Bhakti marga and the Vedas

[cbrahma]

This forum is full of furious and often offensive debates on the Vedic scriptures - this Purana, that Purana, this Veda, that Veda.

 

How much does this dry brahminical study contribute to spiritual progress, if at all?

 

Lord Caintanya said his spiritual master called him a fool - so he gave up the smarta brahmana practices of text parsing etc...and argumentation.

 

 

"The reason for My diversion to the Sankirtan Movement from the study of Vedanta is that I am a great fool. And, because I am a great fool, My Spiritual Master forbade Me to play with Vedanta philosophy. He said it would be better for me to chant the Holy Name of the Lord, and that that would deliver Me from material bondage.

"In this Age there is no religion other then glorifying the Lord by the utterance of His Holy Name, and that is the injunction of all the revealed Scriptures. So on the order of my Spiritual Master I chant the Holy Name of Krishna, and I am now mad after this Holy Name. Whenever I utter it, I forget myself completely: sometimes I laugh, somtimes I cry, and sometimes I dance like a madman. I thought within Myself that I may have actually gone mad by this process of chanting the Holy Name, and there fore I inquired from My Spiritual Master about it. I told Him, 'I have become mad by chaning the Holy Name. What does this mean" Please let me know.'

"My Spiritual Master then informed me that it is the real effect of chanting the Holy Name that it produces transcendental emotion, which is a rare manifestation. This transcendental emotion is the sign of love of God, which is the ultimate end of life. The love of God is transcendental even to liberation (mukti), and as such it is called the fifth stage of spiritual realization—standing above the stage of liberation. The actual result of chanting the Holy Name of Krishna is to attain the stage of love of God, and it was good that I was favored with such a blessing."

 

[raghu]

 

This forum is full of furious and often offensive debates on the Vedic scriptures - this Purana, that Purana, this Veda, that Veda.

 

How much does this dry brahminical study contribute to spiritual progress, if at all?

 

Dry brahminical study? Interesting. For centuries great Vaishnavas engaged in what you call "dry brahminical study" have been holding back the floodwaters of Advaita and other non-devotional philosophies from eclipsing and even wiping out all traces of Vaishnava culture. It is thanks in large part to them that we still have temples of Vishnu and Vaishnavas who propagate the culture of glorifying Him. Otherwise everything Vedic would be associated with mayavada.

 

Personally, I relish hearing talks of Vedas that bring out the majesty and supremacy of Sri Hari. I am sorry that you people cannot appreciate them.

 

 

Lord Caintanya said his spiritual master called him a fool - so he gave up the smarta brahmana practices of text parsing etc...and argumentation.

 

And yet, you people go on and on arguing to prop up Christianity and other non-devotional "religions." So obviously it is not the concept of argument that you have a problem with. You will happily argue to support whatever bunk you do believe in, but condemn anyone who argues about a subject matter that you are too lazy to study and inform yourself about.

 

When people argue about Vedas, then argument is bad. But when they argue about Bible, then that is different. Nice double standard, this. Or should I say, the iskcon standard?

[cbrahma]

 

Dry brahminical study? Interesting. For centuries great Vaishnavas engaged in what you call "dry brahminical study" have been holding back the floodwaters of Advaita and other non-devotional philosophies from eclipsing and even wiping out all traces of Vaishnava culture. It is thanks in large part to them that we still have temples of Vishnu and Vaishnavas who propagate the culture of glorifying Him. Otherwise everything Vedic would be associated with mayavada.

 

Personally, I relish hearing talks of Vedas that bring out the majesty and supremacy of Sri Hari. I am sorry that you people cannot appreciate them.

 

 

 

And yet, you people go on and on arguing to prop up Christianity and other non-devotional "religions." So obviously it is not the concept of argument that you have a problem with. You will happily argue to support whatever bunk you do believe in, but condemn anyone who argues about a subject matter that you are too lazy to study and inform yourself about.

 

When people argue about Vedas, then argument is bad. But when they argue about Bible, then that is different. Nice double standard, this. Or should I say, the iskcon standard?

This has nothing to do with Christianity. Already you are begging contention.

These knowledge claims between varying opinions about this or that Vedic text have demonstrably created more confusion and contention than spiritual enlightenment, at least on this forum.

It still doesn't explain the relevance of brahminical study to bhakti.

[Kulapavana]

why study the scriptures at all? why not assume we have all the answers we need and just pray to God?

 

READ THE GITA!!! and see what Krsna says: Verses 7.16 through 7.19

 

especially this one:

 

 

 

udarah sarva evaite

jnani tv atmaiva me matam

asthitah sa hi yuktatma

mam evanuttamam gatim

 

"All these devotees are undoubtedly magnanimous souls, but he who is situated in knowledge of Me I consider to be just like My own self. Being engaged in My transcendental service, he is sure to attain Me, the highest and most perfect goal."

 

that is why we need to study - to develop actual knowledge of God, not some speculations or sentiments about God.

[matarisvan]

 

This has nothing to do with Christianity. Already you are begging contention.

These knowledge claims between varying opinions about this or that Vedic text have demonstrably created more confusion and contention than spiritual enlightenment, at least on this forum.

It still doesn't explain the relevance of brahminical study to bhakti.

 

Brahminical study is for Brahmins. Bhakti is not reserved only for Brahmins. It is open to people of all the four varnas.

 

Study of Veda and Vedanta in a Vaishnava Tradition will provide a much superior understanding of the attributes of Vishnu and how he alone is praised in all the Vedas. This level of understanding is not available to people who do not study the Vedas.

 

For a soul born as a Brahmin it is his duty and correct Karma to study Veda. Consult the Gita to learn how peforming the right Karma results in spiritual progress.

[cbrahma]

 

why study the scriptures at all? why not assume we have all the answers we need and just pray to God?

 

READ THE GITA!!! and see what Krsna says: Verses 7.16 through 7.19

 

especially this one:

 

 

 

udarah sarva evaite

jnani tv atmaiva me matam

asthitah sa hi yuktatma

mam evanuttamam gatim

 

"All these devotees are undoubtedly magnanimous souls, but he who is situated in knowledge of Me I consider to be just like My own self. Being engaged in My transcendental service, he is sure to attain Me, the highest and most perfect goal."

 

that is why we need to study - to develop actual knowledge of God, not some speculations or sentiments about God.

Of course we read scriptures under proper guidance. There is a world of difference between that kind of meditational practice and all the academic nit-picking that goes on in this forum.

[Kulapavana]

 

Of course we read scriptures under proper guidance. There is a world of difference between that kind of meditational practice and all the academic nit-picking that goes on in this forum.

 

the problem is that very few people on this forum have such a proper guidance, myself included.

 

for example, you have people who blindly accept verbatim all that they read in Prabhupada's books, even as there may be contradictory verbiage in those books. Because Prabhupada is no longer here to explain these things, these people do not have proper guidance and end up speculating what is the solution to these contradictions.

 

what one person calls nit-picking may for others be an absolutely essential part of developing knowledge. we are all different. sudras have one way of thinking, brahmanas have another.

[AncientMariner]

I have personally noticed that the stories in Srimad Bhagavatam are actually really pretty simple stories somewhat like Bible stories so I really don't even see why there is even that much to debate about.

[cbrahma]

 

sudras have one way of thinking, brahmanas have another.

How does anybody qualify as brahmana is this day and age? I thought in Kali Yuga everybody is born at most sudra.

[cbrahma]

 

the problem is that very few people on this forum have such a proper guidance, myself included.

 

They certainly carry on as though they were brahminical scholars with extra attitude.

[Shakti-Fan]

Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja:

We should understand that without guru we are bound to have material attachment and we are bound to commit nama-aparadha. If the seed of sambandha-jnana (ones relationship with Krsna) and bhakti are not given by a pure guru, there can be no sabda-brahma (experience of transcendental sound, sound coming from the transcendental realm). Acceptance and surrender to a sad-guru is therefore essential.

Although Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He also accepted a guru. Once the gopis teased Him by saying, "You have no guru?"

Krsna replied, "Who has said this? My Gurudeva is Bhaguri Rsi."

It is generally accepted that Krsna's guru was Sandipani Muni, but actually Sandipani Muni was like a siksa-guru – His guru of the 64 arts. He was like a schoolteacher. Krsna received Radha-mantra from Bhaguri Rsi, and therefore it is Bhaguri Rsi who is really the guru of Krsna. In this world, when Krsna or any His avataras descend, they accept guru. Mahaprabhu also accepted guru. He accepted harinama and gopal-mantra from Sri Isvara Puripada, and He Himself said to Prakasananda Sarasvati:

prabhu kahe——suna, sripada, ihara karana

guru more murkha dekhi' karila sasana

["My dear sir, kindly hear the reason why I always chant Hare Krsna. My spiritual master considered Me a fool, and therefore he chastised Me." (Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 7.71)]

murkha tumi, tomara nahika vedantadhikara

'krsna-mantra' japa sada,——ei mantra-sara

["'You are a fool,' he said. 'You are not qualified to study Vedanta philosophy, and therefore You must always chant the holy name of Krsna, which is the essence of all mantras, or Vedic hymns. "(Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 7.72)]

Caitanya Mahaprabhu quoted his spiritual master as saying, "You have no qualification to enter Vedanta philosophy. You are foolish and ignorant, and you should therefore simply chant harinama.

harer nama harer nama

harer namaiva kevalam

kalau nasty eva nasty eva

nasty eva gatir anyatha

["In this Age of Kali there is no other means, no other means, no other means for self-realization than chanting the holy name, chanting the holy name, chanting the holy name of Lord Hari."(Caitanya-caritamrta Adi lila, 17.21)]

His Gurudeva gave Him this mantra:

Hare Krsna Hare Krsna

Krsna Krsna Hare Hare

Hare Rama Hare Rama

Rama Rama Hare Hare

Why did Sri Krsna Caitanya Mahaprabhu not utter the name of His sannyasa guru, Kesava Bharati?After all, acceptance of sannyasa is not a small thing. It is not less than harinama or diksa initiation. But Caitanya Mahaprabhu Himself had first spoken the sannyasa mantra into the ear of Kesava Bharati, and after that Kesava Bharati spoke it into Mahaprabhu's ear.

Therefore, Caitanya Mahaprabhu only told Prakasananda Sarasvati the name of Sri Isvara Puri, and He said that the mantra given by Isvara Puri had made Him like a madman. In His human-like pastimes, if these mantras had not been given by Sri Isvara Puripada, the result could not be as it was. He would not have developed His relationship with Krsna and He would not have tasted such prema. We should try to know all these truths.

Gaura premanande

[raghu]

 

This has nothing to do with Christianity. Already you are begging contention.

These knowledge claims between varying opinions about this or that Vedic text have demonstrably created more confusion and contention than spiritual enlightenment, at least on this forum.

It still doesn't explain the relevance of brahminical study to bhakti.

 

No, it has everything to do with you objecting to "argument" when people argue about things you don't understand, but at the same time you having no problem arguing when it is about rubbish like (insert name of favorite non-vedic religion here).

[cbrahma]

 

Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja:

What is interesting is the most volatile and dedicated of the Vedic wranglers are the diksa-initiated.

What is even more impenetrable than the self-styled brahminical skirmishes are the diska-vendors.

[cbrahma]

 

No, it has everything to do with you objecting to "argument" when people argue about things you don't understand, but at the same time you having no problem arguing when it is about rubbish like (insert name of favorite non-vedic religion here).

Since it is already decided by the forum Brahmanas that Christianity is not Vaisnavism, nor Vedic it is completely off topic. It has nothing to do with either bhakti or Vedanta whether you want to derail it or not.

[Beggar]

cbrahma quotes the story of Mahaprabhu telling that his spiritual master said that he not study the Vedanta but simply take Krsna nama. This lila is often used to support the idea that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is God Himself and He takes a guru just to set the example for us conditioned souls. But even when this is pointed out to cbrahma it goes right over his head. Stick to computer science cbrahma and just follow Mahaprabhu and stop trying to figure everything out. We all must get our hearts straightened out first.

[raghu]

 

Since it is already decided by the forum Brahmanas that Christianity is not Vaisnavism, nor Vedic it is completely off topic. It has nothing to do with either bhakti or Vedanta whether you want to derail it or not.

 

Christianity is not Vaishnavism and not Vedic as anyone with any functioning brain cells can tell you. One need not be brahmana to figure that one out. But that is all besides the point.

 

The point is that you deride the idea of "dry" debates about Vaishnava-sastra when in fact you have no problem promoting dry debates about non-Vaishnava religions. I wonder why you keep evading this point when you were the one who brought it up.

 

cbrahma preaching to us about "furious and offensive debates:"

 

 

This forum is full of furious and often offensive debates on the Vedic scriptures - this Purana, that Purana, this Veda, that Veda.

 

How much does this dry brahminical study contribute to spiritual progress, if at all?

 

Lord Caintanya said his spiritual master called him a fool - so he gave up the smarta brahmana practices of text parsing etc...and argumentation.

 

 

An example of cbrahma engaging in furious and offensive debate, thus contributing to the moderators closing the Lord Jesus Christ thread:

 

 

I'm not impressed with people who dismiss the Bible as a 'two-bit' paperback. That betrays ignorance of the source and importance of these writings, which serve two major world religions - Judaism and Christianity.

Are you attacking the length? Are you attacking the binding? This is an empty assault on a book that has inspired more than half the world.

 

Again, one is moved to wonder - why the double standard cbrahma?

 

I suppose we will now hear some pseudo-logic to the effect that when someone speaks at cbrahma's level then it is ok, but when someone speaks above his/her head then it is "dry argument."

 

 

 

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

[Dark Warrior]

 

How much does this dry brahminical study contribute to spiritual progress, if at all?

 

Debating is not done by Brahmins alone.

 

In order to pursue the path of Bhakti, we must first prove that Bhakti is recommended in scripture. Otherwise, our sampradayas wouldn't have any respect.

[cbrahma]

 

Christianity is not Vaishnavism and not Vedic as anyone with any functioning brain cells can tell you. One need not be brahmana to figure that one out. But that is all besides the point.

 

The point is that you deride the idea of "dry" debates about Vaishnava-sastra when in fact you have no problem promoting dry debates about non-Vaishnava religions. I wonder why you keep evading this point when you were the one who brought it up.

 

cbrahma preaching to us about "furious and offensive debates:"

 

 

 

An example of cbrahma engaging in furious and offensive debate, thus contributing to the moderators closing the Lord Jesus Christ thread:

 

 

 

Again, one is moved to wonder - why the double standard cbrahma?

 

I suppose we will now hear some pseudo-logic to the effect that when someone speaks at cbrahma's level then it is ok, but when someone speaks above his/her head then it is "dry argument."

 

 

 

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

 

If you have an anti-Christian bone to pick, please do it on the appropriate thread and stop trying to hi-jack this one. There was a lot of offensive remarks in the thread you mentioned other than mine. To think it was closed because of me is wishful thinking.

What is over your head it seems are the basics of debating. You don't seem to realize that 'ad hominem' is totally fallacious.

My point has nothing to do with debating per se. It has to do with the self-styled brahmincal textual nitpicking along with rabid personal attacks.

I did not engage in personal attacks except with some Hindus who were blaspheming Prabhupada.

[cbrahma]

 

The point is that you deride the idea of "dry" debates about Vaishnava-sastra when in fact you have no problem promoting dry debates about non-Vaishnava religions

I didn't 'promote' any such thing. It keeps coming up on threads that have nothing to do with Christianity as a sort of 'ad hominem' attack against me.

You need to dismiss my knowledge of GV by claiming I'm a Christian and therefore ignorant, which anybody with a few brain cells can tell is fallacious.

[cbrahma]

 

Debating is not done by Brahmins alone.

 

In order to pursue the path of Bhakti, we must first prove that Bhakti is recommended in scripture. Otherwise, our sampradayas wouldn't have any respect.

I'm not talking in general about debating. I'm asking about the academic hair splitting on esoteric texts that seems so popular here. These 'debates' don't seem to go anywhere and don't grapple with the basic philosophical issues of spiritual philosophy anyways.

For instance, whether we fell from the Spiritual World or not. What difference can that possibly make to our spiritual life? When the house is on fire, why waste time trying to figure out how we got there? That topic comes up over and over again without any possible resolution.

[raghu]

 

If you have an anti-Christian bone to pick, please do it on the appropriate thread and stop trying to hi-jack this one.

 

Excuse me oh amnesiac one, but it is you who keep bringing up Christianity and objections to it in order to evade the question about your double-standards.

 

The question again, for the 3rd or 4th time, is why you object to people debating about Vedas and Puranas when you clearly have no objection (being an active participant in) arguments about Christianity.

 

Since you will continue to evade the question, allow me to answer the question.

 

You see, I have come to realize after observing little iskcon peons like you, Theist, Ghari, et. al. that a certain personality type seems to be quite attracted to iskcon missionary activity these days. The typical iskcon zealot, ever devoted to his new-found religion though utterly incapable of rationalizing it through traditional brahminical means, enjoys being a little guru unto himself.

 

Not necessarily a traditional diksha-awarding guru mind you, but more like an on-again off-again self-appointed spiritual authority to whom others are obligated to offer respect and attention. The internet is the perfect forum for this wannabe guru personality type because he can do whatever materialistic activity he wants and then, when he is feeling religious, come to forums like this to "preach." Never mind that he may not be initiated, may not have even read Bhagavad-gita, may be a divorcee, and may be quite degraded in his habits. The internet allows him to be a guru of sorts.

 

This iskcon devotee type enjoys the role of "guru" or "spiritual authority" and demands that those who listen to him be "submissive" (i.e. shut up and do as they are told). He does not enjoy questions or doubts which he cannot resolve, and so he is likely (as you have done) to use ad hominem attacks in order to shame his detractors into silence.

 

In essence, within every iskcon devotee is a little bully just waiting to get out.

 

This is why people like you object to discussions about Vedas and Puranas. It is because they are totally above your head and you consequently feel out of your element. You want an audience of people who cannot think for themselves instead of people who think deeply and ask pointed questions.

 

You have no real objection to nit-picking analysis or dry argument because you are happy to do that when it involves something you do understand, like Bible or Jesus, etc. Your stated objection is just to get people to stop discussing things that you are uncomfortable hearing about, knowing nothing about them and thus not being the "always in control" iskcon spiritual authority your zeal requires you to be.

 

This is why people like you, Theist, et. al. happily lob ad hominem attacks against anyone who disagrees, since you obviously cannot win people over by sensible arguments or evidence.

 

This is why people like you, Theist, et. al. regard thinking and logic as dangerous things, to be avoided at all costs. Because when people learn to think for themselves, they question your preaching and thus by extension your self-appointed authority.

 

A real Vaishnava would want to win his critics hearts and minds over rather than bullying them into submission with fatwas and ad hominem attacks, the latter being the characteristic modus operandi of your ilk on these forums. This is why it is good for critics to visit these forums and deflate your egos a bit, so that innocent seekers will not be taken in by your aggressive and unempathic "preaching."

[cbrahma]

 

Excuse me oh amnesiac one, but it is you who keep bringing up Christianity and objections to it in order to evade the question about your double-standards.

 

The question again, for the 3rd or 4th time, is why you object to people debating about Vedas and Puranas when you clearly have no objection (being an active participant in) arguments about Christianity.

 

Since you will continue to evade the question, allow me to answer the question.

 

You see, I have come to realize after observing little iskcon peons like you, Theist, Ghari, et. al. that a certain personality type seems to be quite attracted to iskcon missionary activity these days. The typical iskcon zealot, ever devoted to his new-found religion though utterly incapable of rationalizing it through traditional brahminical means, enjoys being a little guru unto himself.

 

Not necessarily a traditional diksha-awarding guru mind you, but more like an on-again off-again self-appointed spiritual authority to whom others are obligated to offer respect and attention. The internet is the perfect forum for this wannabe guru personality type because he can do whatever materialistic activity he wants and then, when he is feeling religious, come to forums like this to "preach." Never mind that he may not be initiated, may not have even read Bhagavad-gita, may be a divorcee, and may be quite degraded in his habits. The internet allows him to be a guru of sorts.

 

This iskcon devotee type enjoys the role of "guru" or "spiritual authority" and demands that those who listen to him be "submissive" (i.e. shut up and do as they are told). He does not enjoy questions or doubts which he cannot resolve, and so he is likely (as you have done) to use ad hominem attacks in order to shame his detractors into silence.

 

In essence, within every iskcon devotee is a little bully just waiting to get out.

 

This is why people like you object to discussions about Vedas and Puranas. It is because they are totally above your head and you consequently feel out of your element. You want an audience of people who cannot think for themselves instead of people who think deeply and ask pointed questions.

 

You have no real objection to nit-picking analysis or dry argument because you are happy to do that when it involves something you do understand, like Bible or Jesus, etc. Your stated objection is just to get people to stop discussing things that you are uncomfortable hearing about, knowing nothing about them and thus not being the "always in control" iskcon spiritual authority your zeal requires you to be.

 

This is why people like you, Theist, et. al. happily lob ad hominem attacks against anyone who disagrees, since you obviously cannot win people over by sensible arguments or evidence.

 

This is why people like you, Theist, et. al. regard thinking and logic as dangerous things, to be avoided at all costs. Because when people learn to think for themselves, they question your preaching and thus by extension your self-appointed authority.

 

A real Vaishnava would want to win his critics hearts and minds over rather than bullying them into submission with fatwas and ad hominem attacks, the latter being the characteristic modus operandi of your ilk on these forums. This is why it is good for critics to visit these forums and deflate your egos a bit, so that innocent seekers will not be taken in by your aggressive and unempathic "preaching."

 

I did not bring up Christianity in this thread. YOU DID. So your whole rant is desperately off topic.

And don't speak on the behalf of other people. You are not the adminstrator of this forum.

Your global characterizations about what I do on the forum are irrelevant and badly supported distortions drawn from other threads. Speak to the issue. I am not interested in this ad hominem, nor do I care what you think of me. That only proves your claims are without substance and your knowledge and ability to make an objective case are bankrupt.

Speaking of 'real' Vaisnavas. I would practice what I preach if I were you and not become embroiled in sectarian rivalry.

[theist]

I understand cbrahma's point clearly. The further proof of his point is all the nitpicking that he has got as a response i.e. "what is a brahmana" etc.

 

Even the Lord's pastimes can be heard recited and nitpicked away with this same attitude. It's called getting stuck on the intellectual plane of words and concepts and never moving on into transcendence thinking the words and concepts are themselves the real deal.

[raghu]

 

Speaking of 'real' Vaisnavas. I would practice what I preach if I were you and not become embroiled in sectarian rivalry.

 

 

So why do you keep arguing?

[cbrahma]

 

So why do you keep arguing?

Commenting on your smear campaign can hardly be called arguing. I'm not promoting myself as a Vaisnava. I'm a Christian, therefore I can't be a Vaisnava, remember?