the character being > >discussed. > > No, I will not post blatant disrespect of a great personality on this list > - I will not take that to my grave. By doing so, I (you) render a serious > disservice to those who are trying to advance in consciousness, the path > for which does indeed involve learning proper respect for the guru who > carries the messages of Godhead. > > >Robert, what about Jesus? > > > >You know, he used to be a big cheese, and our forefathers > >worshipped him. Now you go to another and you don't pray to > >Jesus maybe. Most "devotees" don't. So sometimes, times > >change. Things move on. It's strange, but true, that there > >was a time when it was all correct- Prabhupada and that > >whole thing we did. But now it's not like it was, and much > >of what we did then does nothing now. There's no effect > >practically. Something very key is missing, and I'm sure you > >agree with this. > > What is missing, is the absorption of, and implementation of the teachings > themselves. I think this is part of what you're saying, but you're > contradicting yourself. If it is the teachings that are real and eternal, > and not the person or the body, then spread those teachings. You are the > one who is focusing on the body of the person, or the institution of the > person, to the complete forgetfulness of the teachings themselves. You do > not believe in the teachings, that is clear. By reference to the great > souls, Sri Chaitanya referred to "Nitya-siddhas", i.e. eternally liberated > souls. It is not just a term born out of cultural India. Sri Krsna, in > the Gita, referred to "Mahatmas", or great souls, due to their continuous > absorption in the Name, attributes, and transcendent realities of > Godhead. These terms, and the persons being referred to are real, yet > hard to meet, once in a lifetime, in fact, once in millions of > lifetimes. Now, in this one lifetime a guy like me from San Francisco, or > an Irish guy like you from Oakland, gets that opportunity. You have to be > able to see the distinctions between them. > > Now, learn this from me: the teachings are eternal, as those which were > freely distributed by Prabhupada and his true followers, were repeated > verbatim from the words of Sri Krsna, Sri Chaitanya, the Bhagavatam, and > every Vedic scripture. Yes, the institutions come and go. Yet, you > choose to dwell on the negativity or the flaws of the institution, and > forget all about the transcendent teachings which they served to > promote. If you separate the rice from the chaff, then do you throw out > both the chaff and the rice? When you say you "love" the man, what part > do you love? And further, if you really loved the man, is it within your > code of ethics to defile the person you love? > > >Holiness. What is that exactly? What makes Prabhupada > >special such that you say what you say about him? > > If there is any doubt about the holiness of Prabhupada, maybe it comes out > of lack of clarity regarding just what holiness is. Then why do you defile > Prabhupada first, and then ask what holiness is later? Go back and read > the Bhagavad-gita for an understanding of holiness - read what it says, > about the actions and behaviors of persons in the mode (guna) of Goodness, > Sattva-guna. Read all about the thoughts, the words, and the actions of > Mahatmas, the great souls. Its all there for you to read. Why would such > persons be singled out and described, if they only existed in our > imagination? And if such persons do in fact exist, should we not try to > understand them by the defining characteristics given in the > scriptures? Now, what's puzzling to me, is that you treat someone as > ordinary or common first, and then later ask what holiness is. (?) The > best course, is to not openly discuss such topics publicly, whether you > think you are right or not. I gave you this example in a private mail: it > is like walking through a mine field, or playing Russian roulette: you can > take that step, or pull the trigger, and nothing could happen. Or, you > could just blow your head off. Better not to play the game. As you say, > the risks are too high. > > >So in that place, where we are equals, I look over at him > >and I have to decide for myself about him. > > > >Can you did that? Can you see that there is other ways to > >view the situation? I totally love him for his sacrifice. > >That does not mean he is perfect in every way. Those > >scriptural references that teach that, well, they're not > >practical, so I disregard them as not important. I take them > >as poetry, idealism, faith, belief, longing, willing, etc., > >but not fact, truth, rigid, believable, totally founded in > >reality, reliable, no no no. > > Its a funny thing to me, after reading all your posts, that you exude the > heart and energy of a man of faith, yet you put forth arguments like that > of an atheist. You are a divided person, and this is the root cause of > your depressions also. There is, on the one hand, a deeply sincere > leaning toward spirituality, yet at the same time, a sharp denial around > the inability to reconcile faith with reason, or belief with mental > speculation. You have to take one side or the other, Das. So then, if the > statements of Sri Krsna in the Gita are poetry, idealism, or belief, etc., > and with no substance, then from whom shall I understand who is a saint, > and who isn't? Shall I read the Bhagavad-gita as per Sri Krsna, or the > Vedanta-sutra as per Vyasadeva, or the yoga-sutras as per Vasishta or > Patanjali, or should I learn the truth as per Das Goravani? Your name is > so very different from your approach! Das, means servant; Raghunandan > means, "servant of Raghunath dasa Goswami (an intimate disciple of Sri > Chaitanya)", and Goravani, really should be "Gauravani", which means words > as uttered by Sri Chaitanya (Lord Gaurasundara)! Now, but thus far, you > choose to equal the paying field, make all saints as if ordinary humans, > make all teachings as if one guy's is just as good as the other's, and then > be referred to as Das Goravani! > > (Yes, you are my friend, otherwise I would not be saying these things, and > spending a whole afternoon trying to communicate with you). > > >So, like Sridhar Maharaj said, the real Guru is the essence > >of the DEVELOPING teachings. They change and develop as > >consciousness does, because without the human mind mirror, > >where is religion? And is that mind static? No, it's ever > >increasing. The body of the Guru is dead. The teachings are > >the Guru. The real Guru is talking about the teachings. This > >is the Problem with ISKCON. It is all tied up in worshipping > >a dead body form. That's the problem. He's dead. That thing > >is dead. That's a body you're talking about. > > This is exactly my argument too, and that's why I say you are contradicting > yourself. I focus on the teachings, as they are eternal. However, you > focus on the possibility that those teachings could be idealism and blind > faith, and thus put forth, in essence, the arguments of an atheist. You > need to find uniformity with what you are saying. > > >If you look at my letter, it's about principles of behavior > >and action, actually. > > Not about teachings? > > >The person whom I'm referring to and > >disagreeing with is not only a public figure, but dead, for > >25 years now. This is America, there is freedom of religion. > >This is a Vedic related list but it is not sworn to uphold > >total blind devotion to Prabhupada as a Catholic Style Saint. > > Who ever said anything about swearing allegiance, if you do not wish > to? What I am talking about, is the offering of respect where respect is > due, and giving up the rude insistence that you can say what you want about > any great soul, ignore the definitions of who is great and who is not, and > fly in the face of all the savants before us who taught the proper protocol > while speaking in spiritual circles. > > Furthermore, I never once felt that Prabhupada was "dead", since he left > this world in 1977. I feel his presence always, now, and even while > sleeping. What do you mean the person Prabhupada is dead? I feel the > presence and spirit of your guru too, Srila Sridhara Maharaja. Do you > think he is dead too? > > >I totally disagree that this is smart religion. I think > >ISKCON has made a big mistake deifying Prabhupada. They did > >this only because they were not willing to submit to each > >other, as well as, nobody had a feeling inside themselves > >that they knew for sure what they were doing. This I could > >clearly see. They were simply too young in every way. > > It is better to Deify a deserving person, from the mentality of a young, or > innocent devotee, than it is to disgrace such a person and his lineage, > from the position of an adult or experienced ex-devotee. > > >It's the same with Prabhupada. The man, a human, is now a > >plastic and perfect icon and deity with no fault, who never > >sinned, and so on. It's just like Jesus, who also was a man. > > > >Spiritual life is not like this. This is wrong. I disagree > >with you. You're falling for the fake version. > > First give me a universal vantage point from which to convince me what > Spiritual life is. I am not going to run with your version of it, because > it is bravado, or against the norm, or because you think you are coming > from some kind of position liberated from convention and the ignorance of > religious followers. So we are going to throw out thousands of years of > teachings, just because Das Goravani had a problem with the institutional > abuses of ISKCON? Fake version: you tell me what the real version is, Who > the real God is, who that person is who should be revered and respected, > and what are the means of attaining pure, liberated life. If you can > convince me that you have a better version of it than Vyasadeva, Sri > Chaitanya, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, and all coming down through > Prabhupada, then I am all ears. You cannot separate the man from the > teachings, or the person from the truths being presented. That is the > grave mistake that you are making, and worse of all, you are doing it > within the ear-range of over 700 people. > > Yes, you are back, Das, and I am glad for you. But give us your words of > wisdom bearing in mind that there are some people in this medium, who have > deep respect and love for saints, and who could care less about the > disgruntled, ex-devotee side of yours, or the side abused by authority that > wishes to put even Prabhupada in the same category as ordinary persons. > > With love to all, > Robert > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Robert A. Koch, Vedic Astrologer > Faculty Member, SJVC and ACVA > visit <http://www.robertkoch.com> and, > http://www.jyotishdiscovery.com or > Ph: 541.318.0248 > > > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat > : gjlist- > > > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2002 Report Share Posted August 6, 2002 Dear Rambha, I would surely like to read the chart of this child. And I share with you the feelings that the clay used to make gurus is so extinct today. Humbleness, simplicity, sincerity and truthfulness the basic traits for a good human being is so sadly missing these days and people start calling themselves as gurus. Manoj Health - Feel better, live better http://health. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2002 Report Share Posted August 7, 2002 Om sri ram Dear manoj, namaste His dob is 19th dec. 1991 ,mumbai-india 10.27.p.m. Indian standard time. He says so many things that astound me- something very simple like writing his name with a small c - name is Chaitanya . The reason is that he's nothing great in this world.This came when he was just 5.I sometimes wonder!!! Bhagwan Ram will take care of everything eventually. Thankyou in advance, Rambha. - "Manoj Kumar" <mouji99 <gjlist> Wednesday, August 07, 2002 10:33 AM Re: [GJ] Prabhupada Clarification #2 > Dear Rambha, > > I would surely like to read the chart of this child. > And I share with you the feelings that the clay used > to make gurus is so extinct today. Humbleness, > simplicity, sincerity and truthfulness the basic > traits for a good human being is so sadly missing > these days and people start calling themselves as > gurus. > > Manoj > > > > > Health - Feel better, live better > http://health. > > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat > : gjlist- > > > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.