A little religion is a dangerous thing

[Ananga 0]

The forums here, as the ones that were on VNN (does anyone know if those are going to be back online in the future?), indicate something that has been historically insidious when it comes to organized religion: The tendency to harbor the ulterior motive of having one’s particular faith emerge as superior to all others, and in the process somehow denigrate competitors. I would like to draw a distinction between criticism that is meant to ferret out hypocrisy and cheating and that which is only meant to bolster one’s own position. The latter has been a tool of manipulative politicians to control groups of people (I think I really do not need to elaborate upon this by going into the details of self-righteous crusades over the centuries that resulted in atrocities in the name of the Deity) and ultimately to keep a small number of elite leaders sitting at the top of their little (or in some cases vast) empires.

 

I think the recent reaching out by the current pope in Rome to amend the wrongs of the church (as he did in meeting with leaders of the orthodox churches) is an example to be commended. Despite our level of realization as Vaishnavas (whatever that might be for each of us), we need to be vigilant on this to ensure that we do not stoop to elitist tactics. Let those we are presenting our tradition to decide for themselves whether or not we have something of a higher order to offer. If they are like us, then they will appreciate what we have found in the tradition that makes it something special and perhaps more resonant than the various faiths we were raised with (whether that be Roman Catholic or Lutheran or Judaism or Islam or Buddhism or Native American or Shinto, whatever).

 

That then brings us to the matter of our own sectarian battles within Vaishnavism. There are certain standards that we are all going to agree upon, irregardless of our views on parampara and diksa and the origin of the jiva, etc. Within our Gaudiya branch of Vaishnavism, we share common preceptors along the way over the past five hundred years, and no one is going to argue their authority, although some will interpret their teachings in various ways.

 

It would behoove us to view our various sects as constantly evolving and redefining themselves with each new generation, and also as something that does not exist in a vacuum but as interactive with all other religious traditions that its members encounter. We can be like the ostrich or we can strive for openmindedness in the study of comparative religion and history of religion. This does not mean we need to water down our tradition by mixing it with everything else under the sun. It does mean, however, that we should end up with a healthy respect for outsiders, rather than a characteristically un-Vaishnava-like disdain. The use of derogatory terms such as ‘karmi’ does not reflect well on the character of those that want to be considered as Caitanyites in good standing. Nor does the indiscriminate labels of ‘sahajiya’ and ‘mayavadi’ to brand competitors.

 

It appears that many participants here would do well to take a step back and consider what is necessary to judge who is representing our tradition accurately and who possesses the tools to correctly understand the literary heritage and how best to propagate the same and interpret it for time and circumstances. I think there is a tendency to merely consider charismatic personalities that are capable of building up a large following as evidence of the necessary qualifications, when there is much more to consider. The question is whether we are aiming for quality or quantity.

 

 

[Jagat 1]

Good points.

 

It is my feeling -- perhaps it is revisionist, but I would like to promote it anyway -- that the Bhagavata-parampara idea was originally intended to transcend sectarianism. But along the way, the concept was waylaid and became representative of another sectarian institution.

 

Yours,

 

Jagat

[premananda 0]

Originally posted by Jagat:

Good points.

 

It is my feeling -- perhaps it is revisionist, but I would like to promote it anyway -- that the Bhagavata-parampara idea was originally intended to transcend sectarianism. But along the way, the concept was waylaid and became representative of another sectarian institution.

 

Yours,

 

Jagat

I think you are right Jagat Ji. The GM devotees seem to insist that aspiring vaishnavas receive mantras from the GM gurus and not other Gaudiyas. That seems sectarian to me.

So they have created what they accused the "caste-gosvamis" of - a diksha monopoly.

 

[Maitreya 0]

Originally posted by premananda:

I think you are right Jagat Ji. The GM devotees seem to insist that aspiring vaishnavas receive mantras from the GM gurus and not other Gaudiyas. That seems sectarian to me.

So they have created what they accused the "caste-gosvamis" of - a diksha monopoly.

But does that not work both ways premananda?

 

 

[premananda 0]

:-P

 

[This message has been edited by premananda (edited 05-27-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by Ananga:

The forums here, as the ones that were on VNN ,indicate something that has been historically insidious when it comes to organized religion:

 

The tendency to harbor the ulterior motive of having one’s particular faith emerge as superior to all others, and in the process somehow denigrate competitors.

 

I would like to draw a distinction between criticism that is meant to ferret out hypocrisy and cheating and that which is only meant to bolster one’s own position.

That then brings us to the matter of our own sectarian battles within Vaishnavism. There are certain standards that we are all going to agree upon, irregardless of our views on parampara and diksa and the origin of the jiva, etc.

We can be like the ostrich or we can strive for openmindedness in the study of comparative religion and history of religion. It does mean, however, that we should end up with a healthy respect for outsiders, rather than a characteristically un-Vaishnava-like disdain.

 

The use of derogatory terms such as ‘karmi’ does not reflect well on the character of those that want to be considered as Caitanyites in good standing.

 

Nor does the indiscriminate labels of ‘sahajiya’ and ‘mayavadi’ to brand competitors.

 

It appears that many participants here would do well to take a step back and consider what is necessary to judge who is representing our tradition accurately and who possesses the tools to correctly understand the literary heritage and how best to propagate the same and interpret it for time and circumstances.

The question is whether we are aiming for quality or quantity.

 

 

Good points.

Ananga and Jagat.

The forums need 'faith lift' more than the 'face lift'!

 

[Gauracandra 1]

The forums need 'faith lift' more than the 'face lift'!

Haribol Cintamani Das,

 

I agree with you, but I would make one little 'tweak'. We have to remember that the forums are simply a medium to transfer information. Each individual adds to the forum atmosphere, and makes it either positive or negative. Thats actually very empowering when you think about it. Each of us, if we want, can keep the discussion really high class, and exchange our own personal realizations. Or as individuals we can take a negative/cynical approach of analysis/discussion. The last several days I think as a forum collectively and as individuals personally we have done pretty good. In the end, I can only control myself and so I will do my best to always keep my language and manners as high class as I can. Haribol.

 

Gauracandra

[kailasa 0]

Sects on my sight, it is loss of essence and emphasis on what that one, giving out it for essence. To system or diksa or race and so on. Bhagavatam describes the basic kinds of fidelity. It is possible to discuss philosophy or race, it, not touching the person. If the person mature, anywhere at it(her) will not be of problems, and from a dirty(dirt) she(it) will take gold not having soiled. Not religion is dangerous, the material life is dangerous. My respect.

What devoted could start to it(him) that is necessary to be fixed at first on what one place, then, it is possible to understand some. If the purpose clearing, equally concerning to everything, devoted can move there. Having reached(achieved) tops devoted tries on the present to help anothers. But it is possible simply to work under a management(manual) and as the purpose will be achieved gradually. If guru kanistha (Can be), all the same all goes. In the material world the ideal system and activity is not possible(probable). Without system this device in a nature and spiritual life is absolutely not possible. The form always has it not essence, but essence the form, whether the truth?

 

[Ananga 0]

We see in Dr. Kapoor’s writings about Gaudiya saints something that there is a parallel of in western religious traditions: The manifestations commonly known as miracles. If these accounts are to be believed (and why should they not? - for what ulterior motives could the witnesses to them possibly have, considering that there have not been money nor political power nor real estate at stake, as with certain other organizations that shall go unnamed here), then one should consider the inherent sakti or power that those personalities possess to be able to produce what is beyond the capabilities of ordinary people.

 

It would behoove us to consider the ability to produce miracles as an important yardstick to measure someone’s level of realization (as long as it is coupled with the other signs of good character and immersion in bhakti). Although some individuals need to be revered for their contributions along the lines of publishing books about Caitanyaism and inspiring others to take up raganuga sadhana (or even vaidi marga), should they really be equated with the saints that have displayed the miraculous phenomena that have been reported throughout history? If miracles serve any purpose at all in Radharani’s and Govinda’s plans, then what other than that of manifesting divinity and instilling faith in bhaktas could that purpose be?

 

Finally, does building a religious empire in any way qualify as something miraculous? If that were the case, then any type of large organization would have to be deemed holy (even organized crime).

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Originally posted by Ananga:

The manifestations commonly known as miracles. If these accounts are to be believed (and why should they not? - for what ulterior motives could the witnesses to them possibly have...

Here I would disagree. There are plenty of ulterior motives possible. The most obvious motive is fame, followers, respect, adoration, etc. Just see someone like Sai Baba, who can also perform miracles. Despite his miracles, he is a homosexual who abuses children. What is the use of measuring one's spiritual position by material miracles?

 

It would behoove us to consider the ability to produce miracles as an important yardstick to measure someone’s level of realization (as long as it is coupled with the other signs of good character and immersion in bhakti).

Everyone thought Sai Baba taught bhakti. Millions of followers were fooled. When you try to find a saint by a material measurement (in this case mundane miracles) you will fail.

 

...should they really be equated with the saints that have displayed the miraculous phenomena that have been reported throughout history?

In India everyone is attributed miracles after they die. There are so many motivating factors involved. To increase the prominence of the matha, to create an avatara, to bring tourists, etc.

 

 

If miracles serve any purpose at all in Radharani’s and Govinda’s plans, then what other than that of manifesting divinity and instilling faith in bhaktas could that purpose be?

Maybe the purpose is to fool young children so that they can be molested by a miracle performing "saint".

 

Finally, does building a religious empire in any way qualify as something miraculous?

No. The real miracle is instilling pure bhakti in the hearts of millions of souls.

 

 

[shvu 1]

 

Finally, does building a religious empire in any way qualify as something miraculous? If that were the case, then any type of large organization would have to be deemed holy (even organized crime).

If this is about Prabhupada, it is a miracle in the sense that he had no backing when he landed in the US, and then went on to create a worldwide organization. So it may not be a miracle per se, but it is no ordinary feat either. By the same standards, Mircosoft started by a drop-out is also a miracle.

 

Who has seen a miracle? I mean you personally, or someone whom you can really trust? Miracles were added by disciples to the stories of their gurus, to make their job of preaching more easier. Miracles that are commonly seen are Sai Baba producing watches, ash, apples, etc out of thin air. These are cheap gimmicks that any average magician can do.

 

Once someone said, a person who claims to have supernatural powers should eradicate pain and suffering in the world. He should perform a miracle by which there should be no more starvation in the world. Now that would be a miracle. But no one in history has really done any such miracle. It has always been small time tricks or fake stories by disciples.

 

Besides, how important is a miracle?

Does it really matter whether x was an avatar, y's prayer bought down a shower of gold coins or z had divine sight? If one believes in a Guru because his stories show him as an extra-ordinary person, then such beliefs are conditional and mean little.

 

Cheers

[Ananga 0]

I thought I did qualify my statement by stating that as long as those miracles (which are not mundane, by the way, but something that defies rational explanation) are accompanied by the signs of sad-acara and demonstration of immersion in bhakti, then they should be taken seriously. The cases you cite show that those individuals did not meet the standards of character expected.

 

As far as certain persons actually producing disciples that have achieved some high level of prema, that is going to have to be scrutinized by way of somehow qualifying those disciples.

 

The saints depicted by Dr. Kapoor are by and large living ascetic lives, so where do you see this potential for ulterior motives such as fame?

[This message has been edited by Ananga (edited 05-13-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by Ananga (edited 05-13-2001).]

[shvu 1]

 

The cases you cite show that those individuals did not meet the standards of character expected.

Says who? People who do not believe in him. All Gurus are viewed differently by others than from their respective followers. You would be surprised to know that Sai Baba, till date has a large following and his disciples are inclined to dismiss any controversy about their Guru as baseless. He wears saffron and to public appearance at least is supposed to be living an austere life. Just like any other Sanyasi. There are people who believe that they were cured of cancer and other ailments by the grace of Sai baba. According to them, Sai Baba appeared in their dreams and told them not to worry. Th next day they were cured. Try telling them that their Guru is a fake.

 

Coming to Dr Kapoor's Stories, there are countless such stories written by several people. Have you read one Swami Rama's book on his life in the Himalayas? He talks about various miracles that he saw performed by the Sadhus who live there. If we are willing to believe in books and hearsay, then we have to also believe in Sai Baba's miracles, Jesus cured the blind, etc.

 

A few years back in India, I was returning home one night and found a large crowd in front of a Ganesha temple. Apparently Ganesha had started drinking milk everywhere in India! There was great excitement everywhere. When I reached home, me and my friends started experimenting with an idol of Ganesha. We found that the milk was just flowing down by capillary action, caused due to the curvature of the idol. Naturally it worked on other curved surfaces too, when we tried it out. We tried explaining this to our people, but they believed that the idols in the temple had actually consumed the milk. Sure enough, the mystery was solved next day when all the news papers dismissed it as bogus. The excitement died fast enough. If this had happened a couple of 100 years back, it would have gone down in history as a special day and would have been turned into an Indian festival.

 

The reason is, people want to believe. They want to believe in para-normal and supernatural occurrences. It takes them above their otherwise monotonous existence and so they are always looking forward to such things. When there is such a market for miracles, naturally there will be suppliers too.

 

This brings back my old question.

 

Who has seen a miracle? I mean you personally, or someone whom you can really trust?

 

Cheers

[jijaji 0]

quote:

 

Who has seen a miracle? I mean you personally, or someone whom you can really trust?

 

> I have personally several times shvu....but dare not disclose them on this forum!

 

jijaji

 

------------------

PEACE NOW

[Guest guest]

>> Who has seen a miracle? I mean you personally, or someone whom you can really trust?

 

Miracles can be considered as yoga-siddhis, the mystic perfection of hatta-yoga, 8 or 18 kinds, and fully described in Agamas, as well in smrti texts such as Srimad Bhagavatan 11th Canto (Udhava-gita). Perfection such as laghima, anima, and so on may cause one to walk over the water, to disappear suddenly, to leave his body, to control other's mind, and even to crate a universe.

 

One should observe, however, that these siddhis are not transcendental, or due any sac-cit-anandana power. They are merely interactions with maya-sakti, by controlling some maya's attributes in a scientific way, and are reproducible by the process mentioned by Agamas.

 

As ordinary people cannot understand the difference between subtle and transcendental, or between linga-sarira and jiva's svarupa, they also cannot make any distinction between miracles caused by material siddhis and transcendental transformation of maya's attributes.

 

Most of so-called gurus, avataras, saints, and so on may have some mystic powers, knowing or unknowing how they had attained them. As is stated in Gita, one never loose his yoga-ksama, his previous acquisitions in the path of any limb of yoga. In one of his next lifetimes, some of these siddhis attained in previous lifetimes may be manifested and he now he may employ these things to fulfil his karmic purposes.

 

Known that these siddhis are not spiritual acquisitions and are merely material and karmic attainments.

 

Dr Kapoor has made some hagiographies on the life histories of many babajis, placing them as uttma-maha-bhagavatas, and most of Gaudiyas do not accept it. Most of these cases are mere exhibitions of yoga-siddhis, and bhava-abhasa, that are in material platform and are not spiritual at all. Placing these babajis at the same rank of mahapurusas such as Sri Jagannatha dasa Babaji, and others, he has transformed even a British bhakta such as Richard Nixon into a 'saint' of the same caliber of mahabhagavatas and parikaras.

 

Western readers while reading these hagiographies shed some tears and have some pity, and they imagine that they are now in the bhava stage of bhakti. They run to Vrindavana seeking after a raganuga-guru to receive their siddha-pranali and siddha-deha, and reject their former condition of beginners. After sometime they make their way back to West, buy a computer and become cyber-babajis! A new class of mystics, very sophisticated and empowered. What can be done? This is Kali-yuga!!!

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[jijaji 0]

21st CENTURY SCHIZOID MAN

 

Cat's foot iron claw

Neuro-surgeons scream for more

At paranoia's poison door.

Twenty first century schizoid man.

 

Blood rack barbed wire

Polititians' funeral pyre

Innocents raped with napalm fire

Twenty first century schizoid man.

 

Death seed blind man's greed

Poets' starving children bleed

Nothing he's got he really needs

Twenty first century schizoid man.

 

 

 

 

------------------

PEACE NOW

[Gauracandra 1]

Excerpted from 'Audarya Fellowship':

 

We hope that these forums can create a congenial atmosphere for everyone to discuss philosophy and spirituality on equal terms. We can have vigorous debates, and strong discussions, but they should always be high class. We hope that the discussions will stay focussed on the philosophy, and not degrade into personal insults - for then the forums will not foster a congenial atmosphere for discussion. While writing we should always keep in mind our purpose - to become Audarya. We should not write for the sake of arguing, defeating others, or showing ourselves to be scholars. In our heart we should strive to attain a platform of selflessness. That is the purpose of this fellowship, so that we can help each other transcend the mundane and selfish conceptions of this world, and be fixed in pure generosity - acting for the welfare of the world.

Haribol.

 

Gauracandra

[jijaji 0]

OK OK ....

 

 

------------------

PEACE NOW

[amanpeter 0]

Originally posted by jijaji:

OK OK ....

 

 

How about a separate forum category accessible only by secret password (kind of like the `adult` section in a video store--not that I've ever been there), where protagonists could REALLY duke it out, no holds barred! Anyone complaining would lose his/her password privileges. Then the administrator could just say, "Go to your room!" and we actually COULD!

 

 

[jijaji 0]

whatever....

 

this is gettin old quick!

 

later!

 

 

------------------

PEACE NOW

[amanpeter 0]

Cyber Babajis, Sai Baba--Say, now I get it! Thanks Satyaraj prabhu, for clearing up my raganonsense with your astute punditry!

[jijaji 0]

oi gavald..!

 

jijaji

 

------------------

PEACE NOW

[Gauracandra 1]

Satya,

 

Now I thought we were going to have high class debates. Lets keep this clean.

 

Just one man's opinion.

 

Gauracandra

[Bhaktavasya 0]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

>> Who has seen a miracle? I mean you personally, or someone whom you can really trust?

 

.

 

Dr Kapoor has made some hagiographies on the life histories of many babajis, placing them as uttma-maha-bhagavatas, and most of Gaudiyas do not accept it. Most of these Placing these babajis at the same rank of mahapurusas such as Sri Jagannatha dasa Babaji, and others, he has transformed even a British bhakta such as Richard Nixon into a 'saint' of the same caliber of mahabhagavatas and parikaras.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

my reply: Richard Nixon was a British bhakta

who was decalred a saint? please speak truthfull, Satyaraj.

 

 

[Ananga 0]

Who is this Satyaraj character? He is always making some derogatory remark about sadhus. Besides his claims that the great saints Dr. Kapoor has written about are not accepted by most Gaudiyas are totally ridiculous. Maybe not accepted by Satyaraja's little elitist clique, but certainly by the mainstream practitioners. Of course, Satyaji would not know that now would he, since he shuns all association with the orthodoxy. It is just laughable that he sits there walled up in some institution poking fun at the outside world. Perhaps some day he will come out into the sunlight from his dark self-imposed tomb and actually associate with the mainstream members of the tradition. Then he will come away with a totally difference perspective. In the meantime, we can wait.

 

 

[This message has been edited by Ananga (edited 05-15-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by Ananga (edited 05-15-2001).]