Quote
hoax108
Fascinating posts regarding FLs relationship. or lack thereof, with ACB.

I also recall hearing lectures in which he criticized devotees for wanting to go to India on a pilgrimage. The line was something like," you've got your guru, just focus on serving me, what do you need to go to India for?" Maybe he was afraid that they would discover true Vaishnavas.

Yes, I remember hearing things like that in lectures as well. And was it not also said that wherever Guru is, that is as good as Vrndavan??? I'm not sure if this was stated by ACB himself, or was it maybe just Sid's concoction... Certainly none of Sid's followers that I knew ever went to India ... (was probably considered a waste of money!)

The farm at Kolau was considered a holy place because Sid would sometimes glorify the place with his presence ... some of the devotees even collected dirt from the pathways and worshiped it!

It is interesting to hear ACB's rebuttal to Sid's refusal to go to India with him... I get the impression that Sid was too busy living the good life at BT's fancy house to go and put up with the austerities of visiting India (?)

:?:

Quote
quotesman

Quote
hoax108
Regarding Katyani - I never heard anything bad about her from FL or any of his disciples. She had her own disciples and they were not supposed to mix with FLs disciples. Supposedly so there would be no conflict of instruction - obviously an FL rule which reeks of ego.

I did see some mixing of the groups in L.A. though. No big deal. I met her and BT once. They were really nice to me - and her children were absolutely beautiful.

I wish them well.

Yea not supposed to mix, just more sectarian cultish behavior. Thanx for the info. I can see things have not changed much.

Now this is really funny.
How could there be a conflict of instruction
if they were both supposed to be
pure deeeeeeevoteeeees!?
Supposed to both be god's best friends
and know his will.
How can there be a contradiction?
Isn't the Absolute, absolute?
Why no agreement?
There should be a consensus.
How is it possible to be confused!?
Differences maybe, but why confusion?
FL thinks his followers
are incapable of thinking-
nor does he want them to think.
He thinks them idiots and keeps them thinking they are idiots.

Like competing for playmates to boss around in the sandbox.

Quotester - Have you seen the movie WATER?
It's a beautifu movie and not anti-Hindu at all. It is anti abusing women.
Are widows sent to ashrams, even young women? Are young widows allowed to marry again? What do you mean that women take traditional roles in your group? What does this look like?
What do the current crop of Vaishanva leaders think about giving sanyass to young western men in their 20's now? Aren't they more cautious?

It is interesting to contrast the progenitor religion
with FL's translation of it.

Quote
Dassi
Hey quotester!
So you are a breast man, eh :wink: Just kidding...
Very interesting stuff on the history of the Sari.

In the directors commentary on her movie "Water", she stated that the widows in the ashram did not wear cholis and one lady who played a very elderly widow was very uncomfortable with her costume (a white sari with no choli or bra).

I find your defense of the Vaishnava religion and liberal take on things compelling and different. I'd like to know how widows are treated in your group. Are young women forced to marry or if a young woman is widowed, is she allowed to remarry or is she forced to join an ashram if the family can't afford to take her back? I know these practices are not widespread in India, but they do still happen. What is your mission's take on women and women's rights?

There are different types of sannyasa. I know two bona-fide gurus who have given sannyasa to women btw.

Generally it is according to qualification. For most sannyasa is meant for old age, not before the age of 55 or 60. That is true for the Gaudiyas as well. But the sannyasa that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati introduced was for the sole purpose of one pointed preaching. He actually re-introduced the saffron clad tridandi sannyasa. Prior to him it has not existed in the Gaudiya line for many hundreds of years. Prior to him sannyasa meant Babaji sanyasa, the white clad paramahamsa vesha (cloth). Such Babajis did not do much preaching and were not inclined to take many disciples. The type of sannyasa re-introduced by Sarasvati Thakur is actually more for young than old men as in youth one has much energy to preach. In India in all the different Gaudiya Maths there really have been very few fall downs in comparison to the west. But generally speaking sannyasa is not for every young man and most Vaishnavas do get married. However there are still young men coming forward who are qualified for sannyasa, who want to preach one pointedly, but not hoards of them. Under fire as was the case of ACB, in my opinion he did nothing wrong. Today however now that the name has been broadcast worldwide there is not a big push to make sannyasis.. Of course it is up to the discretion of the sannyasi giving sannyasa to decide who is qualified. And the reaction to giving sannyasa to an unqualified person will rest with the guru giving it.

It is true that sometimes in the Hindu world widows are sent to Holy Places, against their will. This is a deplorable situation and in most cases this springs from poverty. Where there is much poverty sometimes things dwindle to animal life, survival of the fittest. And now with the introduction of western culture the situation is not getting better. As now more and more Hindus are becoming overwhelmed with material desires. Therefore this has not helped the situation with widows.

I have not seen the movie Water. But I will try to see that one, thanks. I do know some Vaishnavas who are want to do a documentary on the current situation with widows. Their intent is to pressure the government into making such forced practice of abandoning widows to ashrams against their will, a crime. They also want to do films on female genocide in India and forced sati. These things are all perverted adharmic (anti religious) practices. By Vedic standards baby infanticide is murder as is abortion. Abandoning family members is also adharmic. Forced sati is murder plain and simple. The intent is to give Vedic evidence these practices are wrong and to pressure the government to enforce existing laws against such crimes. Actually it is every Vaishnavas duty to protect women.

Do not forget that it was Bhaktisiddhanta who faced off with the caste Hindus proving their method was not Vedic. There was a famous debate in 1911 where he faced off with the caste Hindus. The debate is now legendary. Using Vedic references he proved the caste system was Adharmic, against Vedic principles. Since that time the caste Brahmins have left the Gaudiyas alone. Prior to that they harassed and even plotted killing them. But the caste Brahmins still exist. They just turn the other way when they see Gaudiyas now.

There is much work to be done to correct the situation. But if you read the Veda you can understand this is what happens in Kali Yuga. There is a reference in one of the Puranas that states the biggest demons of all in Kali Yuga appear as priests, the religious, Brahmans etc, even they pretend to be Vaishnavas, (wolves in sheeps cloth).



There is no law of the land in India that states widows cannot remarry and I know some who have. But generally due to social convention in India most widows do not try to remarry. If the widow has a son it is his Dharmic duty to take care of his mother. And as I stated it is extended family members duty to care for her if there is no son. If the women widowed young she should remarry IMHO.

However,
Most Indian men will not marry a women who has been with another man. So this is a problem. It is just not acceptable to most Indian men to marry a non-virgin. However this is changing quickly due to western influence. Chastity and shyness for women are still considered virtues in India. But this is changing very quickly and now more and more women are taking the roles of western women. Don’t forget India has already had a woman Prime Minister. And not long ago the common people elected Sonia Ghandhi, a Christian foreign born woman. She had to step back due to political intrigue, but the fact is the people elected her. You may also be surprised to find out 98% of the Indian population votes. It is the worlds largest democracy.

There is an interesting story. A man approached Gaura Kishora das Bahaji to get his blessing after being married. Babaji could tell the man was the type who would exploit his wife so he told him something like, (paraphrasing here), “it is good you have married a Vaishnava woman, because she is a Vaishnava you should serve her hand and foot, make sure she is given everything she desires, and be sure you cook nicely for her,” of course the man was not very happy with the blessing.

Traditional roles means that women are treated as Mothers to be taken care of, honored and respected. To disprespect any mother is Adharmic. In fact the women who take these traditional roles have very little anxiety. They are cared for and not forced to take care of themselves. It is an anxiety free life for a woman in a traditional Vaishnava family setting. Of course now a days where both man and woman have to work hard to live these traditional roles for woman have to be modified. But in a Vedic society the woman should not be forced to work hard like a man. Her primary duty is to make the household peaceful and to nurture and raise children. Such women do indeed run the house and they have the most power within the family. But externally it appears to be the opposite. Household life is for the propagation of the human. It is for the purpose of raising good progeny. That is the Vaishnava take on family life.

But these roles for woman are not all black and white either. Shortly after Mahaprabhu left the planet a situation arose where there was a woman, Srimati Jhanavi Thakurani who became head of the Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya. At that time everyone knew there was no one more qualified than her and she took the role as ahcarya and guru. But she did not push to be a guru or clamor for position. She had to be persuaded by the Vaishnava men to please accept the position. Actually that was one of her qualifications to be the head, she was not clamoring for position.

The women I know who follow these age old customs are the happiest I have ever seen.


It may also be noted that when Jiva Goswami, the Tattva Acharya took over as head of the sampradaya when ever anyone referred to him as the guru or acharya he would always say something like, "I am not the guru, I am the servant of all vaishnavas". It is said one who thinks himself gu-ru is no better than go-ru, goru means a cow or animal.


I hope I have not made a mess of trying to convey what I know about the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition.

Quote
quotesman

Quote
Dassi
Hey quotester!
So you are a breast man, eh :wink: Just kidding...
Very interesting stuff on the history of the Sari.

In the directors commentary on her movie "Water", she stated that the widows in the ashram did not wear cholis and one lady who played a very elderly widow was very uncomfortable with her costume (a white sari with no choli or bra).

I find your defense of the Vaishnava religion and liberal take on things compelling and different. I'd like to know how widows are treated in your group. Are young women forced to marry or if a young woman is widowed, is she allowed to remarry or is she forced to join an ashram if the family can't afford to take her back? I know these practices are not widespread in India, but they do still happen. What is your mission's take on women and women's rights?

There are different types of sannyasa. I know two bona-fide gurus who have given sannyasa to women btw.

Generally it is according to qualification. For most sannyasa is meant for old age, not before the age of 55 or 60. That is true for the Gaudiyas as well. But the sannyasa that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati introduced was for the sole purpose of one pointed preaching. He actually re-introduced the saffron clad tridandi sannyasa. Prior to him it has not existed in the Gaudiya line for many hundreds of years. Prior to him sannyasa meant Babaji sanyasa, the white clad paramahamsa vesha (cloth). Such Babajis did not do much preaching and were not inclined to take many disciples. The type of sannyasa re-introduced by Sarasvati Thakur is actually more for young than old men as in youth one has much energy to preach. In India in all the different Gaudiya Maths there really have been very few fall downs in comparison to the west. But generally speaking sannyasa is not for every young man and most Vaishnavas do get married. However there are still young men coming forward who are qualified for sannyasa, who want to preach one pointedly, but not hoards of them. Under fire as was the case of ACB, in my opinion he did nothing wrong. Today however now that the name has been broadcast worldwide there is not a big push to make sannyasis.. Of course it is up to the discretion of the sannyasi giving sannyasa to decide who is qualified. And the reaction to giving sannyasa to an unqualified person will rest with the guru giving it.

It is true that sometimes in the Hindu world widows are sent to Holy Places, against their will. This is a deplorable situation and in most cases this springs from poverty. Where there is much poverty sometimes things dwindle to animal life, survival of the fittest. And now with the introduction of western culture the situation is not getting better. As now more and more Hindus are becoming overwhelmed with material desires. Therefore this has not helped the situation with widows.

I have not seen the movie Water. But I will try to see that one, thanks. I do know some Vaishnavas who are want to do a documentary on the current situation with widows. Their intent is to pressure the government into making such forced practice of abandoning widows to ashrams against their will, a crime. They also want to do films on female genocide in India and forced sati. These things are all perverted adharmic (anti religious) practices. By Vedic standards baby infanticide is murder as is abortion. Abandoning family members is also adharmic. Forced sati is murder plain and simple. The intent is to give Vedic evidence these practices are wrong and to pressure the government to enforce existing laws against such crimes. Actually it is every Vaishnavas duty to protect women.

Do not forget that it was Bhaktisiddhanta who faced off with the caste Hindus proving their method was not Vedic. There was a famous debate in 1911 where he faced off with the caste Hindus. The debate is now legendary. Using Vedic references he proved the caste system was Adharmic, against Vedic principles. Since that time the caste Brahmins have left the Gaudiyas alone. Prior to that they harassed and even plotted killing them. But the caste Brahmins still exist. They just turn the other way when they see Gaudiyas now.

There is much work to be done to correct the situation. But if you read the Veda you can understand this is what happens in Kali Yuga. There is a reference in one of the Puranas that states the biggest demons of all in Kali Yuga appear as priests, the religious, Brahmans etc, even they pretend to be Vaishnavas, (wolves in sheeps cloth).



There is no law of the land in India that states widows cannot remarry and I know some who have. But generally due to social convention in India most widows do not try to remarry. If the widow has a son it is his Dharmic duty to take care of his mother. And as I stated it is extended family members duty to care for her if there is no son. If the women widowed young she should remarry IMHO.

However,
Most Indian men will not marry a women who has been with another man. So this is a problem. It is just not acceptable to most Indian men to marry a non-virgin. However this is changing quickly due to western influence. Chastity and shyness for women are still considered virtues in India. But this is changing very quickly and now more and more women are taking the roles of western women. Don’t forget India has already had a woman Prime Minister. And not long ago the common people elected Sonia Ghandhi, a Christian foreign born woman. She had to step back due to political intrigue, but the fact is the people elected her. You may also be surprised to find out 98% of the Indian population votes. It is the worlds largest democracy.

There is an interesting story. A man approached Gaura Kishora das Bahaji to get his blessing after being married. Babaji could tell the man was the type who would exploit his wife so he told him something like, (paraphrasing here), “it is good you have married a Vaishnava woman, because she is a Vaishnava you should serve her hand and foot, make sure she is given everything she desires, and be sure you cook nicely for her,” of course the man was not very happy with the blessing.

Traditional roles means that women are treated as Mothers to be taken care of, honored and respected. To disprespect any mother is Adharmic. In fact the women who take these traditional roles have very little anxiety. They are cared for and not forced to take care of themselves. It is an anxiety free life for a woman in a traditional Vaishnava family setting. Of course now a days where both man and woman have to work hard to live these traditional roles for woman have to be modified. But in a Vedic society the woman should not be forced to work hard like a man. Her primary duty is to make the household peaceful and to nurture and raise children. Such women do indeed run the house and they have the most power within the family. But externally it appears to be the opposite. Household life is for the propagation of the human. It is for the purpose of raising good progeny. That is the Vaishnava take on family life.

But these roles for woman are not all black and white either. Shortly after Mahaprabhu left the planet a situation arose where there was a woman, Srimati Jhanavi Thakurani who became head of the Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya. At that time everyone knew there was no one more qualified than her and she took the role as ahcarya and guru. But she did not push to be a guru or clamor for position. She had to be persuaded by the Vaishnava men to please accept the position. Actually that was one of her qualifications to be the head, she was not clamoring for position.

The women I know who follow these age old customs are the happiest I have ever seen.


It may also be noted that when Jiva Goswami, the Tattva Acharya took over as head of the sampradaya when ever anyone referred to him as the guru or acharya he would always say something like, "I am not the guru, I am the servant of all vaishnavas". It is said one who thinks himself gu-ru is no better than go-ru, goru means a cow or animal.


I hope I have not made a mess of trying to convey what I know about the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition.

A clarification. What is referred to as the Gaudiya line did not appear until Mahaprahbu. There were devotess inclined to the worship of Vrndavana Krishna but saffron dressed sannyasis were present only in the other sampradayas. Those other lines are more inclined to the worship of Vishnu. Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur introduced the order in the Gaudiya line in the early part of the last century.

More on sannyasa:

Sometimes it is seen that a person tries to take sannyasa but is not able to keep up the standard so they go back to household life. Some sadhus have said one way to look at this is that the person tried to give everything in the service of the Supreme but they failed. We should not condemn them but rather should think at least they made an attempt. Such persons will take a humble position out of sight and continue on in the household ashram. But for one to take sannyasa, make disciples, allow his followers to call him names reserved for the very highest Vaishnava then give up sannyasa, marry a disciple and maintain his position as acharya does not fly in the Gaudiya line at all. I do not know any Gaudiya Matha acharya who would condone such activity. I do not know any western gurus who will endorse such an activity. This is not at all the standard for an acharya to set. To go further and imply the sannyasa ashram is out of date really reeks of sahajiyaism. To take sannyasa and then give it up so easily is taking things very cheaply. To make claims Nityananda is the example of one who did such a thing only makes things much worse. So FL will not get much endorsement from senior acharyas in the line. That may be one reason he keeps to himself. He knows in the greater Vaishnava world the example he set is not much appreciated.

Quote
hoax108
Fascinating posts regarding FLs relationship. or lack thereof, with ACB.

I remember hearing that he did not take any disciples until after ACB left his body because that was the proper thing to do and, after all, he was so proper. This example was used to try to enhance his divinity.

I also recall hearing lectures in which he criticized devotees for wanting to go to India on a pilgrimage. The line was something like," you've got your guru, just focus on serving me, what do you need to go to India for?" Maybe he was afraid that they would discover true Vaishnavas.

Also remember lectures in which he said that the relationship between the spiritual master is transcendental and eternal. Therefore, you do not ever really need to be physically in the presence of your guru. Then I hear that you should surrender to him because he is here on the planet now and someone like Christ is not so how can you be a disciple of Christ? Isn't this contradictory. I always thought so.

In a sense I feel relieved and pleased to learn that there are bona fide Vaishnavas on the planet. I always had a feeling that there were and I would one day love to travel to India to visit various holy places.

That's one of many positive things I take from my experience with SIF: an appreciation for and attraction to Indian culture and religion. Also note that I choose to take positive things out of my experience with this cult. This attitude has been very helpful in helping me get on with my life.

Hoax,

The relationship between the guru and disciple may be transcendental and there may be no need for a lot of physical association. But this does not in any way mean the disciple does not want the physical association of his guru. The idea FL gave is just one more concoction and FL went out of his way to avoid his own guru. That is not the mentality of a disciple who loves their guru. If they are sent away to preach is one thing but not to want the association of ones guru is not the symptom of love. There was also this idea that if one wanted the close physical association of their guru some how they were less advanced. Perhaps that is why he treats those close to him with such disrespect.

There are countless stories of disciples who spent most of their time with their own guru, they spend most of their lives with their guru serving them. Two very prominent Vaishnava acharyas of the day, both of whom I consider to be the topmost paramahamsas, spent most of their lives with their guru and their guru appointed, YES APPOINTED, them to take over as acharya, even while the guru was still alive. These paramahamsas imbibe all the qualities mentioned formerly on this thread concerning the nature of a pure devotee. Another concoction promoted by FL is the idea the guru is never appointed. In fact many acharyas in the line have been directly appointed by their guru. Mahaprabhu Himself appointed Rupa Goswami to lead the sampradaya. Rupa had over NINE living shiksa gurus btw. There have been many appointments in the sampradaya and Vyasadeva Himself appointed different heads for the different Veda. FL made up a lot of things and many are still confused about his concoctions.

Concerning NOT going to Vrindavana and discouraging people from going. Again this is unprecedented in the Gaudiya Vaishnava Line. In fact of all the activities of devotional service 5 are considered top most. Of the five residence in Vrindavana is one. For one who cannot reside there they should at least visit and wish they could reside there. But to avoid Vrindavana is not the mentality of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

Yes I know it was taught that wherever FL is, is as good as Vrindavana. And that may be true from the angle of view of a disciple. However this is not the angle of view for the Guru. Because the guru always thinks of himself as a disciple. The guru does not think ‘where ever I am is Vrindavana.’ All the gurus in the Gaudiya Vaishnava Line have great love and affection for Vrindavana where Krishna performed His pastimes. A bona-fide guru follows the example of all gurus in the line and DOES encourage his disciples to go to Vrindavana. There has never been a guru in the line yet who discouraged his followers from going at least to visit Vrindavana. And now more than ever Vrindavana needs the service of all Vaishnavas. Every Gaudiya Vaishnava MUST have love for Vrindavana and want Vrindavana to shine once again. To avoid Vrindavana or to be afraid of Vrindavana is simply a concoction.

Quote
quotesman
More on sannyasa:

.... To go further and imply the sannyasa ashram is out of date really reeks of sahajiyaism. To take sannyasa and then give it up so easily is taking things very cheaply...

thanks for explaining this so eloquently, Quotesman!

All of Sid's followers should contemplate these statements very closely!

Seems like the marriage vows were taken very cheaply by the followers as well ... judging by the number of divorces/separations in the group???

:?

The Honolulu Advertiser recently did a series of four articles about charities and regulation of charities in Hawaii.

The first article titled: "Hawaii's rules lax on oversight of charities," September 19, 2007 is at:

[tinyurl.com]

There is a summary page of the articles at:

[tinyurl.com]

There is a searchable database of 700 Hawaii charities at

[the.honoluluadvertiser.com]

The Science of Identity Foundation is one of the charities listed.

Here is the information provided for the Science of Identity Foundation:

Organization Science Of Identity Foundation
Address PO Box 27450
City Honolulu
Phone (808) 533-0277
Tax year ending 12/31/2004
Total revenue $1,631,217.00
Program expenses $431,542.00
Mgmt expenses $62,038.00
Program expenses pct 87%
Fundraising expenses $0.00
Affiliate payments 0
Total expenses $493,580.00
Net assets $1,802,250.00
Highest Paid Executive
Highest paid executive Bruce Pederson
Title Art Director
Total compensation $79,958.00

The information is gleaned from www.guidestar.com

Quotesman - thank you for providing the terrific information an Vedic life and tradition.

And it is interesting to note that the most dangerous demons who appear in Kali Yuga come in the form of priests or acharyas. Makes one wonder, doesn't it?

FL also claims to be part of the sampradaya, which I now question. I think this has been brought up before in this forum, but let's look at this issue - is he actually part of the sampradaya or not?