> The vedic and post vedic works are full of
> promises of karma being destroyed or a person
> receiving immediate liberation by virtue of any
> number of engagements: Surrender to a bonafide
> guru, chanting some mantra, praying to some god,
> bathing in some river, fasting on some day,
> reading some book etc. There is not a shortage of
> promises of being absolved from any number of
> maladies. And yes, the question can be asked, by
> what function this happens and how is it visibly
> apparent that it has happened? The logical answer
> is there is no visible way to know and it is just
> something you need to believe in. Some believeve,
> others do not. Of course belief does not make it
The question of the theory of sin in general in various religions is one thing. The second point, however, is the tangible psychological or social effects - in the short term or longer - that arise when a person commits an act classified in one way or another as "sin". For example, adultery. The betrayed husband accidentally learns that he has been cheated. And he learns from his wife's half-word because that is how neurokinetics works - a perfect liar would have to store at least two parallel and consistent data sets in the brain. The betrayed husband takes the gun and kills the unfaithful wife and lover. Whether it was sin or karma - the result was. Some people after actions experience denial. There are also psychological processes connected for example with catholic confession - but I already wrote about it.
> Actually, on the search for truth we are not
> alone. There are many people offering half-truths,
> distorted truths and we have plenty of company in
> that regard. Go to any temple/center and you will
> find your fellow truth seeker alongside you
> struggling with the same reality and firmly
> believing the same ideas.
The question is who is this referring to or addressing. Accepting someone else's version or searching for the truth. As a child at the age of 6 or 7, I was preoccupied with the problem of a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. The family atmosphere was conducive to such considerations. It was not SIF who first presented this example to me. At the age of 7, I decided to become a priest, but the idea turned out to be weak when, as a child, at the age of 10, I realized that the psychology and ideology of priests operate in a closed circle of temporal psychology, i.e. psychic movements etc. The argument will not hit me. I was questioned by reading a Buddhist book and by the attitude of the Buddha - looking for the truth as my own experience, regardless of the price and other people's ideas. It doesn't appeal to me.
> This brings me to your qualm with Tulsi supposedly
> stating that the Chiatanya saint taught Karma
> yoga. Obviously, Chaitanya had no issue with karma
> yoga nor does his followers. They accept the
> Bhagavad gita after all which mentions karma yoga
> as a viable method for self-realization. At best
> one can argue that Chaitanya taught that bhakti
> was superior to other methods and specifically the
> activity of sankirtan.
There are some remnants. Here karma-yoga as supposedly gravity center of Bhagavag Gita (what goes to far):
Ms. Gabbard said that selflessly serving others is at the heart of Karma Yoga, and at the heart of the spiritual principle taught in the Bhagavad Gita which she called ‘the great gift Bharat has provided to the world – the words spoken by Bhagwan Krishna to Arjuna’.
She is a vegetarian and a Hindu who follows Gaudiya Vaishnavism, a religious movement founded by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Her siblings have Hindu or Indian origin names Bhakti, Jai, Narayan, and Vrindavan. She especially appreciates the Bhagavad Gita as a spiritual guide, and used it when she was ceremonially sworn in as a Representative. Gabbard describes herself as a "karma yogi" and credits her parents with instilling the value of "karma yoga" and being of service in her and her siblings.
Follows Sri Chaitanya but she's karma yogi..Etc..Can find more.
> The main issue is to ask yourself honestly if you
> believe that the krishna god and radha goddess are
> even real things. If you research the history of
> radha her worship primarily starts with Nimbarka
> and Jayadev's gita govinda. Otherwise, her name
> and person is not really mentioned in any
> scriptures (don't fall for devotees quoting modern
> scriptures or saying that every mention of the
> word Radha in the scriptures reffers to Krishna's
> consort—the word is popular in verses but not in
> context to the divine couple). This of course is a
> conundrum as it appears that it would be pretty
> important to mention such a personality not just
> by name and pastime, but often and throughout the
> larger vedic and post vedic works. Alas, that is
> not the case, nor with Chaitanya. So, in that
> sense it is a modern concoction in the so-called
> long lineage.
I respond in a mood like the Sanyasi I had the opportunity to listen to. Whether Sri Krishna and Sri Radha are real, the idea or promise is so intriguing or exciting that I go into it, I want to check it out :)
> Then, one must also look at more recent proponents
> of this type of worship. Bhaktivinode and his son
> as well as Bhaktivedanta and his branches of
> followers as well as Gaudiya math. Bhaktivinode
> was heavily criticized in his time by gaudiya
> Vaishnav groups for fabricating the place of Yoga
> Pith (Chaitanya birthplace). Bhaktivinode used his
> so-called discovery of yoga pith (in a dream no
> less) as a calling card for his brand of Gaudiya
> Viashnavaism, while, at the same time, through his
> sons preaching, blasting, and criticizing well
> established vaishnav groups.
It's good to know the story. I do not have such knowledge, but I have already partially paid attention to it.
> Bhaktisiddhanta went on to be a controversy
> himself as well. He took Diksha from his father
> and later a picture of Gorakishor babaji. He then
> gave himself sannyasa initiation and much of these
> things were also based on dreams. He was endlessly
> critical of other well-established vaishnava
> groups to the point where he was not invited to
> debates as he was found to be offensive and
> critical of well-respected babajis and gaudiya
> groups. In true cult fashion he firmly forbade his
> followers to even associate with these groups or
> find out more about them in such scare tactics as
> this famous lecture snippet:
> "After the time of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, those
> faithful to Him kept away from non-devotees to
> avoid contamination. Seeing this, the personality
> of Kali sent His disguised representatives to
> contaminate the Vaisnava sampradaya. Posing as
> Vaisnavas, they spread their evil doctrines and
> appeared so intelligent and devout that only the
> pure devotees could detect their true identity".
Religious divisions, the evolving doctrines, and party disputes are a constant feature of all religions in the history of modern mankind. This is not surprising. Hence, actual spirituality must be individual experience and understanding. At all costs.
> Basically, a prime characteristic of a cult is
> creating distrust and fear of the outside world.
> Saraswati Thakur did not stop at "karmis", he took
> it even further and created paranoia in his
> followers about their own kind. Sound familiar?
> Butler did the same stuff. So did Bhaktivedanta
> and others. This method of forbidding autonomous
> seeking of truth without the threat of committing
> a sin or aparadha is used extensively and without
Sri Chaitanya stated that he did not need followers. Buddha was abandoned by his companions when he gave up austerities. Who is looking for what - conceptual insurance in the event of death or truth. Which maybe does not exist.
> Bhaktisiddhanta also took sanyas in a tradition
> that largely denied it's usefulness with such
> statements from it's founder, Chaitanya, as, "I am
> not a sannyasi, I am not a brahmana...". I thought
> "I am not this body" sort of covered it. But why
> then did the Chaitanya saint take sanyas diksha?
> And, if that was not odd enough for an
> "incarnation of the supreme personality of godhead
> himself", he took sanyas from a mayavadhi.
I don't remember the explanation. It was probably of a social nature, hence he was initiated into a caste considered inferior.
> was no shortage of vaishnva guru's in chaitanya's
> time that could offer him sanyas within a
> vaishnava lineage... Why would the "supreme god"
> who has no problem breaking the laws of physics in
> his other incarnations, all of a sudden need to
> conform to so-called social caste standards to fit
> in and be taken seriously by his contemporaries???
Can't teach love by force?
> Bhaktisiddhanta also institutionalized the brahman
> thread initiation. A practice not really relevant
> in the Gaudiya line, considering the very bhakti
> movement Chaitanya started was against the brahman
> social structure and caste system. Yet, to this
> day, in the Gaudiya Math and ISKCON and SIF,
> brahmana initiation is used as a hierarchial
> status symbol in the cult. One can be a
> pot-smoking brahman initiate but be welcomed to do
> altar puja by virtue of a thread.
Every personality - from the temporal point of view - being a religious reformer or considered a reformer encounters something that wants to reform, etc.
As for hierarchy, it concerns the social order. As I wrote before - it turns out to be harmful, especially when a person higher in the hierarchy commits wicked things. On the other hand, as I quoted before, the doctrine of "adhikari" is not philosophically related to position but realization.
> It is ultimately a cult that believes in Manjari
> Bhava (realization of ones eternal spiritual form
> as a 12 year old gopi maidservant of the Radha
> goddess) as it's ultimate goal and so-called
> esoteric and supreme goal. There is no way around
> that or other explanation for it. If that sounds
> like a rational group to follow, by all means...
> go for it. However, is it really any wonder why
> Tusli and much of the Gaudiya math and ISKCON do
> not make this message a public thing? Of course,
> they push the "Karma Yoga" narrative. Think what
> would happen if they told the truth about what
> they teach. Not a single soul except for
> self-deluded sentimentalists religious fanatics
> would give it a consideration.
Some want to be Manjaris, some neighours of Yasoda, some cowherboys - that's the offer of this religion. But all around Krishna.
Why some people push some other message and do not reveal their real motive? World is full of that. Everywhere :)
> These are people who walk in circles around a
> basil plant imagining it to be a 12 year old girl
> manjari gopi and that they are in some "inner
> sanctum" of realization and experience by
> performing this ritual...
My personal meditation experience was that i am a large drop of liquid metal, mercury stained with soot in places. For what reason? Is this a real experience? Is it schizophrenia, hunger, lack of sleep or has someone given me something? I do not know. But it was ... Terminator or something.
> Devotees often use the argument that you would not
> teach calculus to a kindergartner, so you cannot
> discuss Manjari Bhava with a newcomer. Here's the
> deal though: Jayadev did not think in this way
> when composing a book like Gita Govinda. And it's
> not like the descriptions of radha and krishna's
> erotic affairs are somehow secret or inaccessible.
> They have been batted around and written about in
> some fashion, available to the general public, for
> hundreds of years (not thousands). So, its
> creators and writers did not deem it too "secret"
> for the general public (India was largely
> illiterate anyway during these times). And, unlike
> mathematics, it does not require much more than
> the ability to read to understand what the writer
> is discussing. You would be hard-pressed to find a
> literate child who could not understand the gist
> of gita govinda. Not so with calculus.
I know the philosophy and I understand it. Considering bodily internal experiences and emotions, especially around man-woman relations the only reference is sexual / falling in love / etc ..
Experience beyond worldly psychology is beyond the reach of the listener.
> DeWatcher, you are trying to somehow find fault
> with Tusli Gabbard preaching Karma Yoga as the
> message of the Chaitanya saint. The irony is
> strong. To be very honest with you, according to
> your tradition you are barking up the wrong tree.
> Tulsi is a Vaishnava and believes the same basic
> crap you do. It's considered offensive according
> to your scriptures and "sampradaya" (if you can
> call it that since it's got to be the shortest one
> in existence) to speak this way about a fellow
I find it hard to believe that Tulsi Gabbard is a Vaisnava, or at least serious or profound. Bhagavad Gita knows little what the evidence was in her words, SIF has treated badly at least two Sanyasi, recognized (as far as I know), the publications of authors belonging to the Line of Succession are rejected. SIF is a branch. Hawaiian.
> Now, all this is not to say those general concepts
> in Indian thought such as the doctrine of
> are flawed. In fact, they are very interesting
> notions that have been toyed with, explored, and
> understood from assorted angles by great thinkers
> and scholars and contribute to philosophy and
> psychology immensely. Some atheistic, some
> theological, some agnostic. Dualism and Monism
> play out in eastern thought almost interchangeably
> at times. As a general rule, the pluralism in
> Indian philosophy is an open admission that "we
> simply do not know". The Rig Veda is full of such
> passages: "Who can know?", "Who really knows?",
> "It can never be understood" etc etc... It was not
> until later post Vedic works that there was a sort
> of implied arrogance masquerading as humility in
> an attempt to boldly claim "absolutes". In fact,
> that is when much of the mythology took over and
> sectarianism started.
I already wrote this. Let us say if the teaching of the Vedas touches upon two natures, material and spiritual, descriptions of a spiritual nature are unverifiable by worldly perception, research, methodology or inference. On the other hand, the science of material nature can be verified. And as such it is verified. There are known mechanisms such as the gravity of social systems, examples of phenomena like 1 thief out of 9 workers, where the gun theory is confirmed. Or what is the concentration law border? System analysts understand these mechanisms, but their understanding does not come from studying only academic books, but is backed up by many years of professional practice where they hit the wall with their head. Books write about it. The Bible or the Vedas were aimed at an audience with limited knowledge of phenomena or specific to a given time. Today we have time for IT, processes, systems, and research into the dynamics described by mathematics. So the knowledge is confirmed, but certainly not as shallowly understood as in the SIF. I spoke about it. I will only end this way that among analysts I have a personal dedication of a book that has been written over several decades of experience, and the book of the other analyst contains elements inspired by our joint discussions. System analysis tells how the system will behave, not how it seems. In this sense, then, the Vedic claim that the Veda carries value about phenomena which cannot be directly foreseen in the short term and cannot be heard better is true. In a systemic sense.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2021 06:45PM by DaWatcher.