Jump to content

Faith vs. Literalism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<center><img src= "http://home.primus.ca/~caitanya/statuelib.jpg"></center>

From PBS site on Evolution:

1. Did we evolve from monkeys?

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.




2. Isn't evolution just a theory that remains unproven?

In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.



I can't help seeing the parallels between the Planet of the Apes and our world which will never accept that society was far more advanced 10,000 and even more millions of years ago. Somewhere out there buried miles below the Himalayas is a mantra-controlled airplane from two billion B.C. Until proven wrong, this theory stands.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by talasiga:

Bilkul ! Satyaraja Babaji !

Bilkul !


By Lord's Grace, one need not even go near any

Vedaantic text to know this.....


[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 11-08-2001).]

“ ‘Bhakti was born in Draavidha, grew up in Kar.naataka, became worn out in MaharaaS.tra and Gurjera, sought refuge with her two sons Knowledge and Dispassion in Vrindavana, and regained her vigor there… Enough of vows, sacred fords, disciples, sacrifices, discourse about knowledge, faith alone bestows release!(Padma 6.189.51; 190.22)’” (Demmitt & van Buitenen 1978:11).




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Satyaraja das:

You should not proselytize, be careful.

I believe our faith, whatever `religion` we may be involved in, can be inspired by how we see others in our day to day lives. Devotion is there in every dog, what to speak of watching a mother with her young children.


When I speak of that devotion personified as Sri Radha, it is for the intended benefit of others who also worship Lord Caitanya as Radha-Krsna. I cannot personally claim that my realization of Her is anything other than my own, nor would I expect anyone from a different background to understand or accept.


My main concern on these forums is to be of helpful service to the followers of Srila AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada specifically and Gaudiya vaisnavas in general. I see them all united in Sri Radhika. That is my vision, although some may consider it just another agenda.


Jndas prabhu has said that his wish is to have all manner of `Spiritual Discussion` on this forum, so others may be posting for any number of reasons. While I try to respect their interactions, my own purpose in being here is definitely not to change anyone's religious faith or even discuss the philosophical nature of Absolute Truth, although I think chanting the Holy Names is always beneficial to everyone in this present Age of Quarrel and Hypocrisy.


It would be helpful for all of us if we could recognize His causeless mercy at work in each other and keep faith that somehow or other perfection will eventually be realized by His Divine Grace alone; not because of us, but in spite of us!


What a mess the cookies would make in the oven if they fought amongst themselves while being baked! Time,temperature, etc. are not under our control, what's important is how we tolerate the heat together.


valaya RR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gelberg was completely incorrect in assuming that we will all become the same personality in the end. Each soul is unique and individual. And that stands to reason: why would Krsna create so many identical personalities? That would really be quite boring for Him.


Sure the twenty-six qualities of a Vaishnava will be there, but in reality they are not qualities but just the true nature - more of a requisite, a base or foundation inherent in the fabric of reality, of Krsna's true nature. Beyond this intrinsic goodness there are likely unlimited colours and shades of love and reaction to be exhibited. Isn't that how you would do it if you were Krsna?


Srila Prabhupada and Srila Sridhara Maharaja, two entirely distinct personalities, one a gregarious world conqueror, the other introspective and quiet, both wonderful pure devotees, yet when they would meet the relationship was so sublime and sweet. Were they identical, what could possibly happen upon meeting that could not happen within one mind - one mirror talking to another mirror?


Perhaps he was talking about the clones and the arrogance and the jargon and the catch-phrases that no one really understood, but constantly quoted - mental platform egoism. We all have to learn to see this puffed-up pretense in ourselves as well as others, and identify it not as the final destination but rather as just yet another rut in the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Talasigaji: By Lord's Grace, one need not even go near any Vedaantic text to know this.....


Satyaraj: Yes, but nowadays some Zoroastrian-Vedantists are saying that one should completely reject the material world, as Maya is to be considered as Satan himself, always deluding and tempting the sinful jivas. Therefore the aim is to attain the transcendental world, beyond Maya, a heavenly realm attained only by the righteous who are following some sectarian precepts instructed by an enlighten messiah, now re-named as acarya.


Vedanta, however, stresses that Hari creates the material world as a mere sport, as we see in ordinary life (Vedanta-sutra 2.1.33). There is no mention of this world as a penal colony meant to transgressors. Hari is neither partial or cruel (Vedanta-sutra 2.1.34). He won’t place some of His own atomic part and parcels to suffer miseries in a material world and some others to enjoy as muktas in a heavenly transcendence.


According to Vedanta (2.1.13) jivas are the enjoyers of this material world, reciprocating with Hari His lilas on creation. Jivas are always subordinate to Hari in all aspects (Vedanta-sutra 2.1.30), and there is nothing wrong in Hari’s creation. When a jiva is feeling the necessity of to leave this material world, the merciful and sportive Hari, always smiling will take this soul to His own abode. Hari is attained by pure bhakti, preceding by God-knowledge (vidya). The election by Hari is not arbitrary as He knows all jivas’ hearts (Vedanta-sutra 3.3.54).



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hari displays a human-like form to perform some lilas. This is the original sruti, or the primary idea presented in many sruti texts. This idea (form) is eternal and immutable.


According to Vedanta Brahmaji makes his visarga (secondary) creation after being enlighten on these original and eternal ideas. So, he creates forms. Actually Hari is the operative as well as the material cause of the creation, because of his making Himself so, and by modifying Himself into the material world and its forms (Vedanta-sutra 1.4.26). So, in fact God has made man according to His own form and resemblance as states Bible.


To this sruti Hari displays a human-like form to perform some lilas, people may postulate several inferences (smrtis) according to his own capacity. Some may argue: “During the (secondary) creation human forms are fixed, they won’t change, as they are created by God Himself.” This party is called ‘creationist.’ Some may disagree: “During the creation all forms do change, including human forms, in other words they may evolve.” This party is called ‘evolutionist.’


But if these inferences made by several parties won’t change the sruti Hari displays a human-like form to perform some lilas, they are OK, they are only smrtis on the original idea, and according to sanatana-dharma’s precepts smrtis or inferences are allowed to disagree if they won’t modify the original sruti, or the primary idea.


So, Darwin has followed strictly the Vedic sruti that Hari displays a human-like form to perform some lilas, or the similar Bible’s precept that God has made man according to His own form and resemblance, and he has only made an inference that human forms may vary and may evolve even from lower forms during creation.


There is nothing wrong in the smrti process as Darwin has done. Only some illogical and fanatic parties would criticize his smrti. Knowing or unknowing, Darwin has followed the Arian process on inferences on srutis!




[This message has been edited by Satyaraja dasa (edited 11-09-2001).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My faith in Jesus Christ is non-negotiable

because my father christened me after the

scribe, St. Matthew in the New Testament of

the Holy Bible. He didn`t named me after

him, a junior. He told me it would not be

wise to name me after his name for he wanted

me to be second to none. Literally, I fol-

lowed the footsteps of this great saint. I

therefore entered the seminary to become a

priest. Inside I followed the vows of po-

verty and chastity. Unitl I got sick of a

type of skin allergy which I didn`t know

what caused it. I lost weight and developed

a chronic cough which they thought I had

tuberculosis of the lungs. But I was able to

recover when I find that it really so hard

to follow these regiments or programs the

seminary wanted us, seminarians, to observe

if we want to become a follower of Christ.

In my second year, it was here that my bro-

ther, Marco,also entered the seminary. May-

be it was his presence that I grew confi-

dent and started to eat more. I became one

of the top ten in the class until my last

year in school. I felt sad because, Marco,

would be lonely inside if I proceed to

take the college course for the prieshood.

It was I feel isolated him, for he did not

want actually to become a priest. At that

instant, I realiza that I was selfish and

thought only of myself. Thus it was very

devastating on our parent`s part when I

decided at the last minute not to proceed

in my ambition to be come a priest.

marco, my brother is out of the seminary

and taking an engineering course in the

same school where I`m taking a course in


Someday, I`ll be able to write a program

that will make our Lord Jesus Christ happy.

Of course, with His divine help and support.

Faith and literalism I think are the oppo-

site although they maybe related. But faith

in your Maker is better than being an ape.


Thanks for your time to read my opinion on

this matter. Praise the Lord and Allelujia!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Bhaktivinode Thakur has stated that when one worships his highest ideal one is worshiping Krsna. (Janus)

If so, why one should criticize Osama Bin Laden and other fanatics like him? Isn’t he worshiping his highest ideal? Does this kind of worship is the cause of vidya?


In fact there is an ocean of difference between the instructions on God-knowledge given by sruti texts and those given by religious cultists.



I think that you have answered your own question Satayaraja das, there is also a world of difference between worship of ones highest ideal and idolatry, one being actual worship of God and one being something else, at least that is the only way that I can begin to understand it.

Hari bol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Leaping to conclusions may provide temporary elation of egos, but it is hardly satisfying."


Taxing ones powers of associative reasning can be very difficult. "Jumping to conclusions" is hardly ever satisfying for more than the momentary fraction of relief it provides and should never be done unless existential pressures propel it, such as when you only have a fraction of a second to determine whether it is your life that must be saved or the life of some other person. If ones responsibility is clear then their is no hesitation, if that is one is adequately trained. Still their may be fear. Jumping to conclusions otherwise is a process that has no philosophical justification, it is in fact only a masquerade for a search for the truth. Knowing these things the question arises as to whether we should still search for the truth. What is the truth related to and what is your mission. I say "you" because as you are so found of pointing out I am only a Bhakta of your tradition. I take this to be a supreme compliment, but I wonder if you mean it otherwise.

That you are not convinced as you say does not mean that the burden of proof does not exist either way necessarily. Perhaps it is only that you aren't much interested. As you are a disciple of Srila Prabhupada that is in accordance with his instruction if you are only interested in becoming Krsna conscious. That is between you and your Guru and I have nothing more to say to you about it for it is a very personal thing and I do not think that you consider me to be your friend, or anyone who you would feel comfortable confiding your problems to.

In reply to your statement concerning the fossil record it was Charles Darwins major gripe when it was brought up to him that the fossil record did not support his theory of evolution, That was then but nothing has changed, it still doesn't, but that wasn't my main point anyway, my point was that we are victims of an educational system that crams all types of crap into our heads as factual information because there is a purpose behind it, that it isn't just accident, and that the major religious institutions of that part of the world that defines reality or the predominant consensual world view have no choice but to accept if they want at all to stay in the game. I am not much interested either, but I am entirely convinced that Krsna consciousness is the greatest attainment, and that thus it should be our only interest. Unfortunately we do not exist in a world that facillitates ones practice of God consciousness and are ourselves responsible for creating it so one must needs be very interested in determining what obstacles can be cleared away, like cleaning out the rubbish in ones own mind before any actual construction can be commenced, or the equipment that one has brought in and which still sets crated up in boxs can be assembled and turned on. I hate having to do research and development at the same time but viewing each individual as the prototype demands it.

Anyway good luck Ghari.

Hari bol




Link to comment
Share on other sites



This is from On Leaving ISKCON, Part Two, by Steven J. Gelberg (Subhananda das). Steve Gelberg was an ISKCON devotee for seventeen years, and most of that time he was a staff writer for the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust:


"To be frank, there is something very sad, tragic even, in the spectacle of sincere spiritual aspirants endlessly struggling against and denying sexual feelings (which are, after all, perfectly natural if you're embodied), continually berating themselves for their lack of heroic detachment from the body, seeking dark corners in which to masturbate or, finding themselves "attached to" another devotee, planning and scheming "illicit" encounters. All this unavoidable cheating and hypocrisy, guilt and shame, denial and cover-up, make a pathetic sham of ISKCON's ascetical conceit. Granted, there are some devotees, small in number, who have a gift (if that is what it is) for serene, contented celibacy. But the mass of devotees simply do not.


After many years of monitoring my own and other's (through conversation and counseling) ambivalence about and mixed-success in following the standards, the whole celibacy fetish began to look a bit suspect. Why the abysmal failure of most devotees to be uncompromisingly celibate? Why the pervasive inability to perform an act of renunciation that ISKCON defines as a precondition not only of serious spiritual practice but of civilized human life? Why that fundamental failure?"


On Page 2 0f "Galva's latest nonsense" topic, I deal with some of the issues Steve raises. I disagree with much of what Steve says. What do you think?





[This message has been edited by darwin (edited 11-10-2001).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Ever had a mosquito bite? If you don't scratch it, eventually it won't itch.


It is nature that we will be bitten. Prabhupada notes that the attraction between young boys and girls is natural. But don't scratch it.


Now, about sex. The pleasure level is a constant pleasant for the celibate. However, the sex monger will explode all their pleasure in a few minutes and spend days trying to get back to the normal level. But as soon as that happens, bang, another explosion. Essentially they spend most of their lives feeling much less sensual pleasure than a true celibate. The pleasure is all rubbed off and they live most of their life all beaten-up black and blue.


I have my cake. I can have one piece a day or I can gobble the whole thing up at once and spend the next week sufferng from the withdrawal. It seems it is a well-known fact that you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolutionists propose that life evolved from nonlife by change chemical evolution (spontaneous generation). Creationists claim that life comes from life; originally created by an intelligent creator. The facts as they are found in the reaal world is that life comes only from life and that there is simply no way to form complex genetic codes by chance.


Evolutionists propose that the fossil record should show that life came about in simple forms originating gradually and that there should be transitional forms linking previous ones. Creationists counter that life as we know it shows that the fossil record exhibits a sudden appearance of complex life in great variety with large gaps separating major kinds. Creationists claim that there are no linking forms. In the real world the fossil record corroborates the Creationists claims, it demonstrates a sudden appearance of a great many different forms of life and that each new kind is separate from previous kinds and that there are no linking forms just plenty of missing links.


Evolutionists take the stand that new kinds of life only arose gradually and postulate beginnings of incomplete bones and organs in transitional state. Creationists claim instead that no new kinds of life appeared gradually and that no incomplete bones or organs have ever been found but that those bones and organs that have been found or which have left their impression are formed completely. The fact of the matter as exhibited by the fossil record is that no new kinds of life ever appeared gradually and although there are many varieties none exhibit incompletely formed bones or organs.


Evolutionists state that the net result of mutation is beneficial, giant rats and Gila Monsters and the Attack of the 50 ft Woman besides, that beneficial mutation generates new features like and extra set of breasts or perhaps two or three heads (Lord Bhrama is a bit to ambitious for them, they are remarkably shy about revealing to us that what they claim as being truth is in reality their hopeful fantasy that they are not an evolution from primordial slime.) Creationists proclaim that mutation is harmful, even to the fruit fly, to any complex life form and that they further do not result in the generation of any new characteristics. The facts of life as have become known to us through our scientific study of the lowly fly and other complex forms of life and from our observance of the affects of mutating rays and pathogens is that even the smallest mutation is harmful and that larger mutations are fatal and that they never result in anything new.


Evolutionists propose that civilizations only arose gradually out from crude and barbaric beginnings. Creationists claim that all falls are falls of Atlantis, that Civilization is contemporaneous with man and that from the beginning it was complex. The facts are that Civilization appears with man. There are millions of Chinese still living in caves now as there were quite a few people still living in caves back then contemporary with civilization.


Evolutionists propose that Americans speak the English language but then again they counter their own consideration by saying that language evolved from the simple animal sounds that most Americans are still speaking into complex modern languages such as English. Creationists claim that language is contemporaneous with man and that ancient, or older, or versions of languages as spoken by their namesakes (be it English or DevaNagari) are complex and complete (or more complex and complete as is the case between the English that the English speak and that I as an American rip to pieces and fill up the missing places with gutturals and growls). Reality demonstrates that language is contemporaneous with mankind (not literacy or the written word but language which is independent of the page) and the fact of the matter is apparent to anyone who has ever made a 12 year study of Sanskrit grammer (not me) which is that ancient languages are more complex and modern (and thus ancient thought was also more complex and modern).


Evolutionists claim that man appeared millions of years ago as he is today. Creationists claim on the other hand that this miserable idiotic and short lived species began only to appear about 6,000 years ago. The facts are that the oldest written records date from only about 5,000 years ago.


The facts of the matter as they appear in the real world debunk evolutionary theory, so why is evolutionary theory still being presented to us as if it were fact?


The reason for this is that the present World View is atheistic and demoniac and intends to further degrade us by conditioning us to believe such bs so that we will accept ourselves as being souless machines in a Godless Universe. Thus we will regard ourselves and each other as only flesh to be enjoyed sensually and/or eaten.

If life comes from non-life, then man is only a soulless machine and there is no other purpose in life, no ultimate cause except to live to satisfy ones senses.

Hari bol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gHari prabhu,

You make a good point about the pleasures of celibacy, but celibacy does not seem work for many devotees or is not achievable by many devotees in present day Iskcon. Don't we need to prevent devotees from leaving the movement entirely? Don't you think we need to show more respect for devotees who can't or will not be sexless?


We need to take an honest look at ourselves and our motives: Are we trying to build a happy society and help new people become devotees, or are we just collecting temporary devotees to fill our Temples? Do we want to keep on forcing many devotees to lie about being celibate? Shouldn't our society have a place for devotees who have a hard time following a monastic regimen?


"No, it'll be great! It'll be great, because all those Ph.D.'s are in there ... discussing 'modes of alienation' and we'll be in here quietly humping."

Woody Allen,

in Annie Hall

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Janus:

....If life comes from non-life, then man is only a soulless machine and there is no other purpose in life, no ultimate cause except to live to satisfy ones senses.

Hari bol

Should we think that we don't have souls just because there is a satisfactory explanation of the material origins of our material bodies? Should we need proven miracles to believe in god?


If god supplied us with such evidence of miracles, wouldn't that cause us to think we believe in god as a super, miracle making, materially all-powerful but ultimately non-transcendental being?


Could this be why we are put into this material world, seemingly devoid of miracles, so that we won't be distracted by such things and we will find Krishna?


Thank you for your nice post, prabhu.


Hari Bol!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion is that we do not live in a Temple until we get our excrement together, certainly at least vis-a-vis the big four. Krsna will gradually take away all unwanted things. In the beginning I was still chasing the babes, but just wasn't catching (m)any .... and eventually the scratching ended and the itching became tolerable, less attractive than Krsna.


To second-guess Prabhupada on such a major point is certain to lead to destruction. "Doubting the authorities leads to destruction". Of course, he would say to get married, but raunchy studs muffins like ourselves may need a little weaning off the hard stuff before being fit to enter a Temple. If we keep doubting, putting that clever brain above Krsna and His pure devotees we are certain to be one of those temporary devotees of whom you speak. Prabhupada's words were very clear and prophetic. I'd recommend reading and rereading those words many times over. Daily. Because only hearing what you want to hear just ain't gonna to get you there; it will all be ego and mental platform intellectualism - and that gets boring pretty quickly, using God to maintain your false ego.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spent quite some time in the newsgroup talk.origins several years back. That snakepit was filled with the most disgusting creatures I have ever encountered, but there were also some very knowledgeable honest scientists who were actually working in the field.


While most of the 'evolutionists' were just anti-religionist idiots without enough intelligence to understand what anyone was talking about, there were some who justifiably were suggesting that we were only trying to find out how God did it.


They were honest enough to point out current problems with the theory and the FACT that abiogenesis from Darwin's original "Origin of the Species" had been completely removed in the currently touted theory of evolution.


Actually I think the real scientists there were quite intriqued with the knowledge from the Vedas. They wanted to believe in God, but the Biblical representation of creation as understood by Christian theologians was so very implausible given the physical dating of the universe. etc.


I left unscathed determined never to waste so much time again. There are people who are ready to hear in this world. All-in-all the evolution subject can be classified amongst the species of red herrings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



The problem in accepting as authorities the scientists whose speculations about the fossils found and not found form the theory of evolution is that so much of the Vedas will now be difficult for your mind to accept. Initially we are all on the mental platform. How can one accept a Satya Yuga, Tretya Yuga or even Lord Ramacandra?


Prabhupada said "They are accepting bones as their authority, we are accepting intelligence as ours". That intelligence being the Vedas. It may prove more efficient to accept the Vedas and then see where the scientists have made their hasty conclusions in areas which contradict the Vedic understanding of the way it is. From that more respectful perspective, it is quite easy to become content and actually rise above the 'science' claims.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

SatyarAjji: Em primeiro...

1) Eu nao creo, I reaaly don't believe what our Western media is broadcasting concerning Bin Laden, Bushman, etc.

They tell u what they want u to know, to accept as true.

Meanwhile so much else is going on.

2) Everyone's highest ideal in its pure state is non-different tham KRSNa.

ZrIla ZrIdhardev Mhrj also stated: "a man is known by his highest ideal."

Otherwise we only see the outside. Blind within.

Thus we end up rejecting VamsidAs Babaji, Gaurkizor dAs Babaji...

We'll ask: :What's so good about these poor fellows?

Anyone who is not externally successful...

He must be vagrant or fool, unworthy of my attention.

Then we go down to lower species where everybody sees only body.

"I eat your body or you eat my body." No soul.

Soul vision totally absent among subhumans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SatyarAjji: Em primeiro...

1) Eu nao creo, I really don't believe what our Western media is broadcasting concerning Bin Laden, Bushman, etc.

They tell u what they want u to know.

What they want u to accept as true.

Meanwhile so much else was/is going on.

2) Everyone's highest ideal in its pure state is non-different than KRSNa.

ZrIla ZrIdhardev Mhrj also stated: "a man is known by his highest ideal."

Otherwise we only see the outside. Blind within.

Thus we end up rejecting VamsidAs Babaji, Gaurkizor dAs Babaji...

We'll ask: "What's so good about these poor fellows?"

And anyone who is not externally successful?

"He must be vagrant or fool, unworthy of my attention."

Then we go down to lower species where everybody sees only body.

"I eat your body or you eat my body." No soul.

Soul vision totally absent among subhumans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prezado Tarunji:


1) Eu também não creio. For certain Western media is always boardcasting its own version to keep their cattle calm and docile. But actually Bin Laden’s highest ideal isn’t ideal’s pure state and non-different than Hari.


2) The premise that I pointed out is that the pure ideal is establish by sruti, as a pure idea, or pure form, or a primordial principle. This is the highest and the most obvious aim. As it is very difficult to prove or to establish the obvious, many inferences are done to try to do it, and for certain secondary aims are mistaken as the original aim.


Some Vedantists call this process nirdistha and urdistha-visaya. Some are focusing the secondary that is not to be considered as the aim (nirdistha) and missing the original aim (urdistha).


We are stating that ‘faith’ and ‘religion’ are not the primordial aims to attain this pure state (they are nirdhista), and that only vidya is that aim for all seekers (vidya is urdhista). So stresses the Vedanta.


Tarunji: "I eat your body or you eat my body." No soul.

Soul vision totally absent among subhumans.


Satyaraj: Yes, this is also Caitanya’s thesis in Ramananda-samvada. One evolves by different stages coming from deep ignorance and no scriptural (avaidic) life, following by religious life motivated by kama, following by religious life without kama (niskama), attaining jñana (vidya) and realization, and thereafter pure bhakti after moksa.


Obviously for sub-humans religious life is the first step to be attained. But the sages understand that this is only a stage, or nirdhista-visaya. Sages known that final aim is that vidya that causes moksa and pure bhakti.


That explanation on how sanatana-dharma evolves is perhaps the greatest contribution by Caitanya and his followers should be mastered on it!



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Janusji has pointed out a very illustrative aspect on how evolution within sanatana-dharma should be respected:


On Leaving ISKCON, Part Two, by Steven J. Gelberg (Subhananda das). Steve Gelberg was an ISKCON devotee for seventeen years, and most of that time he was a staff writer for the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust:

"To be frank, there is something very sad, tragic even, in the spectacle of sincere spiritual aspirants endlessly struggling against and denying sexual feelings (which are, after all, perfectly natural if you're embodied), continually berating themselves for their lack of heroic detachment from the body...”


According to Caitanya’s instruction on Ramananda-samvada, if one is coming from the non-scriptural life platform he might ingress into sakama-karma, or the stage were he is following some scriptural injunctions to have sense gratification, by increasing his sexual feelings and other material aspirations, and only ruling them according to the scriptural injunctions. He worships Hari as the prompter of the good karma and the dispeller of sins and bad karma. This is religion’s most primary platform and one should face this stage.


Caitanya’s opinion is that harinama-sankirtana may accelerate the evolution until the highest stage. But he also stresses that all stages should be stepped one by one.

Rejection for material aspirations, that includes celibate and hard restrictions for sexual life such as brahmacari vow, vanaprastha, and sannyasa are meant for the next stage, i.e, for niskama-karmis, or those who are in another platform of life, understanding and having the realization that material life cannot give them the eternal happiness that they are seeking after. So, they offer Hari the result of their karma.


When one has a sect, a cult, were many convert are placed artificially in the same platform, and rules meant for renunciates are precociously imposed to some ‘sakama’ people who are only temporally frustrated, the result must be terrible, and also artificial and temporary.




[This message has been edited by Satyaraja dasa (edited 11-12-2001).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Support the Ashram

Join Groups

IndiaDivine Telegram Group IndiaDivine WhatsApp Group

  • Create New...