Current Page: 729 of 729
Re: Chris Butler, Jagad Guru, Science of Identity
Posted by: Truth wins ()
Date: April 27, 2021 06:14AM

Another theory that keeps disciples very loyal and grateful the guru is the fact that they are “supposedly” taking on their Karma.
If anyone was to take on soleley my heavy Karma, their backs would break in one day what to speak of thousands and thousands of people’s Karma.
Many disciples sill suffer from very rough material and physical conditions.
This is another thing the people must take responsibility for.
He is in poor health because he is carrying the Karma of others.
This is another teaching that makes people look at guru as god on earth.
How is the dude carrying the Karma of thousands of souls and still standing.
Not to speak of the disciples who can hurt guru by breaking the regulative principles.
Forget about Superman. These gurus are truly invincible being able to manage carrying such heavy load on their backs.
It is truly by far the most entangling process that makes people totally dependent on guru.
It is almost like having a conjoint twin who does not allow you to have your individuality.
I don’t know about other Sangas and gurus, but Butler is too suffocating.
He is like that overprotective, controlling parent you cannot wait to leave.
Or the mother in law who meddles too much. In his case it is meddling between souls and their relationship with “God”.
I feel beyond grateful I don’t have to question every single move I take.
Is it pleasing or not to gurudeva?
It was like giving a person the tool to remote control me.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Chris Butler, Jagad Guru, Science of Identity
Posted by: DaWatcher ()
Date: April 27, 2021 02:55PM

Truth wins Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another theory that keeps disciples very loyal and
> grateful the guru is the fact that they are
> “supposedly” taking on their Karma.
> If anyone was to take on soleley my heavy Karma,
> their backs would break in one day what to speak
> of thousands and thousands of people’s Karma.

Sankirtana...

> Many disciples sill suffer from very rough
> material and physical conditions.
> This is another thing the people must take
> responsibility for.
> He is in poor health because he is carrying the
> Karma of others.

The look of another Guru. Sri Guru and His Grace.

His Divine Grace SWAMI B.R. SRIDHAR

Page 39, "ACCEPTING DISCIPLES AND KARMA"

[www.scsmath.com]

> It is truly by far the most entangling process
> that makes people totally dependent on guru.

A Sanyasi and a Guru once explained this aspect to me like this - in the early stages the disciple is inevitably dependent, can say "totally" on the Guru and his vision. But the actual process is for the student to develop his own vision.

> It is almost like having a conjoint twin who does
> not allow you to have your individuality.
> I don’t know about other Sangas and gurus, but
> Butler is too suffocating.

Reading reports from years ago shows constant or frequent dissatisfaction. The question is, of course, what mechanisms have been triggered, if the generals of SIF use manipulative methods and the tasks set go beyond "prasadam, book distribution, sankirtana" and they enter into business and, of course, especially strange - politics. So in this sense, the fruit does not surprise me at all.

> He is like that overprotective, controlling parent
> you cannot wait to leave.
> Or the mother in law who meddles too much. In his
> case it is meddling between souls and their
> relationship with “God”.
> I feel beyond grateful I don’t have to question
> every single move I take.
> Is it pleasing or not to gurudeva?
> It was like giving a person the tool to remote
> control me.

A modern psychological perspective that talks about relationships without commitment is also an illusion. People who enter into a relationship, not necessarily a man-woman, or a boss-employee, create a system of obligations and expectations. The mystical process, however, means that theoretically the mechanisms go beyond the limits of the physical world ....

A young devotee meets a woman devotee. They don't spend 10 hours in sankirtana and japa. Generally speaking, the spiritual life is pleasing, but the hormones are raging. This is just the beginning of the spiritual life, let's say. They are, let's say, poor. Parents do not accept joining the sanga. They don't have their own apartment. A lot of work awaits them to earn a flat. Then, on the way, my senses are lost and the 2nd devotee appears. Younger ... Progressive psychologists would say - "You expected too much." Sangha brothers will say "karma, not enough kirtans, poor japa". One of former SIF members would ask "was she pretty?" This is life. True story. Often true. Broken heart.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2021 02:59PM by DaWatcher.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Chris Butler, Jagad Guru, Science of Identity
Posted by: IanKoviak ()
Date: April 28, 2021 09:11AM

Basically, DeWatcher, what Sridhara Maharaj is saying in those pages is that the guru is not really responsible for the disciple and does not take on any karma. What he is saying is that it's up to the interpretation of the disciple's understanding of scripture to figure out what the guru is saying is right or wrong or distorted etc.

The moral of the story, without getting into the politics of Sridhar and Gaudiya Math and the lunacy of the so-called "Gaudiya Lineage" started by Siddhanta Saraswati, is that you are pretty much on your own to figure out what is right. I'm all for that notion.

The fact is that in the cult these ideas are bantered around with much indulgence. The idea that Guru takes one's sins is used as both a "get out of jail free" card as well as on the guru's terms a justification for, in the case of butler, his health problems or whatever the fuck is wrong with him. The same goes for the so-called scriptures. One moment they are touted as the very authority upon which all of the philosophy is based, and the next they are shown as "flowery" and not to be taken at face value. Or, that they are full of secret, coded ideas only understood by a select few (i.e. brahmins, pharaohs, pure devotees, etc). And likewise with the holy name. We get reeled into the cult with promises that the mantra is "non-different from god" and able to absolve us of all problems. sins etc. Only to find out later that it's a bit more complicated than that. It depends on how pure the guru is from whom you heard the mantra or how sincere and pure you are. The more you chant, the more you are meant to purify. But if you are chanting with "offenses" you are never going to achieve the goal. And naturally, the offenses are 10 in one place and 100 in another. Basically, you can't win and there is no living example of a person who has achieved the goal and is an example of what that even looks like and why it's such a great thing to achieve/desire in the first place. Unless you desire to be like Butler, an old man who surrounds himself with a bunch of male yes-men and isolates himself in a tinfoil beach villa.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Chris Butler, Jagad Guru, Science of Identity
Posted by: DaWatcher ()
Date: May 01, 2021 03:09AM

IanKoviak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Basically, DeWatcher, what Sridhara Maharaj is
> saying in those pages is that the guru is not
> really responsible for the disciple and does not
> take on any karma. What he is saying is that it's
> up to the interpretation of the disciple's
> understanding of scripture to figure out what the
> guru is saying is right or wrong or distorted etc.


This is an example. There are also statements by other Masters where they say that the Guru's power is so strong that it burns any karma. Ultimately, the question is what karma is. And if we accept the personalistic variant of the self separate from the physical body (being embodied in a body with senses, nerves, brain, etc.), the question arises where it accumulates and then how is this karma removed. Treatment of the patient inevitably requires effort both on the part of the patient and the physician. So generally in this sense the Guru takes on the disciple's karma because he is struggling with his conditioning

> The moral of the story, without getting into the
> politics of Sridhar and Gaudiya Math and the
> lunacy of the so-called "Gaudiya Lineage" started
> by Siddhanta Saraswati, is that you are pretty
> much on your own to figure out what is right. I'm
> all for that notion.

On the search for the Absolute we are alone...


> devotees, etc). And likewise with the holy name.
> We get reeled into the cult with promises that the
> mantra is "non-different from god" and able to
> absolve us of all problems. sins etc. Only to find
> out later that it's a bit more complicated than
> that. It depends on how pure the guru is from whom
> you heard the mantra or how sincere and pure you
> are. The more you chant, the more you are meant to
> purify. But if you are chanting with "offenses"
> you are never going to achieve the goal.

An the question is if SIF teaches about it the stages:
nama abhasa -> sneha -> .... .... etc...


> And
> naturally, the offenses are 10 in one place and
> 100 in another. Basically, you can't win and there
> is no living example of a person who has achieved

This may be the result of locking the minds of SIF members with various mechanisms of natural forces such as partyism (warning Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur), emphasis on recruitment and work rather than meditation, naimittika dharma (detailed instructions) trained on drug addicts or the impersonal nature of the teachings (which are evidence).

But anyway....One (8) of the offences against The Holy Name according to Suta Goswami is, for example, equating varnasramadharma or auspicious activities with the power and glory of The Holy Name. This is presented as the influence of the person of Kali. And then we go back to Tulsi Gabbard, who claimed in her politically-motivated statements that Sri Caitanya was teaching karma-yoga (implicitly that was the center of gravity of His teachings). So it becomes a proof that it is nothing but an offence. Politics (the association of Kali), emphasizing the importance of karma-yoga (also auspicious), and assigning it to Sri Caitanya as the core of His teachings (personal offense?)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2021 03:19AM by DaWatcher.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Chris Butler, Jagad Guru, Science of Identity
Posted by: IanKoviak ()
Date: May 06, 2021 12:03AM

DeWatcher,

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 true.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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 question.

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. There 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???

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.

As seemingly nice, pure and well-intentioned as these gurus were, they were ultimately religious fanatics functioning within a larger deluded belief system based on the erotic writings of Jayadev.

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.

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...

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.

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 Vaishnava.

I have a clear conscience about such matters. To me, the whole bag of tricks is pure mind garbage. Devotees willingly trap themselves in a mental landscape of fantasy and delusion to no avail. Chant and eat vege food if you like, but don't pretend there is some magic going on because of these activities. If the acharyas in this line (after years of faithful chanting and service or whatever) can say such erroneous things as Bhaktivedanta has said and such pointlessly vulgar and critical things as Butler has said (nevermind their actions/behavior), I can safely say these people are not enlightened in any manner. Bhaktivedanta was afraid to die. Butler will be afraid to die. They have not been absolved from the fear of death. If anything they died with more fear than others considering the burden on their conscience of leaving thousands of devotees in complete confusion (ISKCON and Gaudiya Math nearly imploded with trauma, drama and abbhorant rhetoric when their leaders died).

Bhaktivedanta used tobacco snuff regularly so he could stay up late and write his fantasy series, the Bhagavatam. Bhaktivinode and his family ate meat for most of their early life. Bhaktisiddhanta was famously quoted as saying he would be willing to serve meat in his temples if it meant it would attract followers (the meat restriction has never been about animal welfare or nonviolence considering karma dictates if an animal perishes at the hands of another species anyway and vedas are full of animal sacrifice rituals). He was quick to break sanyasi rules and readily used cars, wear leather shoes and rub shoulders with the political elites and intelligencia of the time. Point is, these were sudden moves that left most of his contemporaries pretty alarmed and unsure of his motive. While the idea of spreading the Chaitanya cult/sect/doctrine was a noble pursuit, it was not something many thought to be wise (or possible for that matter) considering how taboo the core ideology was. It was, to put it mildly, an acquired taste. Babaji's privately engaged in their bhajans for hundreds of years with no great need to spread the good tidings. Even initiation (diksha) was not something that was popular. Most babajis had a handful of followers and disciples (as it should be considering it's impossible to tend to your flock when you have thousands of followers). It was not until Bhaktivinode that the notion even gained momentum to try to "spread" the movement. It makes sense in terms of the political climate of the time that he would want to do so. Concepts of religious equality/brotherhood/communism and Indian guru's flocking to the West starting with Vivikanada became in vogue. India finally had a chance to speak for themselves and bring their ideas to the west. Up until that time, British and European scholars spent many long years trying to sytemetize and codify vedic sanskrit works into something that mildly reassembled a sensible spirutal system. Largely to no avail, but a millionfold more useful than the condition it was found in. It was thanks to them and early pioneers like Vivikendand that a rather comfy road was paved for Bhaktivedanta to gain influence in the fertile hippie mind.

Now, all this is not to say those general concepts in Indian thought such as the doctrine of Jiva/Atman/Purusha/Prakriti/Brahaman/Karma/Guna 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.

Fast forward to Butler and SIF and you have yourself a group of devotees claiming absolute knowledge and a superior spiritual system. Yet, the resultant fruit is hardly something to strive for. And I would comfortably say that it's, even more, the case with other Gaudiya groups that have stuck to orthodoxy and not evolved with the times. At least SIF is focusing on some of the more pluralistic aspects of Vaishnava doctrine in amalgamating and absorbing other spiritual doctrines and faiths. It becomes a more liberal and humanist approach, rather than fundamentalist.

All that aside, it's a cult through and through in its evolution. The descriptions above are evidence of that. From the start, regardless of the intent and seemingly noble effort, it was based on flawed ideas, bogus rhetoric, and a confusing mishmash of ideas that held no water upon closer scrutiny.

Anyway, this is my personal observation and feelings/opinions. You are welcome to yours. In an effort to connect the dots of what makes this cult flawed beyond the surface "Tulsi claims Chaitanya taught Karma yoga" approach, I am trying to show how there are many many aspects that don't add up and leave you scratching your head. And yes, at that point, only unhindered faith can look past it all and continue to trust in it. Drug trafficking, child abuse, subversive political plays, and other cult tactics for attracting and maintaining follower adherence is just the cherry on top.

Start from scratch in you search and cast off this cult and others like it. Be skeptical and question everything.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Chris Butler, Jagad Guru, Science of Identity
Posted by: DaWatcher ()
Date: May 06, 2021 06:42PM

IanKoviak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DeWatcher,
>
> 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
> true.

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):

[www.hindupost.in]


Quote

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’.

Here:

[www.facebook.com]

Quote

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.

That's politics.

>
> 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
> question.

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.

> There
> 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
> Vaishnava.


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
> Jiva/Atman/Purusha/Prakriti/Brahaman/Karma/Guna
> 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.

Options: ReplyQuote
Current Page: 729 of 729


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.