Bhaskar...I think I'm being underestimated here, but what you see is what you see. All I can do is address your comments on what I've posted...they're well stated and I will have to think and reflect this through and post a response later. Hare Krishna and peace...
Got hit on the head, the padawan did... but is it real or is it illusion? All we know is , The great libertine has spoken.
Bhaskar, I replied and said that I would respond to your post and address your points, and if I decide do so, the reply will careful and well substantiated. But, a little air-clearing is first in order. Upon rereading your other posts on this thread, and the contents of your last post to me, especially the first line, I think it would be an understatement to say that your attitude is one of patronizing superiority. It shows through very clearly...you assume I don't know a thing about Indian spirituality or have no perception, and feel it necessary to pedantically reiterate the most basic points as seen through your eyes. From what I read through your posts, you dislike ISKCON and Hare Krishna devotees, and consider Srila Prabhupada to be a pseudo-guru who purposely distorted his translations of Sanskrit scriptures. Fine, it's a free country, you can think or say whatever you want...I certainly don't hold your attitudes about ISKCON or Prabhupada against you...they're a result of your own experiences and feelings. What I do sense in you is what I have heard referred to in ISKCON temples as the "Indian Attitude". This is seen most often in the Indian congregational members who regard the Hare Krishna temple as a cultural and social center, with little thought to the spiritual aspects. These people, simply because they were born and raised in India, tend to regard themselves as the only fit repositories possible for Hindu religious, cultural, and intellectual tradition, and usually have a very haughty and condescending air toward Westerners. I humbly suggest that you examine yourself...maybe a spiritual tune-up is what you need. Peace.
Perhaps I was patronizing, yes. But then your previous statements showed very clearly that you did not understand the basic concept of cendanta at all, so I felt then need to clarify them. I dont care what you call it in ISKON. I dont treat westerners any differently. Many of the teachers in Chinmaya Mission are fro other places, Canada, America, Africa. I have often attended their classes or turned to them for help and clarification. If you can refute my points, I encourage you to do so, it would be a pleasure to finally meet a Hare Krishna who could actually argue and substantiate his claims. My respect for ISKON would definitely grow.
In an oblique way, this highlights what I think is another problem with the ISKCON approach. It seems to me that for western people to simply abandon their own background culture, and really, live their lives in imitation of Indians is a mistake. The outer things, like dress, tilak marks and so on, are really nothing at all to do with spirituality. It is simply a form that has evolved in India, in line with Indian requirements and necessities. To seek to transplant the thing wholesale into the west is something I think is sure to fail. I'm not sure if westerners can really become 'hindus' in the real sense. Maybe a few can, but not the overwhelming majority. But a certain amount can be assimilated. The essence of it all, rather than the 'cultural baggage', much of which is peripheral to the central thing, is what has value I feel for western people in general. To expect them to suddenly drop everything, and take to the cultural norms of a largely unfamiliar culture is not very useful. And that is borne out by the fact that many of the devotees initiated by SP and his sucessors, have subsequently left. I don't think I am a hindu. My own view is that there is a kind of universal truth and essential reality behind the forms of all spiritual paths. In most cases, it is more or less obscured by a kind of historical and cultural 'encrustation'. But if we can get at the core of all these things, we can perhaps begin to move beyond the whole idea of 'religions', into a deeper and more direct and personal form of spirituality. I have found yoga teachings and practices to be one path into all this...
I'm not intending to refute or defeat your points, just to answer them intelligently and with the best substantiation I can provide. I take it you are closely associated with Chinmaya Mission...can you post a link? Peace..
interresting man. What I would do would be to learn how to lucid dream and ask the word itslef what it your mind is trying to tell you(In your dreams of course).But since that takes along time I gess you could try to look around and do some searching. if your that desperate to know for sure at least 75% http://www.dreamviews.com/index.php?sid= or just learn moe about hinduism or just give Christainty another chance( )
I've never put on a dhoti or other Indian dress in all of my years with ISKCON, worn tilak a few times...but yes, the instanteneous Christian or Jew or whatever to newly minted Hindu transformation can be unsettling, to say the least. That's probably the reason that I walked away from early '70s ISKCON and went back and finished college, got married, got going in my profession, then revived my association with ISKCON ten or so years later. In a past conversation with an early Prabhupada disciple who is a good friend and who I respect very much for his humility and mature spirituality, he advised me strongly about what you have again pointed out...the Hindu dress and customs are nothing but externals. What matters is in the heart, and the numerous failures on the part of ISCKON leaders who made a big show of externals attest to this. Regarding my relationship with ISKCON, and Srila Prabhupada by extension, I'd done some study of Indian spirituality both in formal college classes and on my own...reading books like Yogananda's Autobiogaphy and several Gita translations. However, it was participation in ISKCON activities and spiritual practices that brought about a true awakening...I'm convinced both from personal experience and long asociation with others that it is a process that really works and that Srila Prabhupada was the Real Thing. My ultimate written spiritual point of reference will always be Prabhupada's books, but I am also working on developing a mature and universal spiritual viewpoint...and, as I pointed out to you in an earlier post, Prabhupada didn't blanket condemn non-dualist spiritualists...he spoke out strongly against the popular notion that through yogic practices a person can realize that he/she was "God" all along, but had just fallen into temorary illusion. This is a viewpoint that I wholeheartedly agree with and will always defend, even if it does compromise my expanding universal vision a bit. I like the all-American saying--"Yes, there is a God, and He's (or She's) not you or me."
It is exactly that which I dispute spook. I admire you for your honesty and the very calm mature way you have handled this discussion, a standard from which I have slipped a few times and I apologize for that. Addressing this point of our own divinity... In my previous post I had explained the rationale through quotes from gopika geetam and bhagavad geeta. Consider this point: to say that there is someone or thing other than god (you and me) is limiting god, confining him to everything outside us. But every scripture repeatedly stresses that God is everywhere and at all times. It does not say everywhere except me, except you, except people. I ask you to show me where Krishna is not! After all, he himself says vaasudeva sarvam iti... Krishna is everything, everywhere in all. That includes you and it includes me. Even with that knowledge, we can continue to relate to the lord as a devotee or as a child or as a lover, or anything we fancy. This is clearly borne out in the Ramayan, when Sri Rama, during a private moment with Hanumanji, asks him, "Hanumanji, what exactly do you think of me?" Hanumanji replies, "From the standpoint of the body, I am your servant. At the level of the mind, I am your devotee and at the level of the soul, I am you." Earlier I had explained why Krishna is nothing but brahman and once that is accepted, the upanishadic statement Aham brahmansmi confirms that the identity of the Jeeva is essentially the same as God. This in no way impairs bhakti, in fact it is what gives devotion its fulness and beauty. Great advaitin philosophers like Adi Shankara and Madhusoodana Saraswathi composed soul stirringly beautiful devotional hymns. And Krishna explains to the Gopis that a man of realization loves nobody, because he does not see anyone as being separate from him. Krishna's greatest devotee Meera sang, antar Rama bahir Rama... Rama is within me and outside me, he is everywhere. These are all great devotees, Hanumanji, Meerabai, Tulsidasji... They all lived in the spirit of devotion, but knew firmly their oneness with God, a total union, with no sense of separation. That is the culmination bhakti, the everlasting orgasm of devotion.
Yes I like that saying too, because it is the truth. If we really analyze our situation- we are completely helpless , yet we think we are in control, yet we are really not. We are only in control once we surrender unto the supreme and understand that only God can protect us and let us walk the path of dharma.
yes but don't you think bhaskar that a jeeva that thinks of itself as God is deluded because if it was God, it would not be jeeva...the individual ego does not exist
No apologies necessary, Bhaskar. I think we are now on the mutual platform of being able to have a good and productive discusson. Keep in mind...even though I use Srila Prabhupada's books and his other material as my standard reference sources, I'm in no way trying to convert or sway anyone here toward my viewpoints. You did say that a well thought out reply on my part would give you more respect for ISKCON devotees and Srila Prabhupada, and if that does happen, it will make me happy. Namaste...Peace
But that would make the jiva the same thing as the ego - which it isn't. It isn't the jiva that 'thinks' - all that is a function of manas.
It doesn't seem that way to one looking at SP's books. The phrase 'foolish impersonalists' is used over and over again. And other things SP says indicate that he didn't really understand the notion of Brahman anyway. He refers to Brahman as 'a void' - something I have never encountered in any other hindu writings. In fact, it is said usually that Brahman is beyond definition, inconcievable - 'neti neti'. Obviously then, SP is seeking to define the undefineable - and in very negative terms. It is obvious that Brahman cannot be adequately described as 'a void'. Therefore, everything SP says on this is flawed and incorrect from the start. The notion that we are all god stuck in a temporary illusory consciousness is really the essence of hindu philosophy in one way. Hence I say SP didn't have much real enlighenment. His system has more in common with western theistic systems than mainstream hinduism. God can't be encompassed by our limited mental logic - but that's really the sum of SP's books. They are absolutely logical. There is no space left there for the spirit or for a mode of knowledge beyond reason - SP and his followers think they've got everything worked out and pretty well stitched up. But actually, it's just more mental formulations.
The void is really a more buddhist concept, one that advaitin philosophers have repeatedly arued against. Brahman is not void, it is not nothingness, to quote Krishna form Gita, satyam jnaanam anantam bramha...bramhan is truth, knowledge and infinite bliss. Brahman is the consciousness that is aware of any void.
What prabhupada implies is that the so-called impersonalists have always abused the hindu philosophy to such an extent that it is ridiculous. It is not enough that one says " I am unattached to all this" or that "I am brahman", the true disillusion occurs when one is truly attached. Many impersonalists say " oh yea this is all brahman" and they still are attached to eating sumptuous meals, they are still engaging in sexual activity and they still engage in all sorts of things contrary to the hindu philosophy. In fact, that is not the way it is supposed to be carried out. People who think that they are brahman should be free of this world. Should not be attached to anything and should always be merged in the self. What prabhupada respects is someone like Adi Shankaracharya who can drink wine and lead at the same time.
There is a difference between intelectual understandig and experience of truth. As seekers. ost of us have intellectual understanding, we can write treatises on brahman ad why we are one with God. But it is the Shankaras who had true experience ofthat. There are 3 stages in spiritual growth desribes in sastras. First step is shravana - listening to the Guru.Then is manana - refletion on the teaching, until the intellect is satisfied. Then, and only then, do we come to nidhidhyasana, the practice of meditation. Before that we must already be mentally convinced, "I am brahman." But in order to experience that oneness we need meditation. During this process, when we are intellectually convinced, but are striving for experience, there is nothing wrong with asserting our oneness, though pretending to have expereinced it is definitely wrong. And I think prabhupada does his share of scripture abuse. A prime example, I remember reading his translation of parabrahman as "that which is beyond brahman." However, it has been repeatedly said in all our shastras that brahman is the highest reality. It is a total misuse of sanskrit through incorrect sandhi usage. That is abuse of scripture (and dont tell me he didnt know the difference). The adaitin who says I am God, but forgets that everyone else is equally divine, is not an advaitin, he is a egomaniac and a fool.
Also when Prabhupada refers to impersonalism in his books, surely it is referring to the philosophy and those who shaped it, rather than those who accept that philosophy.
Honestly, I didn't mean to start a civil war in here. I just wanted some answers. Thanks to all of you who gave me some literature.
