Quote
cultreporter
I have not heard of Tukurama before, although he sounds like Sai's sort of guy.

If you meditate on the name of Govinda,
then you will become Govinda yourself.
There will be no difference between you and God.

[www.geocities.com]

Tukarama is a very famous saint in India, in the state of Maharashtra his following is probably larger then anyone elses. The above quotation is a bad translation. Here is the actual translation

The words are

Govinda, Govinda
Mana lagla ase chhanda
Mag Govinda te kaya, bhed nahi deva taya.


Govinda , Govinda
When the mind is possessed by these words (lagla - attached with,
Chhanda - Hobby) and when all your body sings Govinda Govinda,
Govinda assumes your body as his body

Quote

Tukurama was a mystic, guided by dreams and speculation (the devil :wink:) but it seems to me that to present him as a follower of Lord Caitanya was a little fanciful.

Actually Tukarama claimed that he was initated in a dream by a person who called himself Babaji. In the dream Tukarama was by a river when a holy man walked up to him and put his hand on his head and initiated him into the names Rama, Krishna, and Hari. The holy man claimed to be in the spiritual line of Raghava Chaitanya and Keshava Chaitanya. There has always been a controversy over whether Tukarama meant Chaitanya Mahaprabhu or someone else, but many people believe it to be Chaitanya Mahaprabhu because of Tukarama's teaching of Krishna Bhakti and his stress on chanting Krishna's names, which is what Chaitanya had done. There are some badly informed people who claim that Tukarama was initiated by a "Babaji Chaitanya", but that is just a mixed up version of what Tukarama actually wrote about the incident.

[www.vedanta.com]

Quote

Apparently very little is known of Tukarama's life and there are no shrines to him. He was devoted to Lord Vithoba who is a manifestation of Krishna and his mission in life given to him through a dream was to compete the abhangs (spiritual poems) of Namdev, who was around in 1269 - a full two centuries before Lord Caitanya even appeared. I am curious as to how Tukurama fits into Gaudiya Vaishnavism if at all. I guess only Siddha knows for sure how he came to receive guidance from such an obscure figure when he ignores the Panca Tattva, Lord Caitanya's closest associates.

Tukarama was not teaching the exact same thing as Chaitanya, the main difference was that Chaitanya stressed more the relationship of romantic love of god whereas Tukarama did not. But these are very esoteric points, in truth there was little difference.

Quote

Definitely nothing has changed with 'chanting' being pretty much the sole pursuit of Siddha's followers. How many times I have heard him and them all say - ALL you have to do is chant. Never mind preaching and following Lord Caitanya's mission, never mind charitable pursuits or building temples - which is something a bonafide spiritual master might have thought to do in thirty years, especially when they have no shortage of money.

Tukarama live in a hindu society with thousands of temples all around, so he mostly stressed chanitng and Krishna bhakti and didn't need to do anything else. You are right that for this modern age for a guru with wealth and a large following to not have at least one temple tells us a lot about that guru. Imagine a christian or jewish or muslim sect without a church, synagogue or mosque? It's unthinkable. Especially since Siddha claims to be a faithful follower of AC Bhaktivedanta who wanted more and more temples and whose sect he belongs to is centered on temple activities as a way of evangelizing and providing a place for the congregation to gather and worship. It's really quite amazing that Siddha's group has no temples.

[b:08b9372847]Maui wrote :[/b:08b9372847]

Quote

You are right that for this modern age for a guru with wealth and a large following to not have at least one temple tells us a lot about that guru. Imagine a christian or jewish or muslim sect without a church, synagogue or mosque? It's unthinkable. Especially since Siddha claims to be a faithful follower of AC Bhaktivedanta who wanted more and more temples and whose sect he belongs to is centered on temple activities as a way of evangelizing and providing a place for the congregation to gather and worship. It's really quite amazing that Siddha's group has no temples.

I was hopeful that you would contibute to the understanding of the basis of Sai's philosophy, thank-you.

While I understand that translation is important I honestly do not see a significant variation of the words I posted and the words that you posted.

If you meditate on the name of Govinda,
then you will become Govinda yourself.
There will be no difference between you and God

Govinda , Govinda
When the mind is possessed by these words (lagla - attached with,
Chhanda - Hobby) and when all your body sings Govinda Govinda,
Govinda assumes your body as his body

I posted the words attributed to Tukarama as an example which is relevant to Siddha's philosophy, finding the fact that he regarded Tukurama highly enough to preach his teachings to others to be very relevant.

It was my feeling when I was with Science of Identity that Siddhaswarupananda and his Australian School of Meditation operate in the manner that they do - being extremely secretive and deceptive with regards to their spiritual agenda because Siddha is essentially an impersonalist philosopher.

Now Siddha makes no secret of his contempt for impersonalist philosophers, although it would seem that he would have equal contempt for all other spiritual authorities. He disregarded the instructions of his own spiritual master, he despises all members of ISKCON, through the example of his disciples there is no regard or apparent knowledge of Gaudiya Math, he mocks mystic yogis, refers to christians as 'so called chrisitans' and has specifically spoken against Sai Baba, who is perhaps the most followed impersonalist guru in the modern world.

Sai however was an impersonalist, albeit a confused one. What he puts forward in this book and still to this day is a casserole of philosophy, a little bit of KC, a dash of Christianity and new age philosophy to taste. I question whether it is infact possible to know Krishna as Moksa and Om simultaneously. With his personal and spiritual arrogance and his own agenda in 'surrendering' to AC, (before, during and after seeking to have followers for himself and be worshipped), and considering his teachings there is really no other logical conclusion.

One is not guiding anyone to having a personal relationship with Krishna by providing them with meditation and asana yoga classes, and certainly not through methods of hypnosis. From a spiritual perspective it is utter blasphemy, but even from an agnostic viewpoint would surely be viewed as hypocritical and dishonest.

He may have taken on the guise of a bhakta but it is much like someone who marries for money (which essentially he did). Such a wife can cook and clean and be intimate with her husband, have children and raise a family, they may even be very successful in marriage and stay together for the rest of their lives, forsaking all others, but without the element of love and genuine affection it is a vacuous and false union. For all intensive purposes she is still a wife, but the relationship is solely material and vacuous. Getting people to chant when they have no idea of what they are saying is essentially making Krishna a mail order bride, well at least he's here, you may learn to love him in time.

As written in Sai Speaks "A person can have a relationship with Krishna but if he doesn't have the ability to pass it on to others he is not qualified"
Whether Siddha does have a relationship with Krishna himself I certainly do not know. That is something which is between the two of them, as it is with everyone else, but it is clear enough someone who hides the maha mantra and who does not have altar worship at their kirtans and calls Krishna by the name of 'yoga' and 'stress relief' is NOT showing him to others. By the fruit of the tree it would seem that he could be nothing more than an impersonalist still.

It is interesting to me that both ACB and Siddha appealled to materialism and then acted suprised that their followers developed a material attatchment to Krishna. As Sai preached "Pleasure is the Goal". It is an appealling concept chant this and you will be eternally happy - ironic that he can criticise Christians for treating Jesus as their doormat when this is the exact same reasoning. People get up and walk out of ASM 'meditation classes' because they find out there is a lot of conditions that are attatched to it - there is no magic mantra. It is like inviting people into a pub to get good and drunk and serving only water. At the same time those who may be genuinely interested in knowing Krishna as God would never think to go to Siddha's gatherings. There is a reason that he does not seek to appeal to these people - because they would be able to see right through him and leave anyway. This is a subject that I want to write more on, but ACB also consciously set out to recruit those who were unashamed pleasure seekers through the sense gratification afforded by drug use, particularly LSD, appealling to them to 'Get High with Krishna'.

At the end of the day Siddha can help no one but himself and so he attracts the most loyal followers that are only there to help themselves. There is no accident that business/political interests are so prevalent among Science of Identity. The rules of association do work.

Quote
maui
You are right that for this modern age for a guru with wealth and a large following to not have at least one temple tells us a lot about that guru. Imagine a christian or jewish or muslim sect without a church, synagogue or mosque? It's unthinkable. Especially since Siddha claims to be a faithful follower of AC Bhaktivedanta who wanted more and more temples and whose sect he belongs to is centered on temple activities as a way of evangelizing and providing a place for the congregation to gather and worship. It's really quite amazing that Siddha's group has no temples.

Brilliant point Maui. Interesting to note that Sai's Krishna Yoga Community had several temples.

Looking back 31 years, 1976 was a real turning point. That is when all the temples, the places people would go to kirtans and put on public feasts stopped or closed down so that the political campaigns and businesses would become the focus.

Later, CB's initiated disciples started meditation centers and money generating businesses all over the world, but the Maha Mantra was no longer taught. The rationale for the decentralization was presumably to claim there was nothing to join -- not a cult -- not an organization -- and to protect CB's interests.

My issues with CB are not from a Vaishnava point of view; many of the things that concern you and Cult are not important to me, but are valid to those who follow your faith. I do have issues with the fact that he has exploited people for his own material gain and uses an ancient tradition to hide his ulterior motives, which can not be considered spiritual or ethical. He uses fear and punishment in the worst and manipulative way and teaches nothing but to serve and worship him as an idol, like a God. This is nondifferent than Caligula in Roman times.

Quote
cultreporter

I was hopeful that you would contibute to the understanding of the basis of Sai's philosophy, thank-you.

While I understand that translation is important I honestly do not see a significant variation of the words I posted and the words that you posted.

If you meditate on the name of Govinda,
then you will become Govinda yourself.
There will be no difference between you and God

Govinda , Govinda
When the mind is possessed by these words (lagla - attached with,
Chhanda - Hobby) and when all your body sings Govinda Govinda,
Govinda assumes your body as his body

There is a profound difference between the 2 translations. As you rightly pointed out the 1st one is advaitin (impersonalism) philosophy. But the 2nd one is vaishnava philosophy, which is what Tukarama was. The concept of "Govinda assumes your body as his body" is also taught in gaudiya vaishnavism (hare krishna). The mystic side of gaudiya vaishnavism teaches that the guru or self realized soul becomes a "transparent via-medium" for Krishna. Therefore it is taught that the guru or self realized soul is non-different from Krishna because Krishna speaks through the guru.

This is at the beginning of the Caitanya Caritamrta (one of the main scriptures of gaudiya vaishnavism) These are verses from the first section Adi lila 1.44-1.48

Quote


44 - Although I know that my spiritual master is a servitor of Sri Caitanya, I know Him also as a plenary manifestation of the Lord.

45 - According to the deliberate opinion of all revealed scriptures, the spiritual master is nondifferent from Krsna. Lord Krsna in the form of the spiritual master delivers His devotees.

46 - "One should know the acarya as Myself and never disrespect him in any way. One should not envy him, thinking him an ordinary man, for he is the representative of all the demigods."

(This is a verse from Bhagavatam spoken by Krishna to Uddhava )

47 - One should know the instructing spiritual master to be the Personality of Krsna. Lord Krsna manifests Himself as the Supersoul and as the greatest devotee of the Lord.

48 - "O my Lord! Transcendental poets and experts in spiritual science could not fully express their indebtedness to You, even if they were endowed with the prolonged lifetime of Brahma, for You appear in two features -- externally as the acarya and internally as the Supersoul -- to deliver the embodied living being by directing him how to come to You."

(This is another verse spoken by Krishna to Uddhava from the Bhagavatam)

This is what AC Bhaktivedanta wrote in a purport from The Bhagavatam

Quote

The Paramatma (param=supreme atma=soul, the all pervading consciousness of god, similar to the holy spirit in christianity) is always the caitya-guru, the spiritual master within, and He comes before one externally as the instructor and initiator spiritual master. The Lord can reside within the heart, and He can also come out before a person and give him instructions. Thus the spiritual master is not different from the Supersoul sitting within the heart.

Quote

As written in Sai Speaks "A person can have a relationship with Krishna but if he doesn't have the ability to pass it on to others he is not qualified"

Siddha wrote "However, to simply be god conscious in itself is not enough, he must also have the ability to make or take other individuals to that state of consciousness as well (A person can have a relationship with Krishna but if he doesn't have the ability to pass it on to others he is not qualified [i.e. to be a spiritual master])"

That statement is self contradictory. Gaudiya vaishnavism teaches that if a person is god conscious then he will have the ability to teach others how to be god conscious. If someone actually has a real relationship with Krishna (god) then that means that that person is a self realized soul on the highest level of spiritual attainment, and therefore can easily teach others and be a guru. Since Siddha wrote those words when he was just beginning with gaudiya vaishnavism I can't fault him for making that mistake. But at the same time he is inferring that he is the god cosncious person who can teach others and is therefore a spiritual master. On that same page he writes how the spiritual master must be a "seasoned explorer of the entire spiritual realm" and that a spiritual master "must be able to take the aspiring soul through the lesser realizations of god and into the realization of the supreme personality of godhead Krishna." In the "Who is Sai" booklet he explains how he meets those conditions because he had practiced the various yoga paths and had attained enlightenment and whatnot. The implication is that he is teaching people how to be god conscious, Krishna concious, and that he is a "seasoned explorer" of the spiritual realms, ipso facto he is the spiritual master and that therefore people should "surrender" to him because the path to Krishna is surrender to the spiritual master. Which shows that from the very beginning of his connection with Krishna Bhakti that he was trying to convince others that he was a guru and that people should become his disciples and that they should "surrender" to him.

Quote

Whether Siddha does have a relationship with Krishna himself I certainly do not know. That is something which is between the two of them, as it is with everyone else, but it is clear enough someone who hides the maha mantra and who does not have altar worship at their kirtans and calls Krishna by the name of 'yoga' and 'stress relief' is NOT showing him to others. By the fruit of the tree it would seem that he could be nothing more than an impersonalist still.

I can guarantee that he is not dealing directly with Krishna. A self realized does indeed have a direct one on one relationship and can speak with Krishna at all times in the same way that I can speak to you. But a self realized soul would not act the way he has acted nor spoken the way he has spoken.

Quote

It is interesting to me that both ACB and Siddha appealled to materialism and then acted suprised that their followers developed a material attatchment to Krishna.

I don't know what you mean by "appealed to materialism".

Quote

This is a subject that I want to write more on, but ACB also consciously set out to recruit those who were unashamed pleasure seekers through the sense gratification afforded by drug use, particularly LSD, appealling to them to 'Get High with Krishna'.

ACBS didn't teach like that, his disciples would say things like that in order to appeal to counterculture types. But you won't find stuff like that spoken or written by ACBS. Alan Ginsberg would often say things like that when teaching others about Krishna consciousness.

"Prabhupada and Allen also talked about the meaning of the word hippie, and Allen mentioned something about taking LSD. Prabhupada replied that LSD created dependence and was not necessary for a person in Krsna consciousness. “Krsna consciousness resolves everything,” Prabhupada said. “Nothing else is needed.”"

(From ACBS's biography "Srila Prabhupada-Lilamrta")

Zelig you wrote

Quote

My issues with CB are not from a Vaishnava point of view; many of the things that concern you and Cult are not important to me, but are valid to those who follow your faith. I do have issues with the fact that he has exploited people for his own material gain and uses an ancient tradition to hide his ulterior motives, which can not be considered spiritual or ethical. He uses fear and punishment in the worst and manipulative way and teaches nothing but to serve and worship him as an idol, like a God. This is nondifferent than Caligula in Roman times.

This is what ACBS was famous for saying when asked if he was the guru of Allen Ginsberg “I am nobody’s guru. I am everybody’s servant" (from "Srila Prabhupada-Lilamrta")

ACBS's guru Bhaktisiddhanta would say the same type of thing

rasika bhakata raja kabhu sisya kore na
rasika janera sisya ei bhava chade na

"The highest devotee, who is like a king among the rasikas expert in relishing devotional mellows, never thinks that he has disciples. The student of such a rasika, however, never give up the mood of being the disciples of this exalted devotee."

That is the state of mind of the self realized person, they see themselves as the servants of everyone. Siddha clearly sees himself as someone who should be worshipped, not only that but those whom he has convinced to serve him are then treated like slaves, often abused both physically and emotionally. You do the math. ACBS and other gurus in his lineage were always kind and treated people with respect and generosity, never mistreating others nor were they demanding that others serve them. On the contrary they lived very frugal lives personally, and gave away all they had to others. Even though ACBS had a lot of wealth at his command he never spent any of it for material enjoyments. He spent all the money for others. Siddha is the exact opposite.

[www.myspace.com]

Quote
maui
Tukarama was not teaching the exact same thing as Chaitanya, the main difference was that Chaitanya stressed more the relationship of romantic love of god whereas Tukarama did not. But these are very esoteric points, in truth there was little difference.

It appears these esoteric points are the key to Butler's Cult being so harmful. Tukarama taught leading a highly austere life as his method of attaining love of God; the idle nature of association with others; the danger of forming attachment to anyone which distract one's mind from focusing on Krishna. This is how Butler gains followers by slowly indoctrinating people to believe that all relationships are irrelevant even the love of a parent for a sick child. All that a person should engage in is chanting Krishna's names and renouncing all attachments in life.

This is neglectful of the fact that Tukarama renounced householder life after the death of many of his closest relatives. Sai/Butler himself is a householder having taken on a wife and has many householder disciples. This gives him the opportunity to take advantage of the many brahmacharis devoting their severe lives to his personal service. Then taking advantage of the disciples with children they are taught that personal relationships are detrimental to a person's spiritual life. This results in neglect of the health and well-being of their undeveloped growing children.

Perhaps Tukarama's teachings are a lot more impersonal than the romantic love of Krishna that Caitanya taught and this is more suited to a cult of followers who renounce their material lives completely. Otherwise this teaching can be used in a dangerous, deceitful, materially beneficial and abusive manner.

This also maybe why he disagreed with his spiritual master that a person's sexual preference was relevant. Any form of sexuality is a form of material attachment. Sex for procreation does not require attachment but homosexual sex is a purely a material attachment by this logic. Therefore following Tukarama's teaching any relationship in the SOI cult must be heterosexual and non-sexual or romantic.

Or then again maybe Butler is homophobic due to fear of facing his own attraction to men. :shock: :roll:

Quote
emntk
Sai/Butler himself is a householder having taken on a wife and has many householder disciples. This gives him the opportunity to take advantage of the many brahmacharis devoting their severe lives to his personal service. Then taking advantage of the disciples with children they are taught that personal relationships are detrimental to a person's spiritual life. This results in neglect of the health and well-being of their undeveloped growing children.

As far as I can tell there are no unmarried disciples of Siddha and the trend appears to be to get a wife in order to facilitate initiation and to keep a wife in order to maintain Siddha's approval. While students are taught the evils of attatchment and a very moral version of marriage there is certainly a lot of condoned divorce and bed hopping among the disciples. Those favoured by Siddha may have two wives or hide out in Hawaii with a new (usually much older) husband to provide for them.

I dare say that keeping women single, while at the same time teaching them how much a woman needs a husband in order to attain to Krishna makes the bramacharinis very pliable and is another sign of manipulation and coercion in SOI. Men of lesser morals than a bramachari should have can certainly benefit in having their pick of young women rendered subservient and romantically desperate through loyalty to CB.

It is a situation that is distasteul to me on many levels, not only spiritual, although CB would be aware that the Scripture states very specifically that women attain to Krishna through their husbands. A woman with no good devotee husband will have to do a another lap through material life at least. There is no chance for you to get to Krishna ladies, pick up a book and see what your guru is destining you to. Of course it is pretty hard to find a good devotee husband if they are devoted to Siddha anyway. My beloved is worth about as much as the average karmi as long as the blinkers stay on.

With all respect Maui, as I have already indicated that I have for you what you say about ACB is ontlogically incorrect and reading your post I see a bias that is consistent with allegiance with Gaudiya Vaishnavism. This is something I could write extensively on and cross reference however here I aim to keep it brief, and know that some of the points have been raised before by myself and others.

If you would ever like to discuss spiritual issues beyond the scope of this thread I would be more than happy to communicate with you and will listen to what you have to say and consider it. I have stated before though that I do not read purports by ACB. The Holy Name is pure and speaks for itself. It is hypocrisy to sugguest that Krishna has perfect knowledge but he needs ACB to tell us what he [i:342dfa1da5]really[/i:342dfa1da5] meant to say. The purports are many times longer than the verse that they address and seek to chritianise Krishna Consciousness, wholly inconsistent with any GV philosophy that I am aware of, completely at odds with Christian writings and having no support in the Scripture where Jesus is never mentioned.

[b:342dfa1da5]One cannot logically or scripturally condemn a disciple of a spiritual master without condemning the spiritual master themselves. [/b:342dfa1da5]

ACB himself said as is scripturally supported that if one disciple falls down than the spiritual master is not bonafide and 'cheap gurus cheap disciples'. No one had cheaper disciples than ACB - Tamal Krishna, Kirtananda, Siddhaswarupananda. The whole original GBC - these were his closest and most trusted who had perverted desires for children, attatchment to homosexual sex lives and lust for other men's wives. They were embezzlers, women beaters, rapists and murderers.

ACB used snuff, wore expensive Rolex watches and drove around in a gold Mercedes Benz for a start. He may have started out in a delapidated shop front but he soon got accustomed to being accomodated in the best and most expensive hotels and country manors transversing the world in his private jet ala Siddhaswarupananda.

Quote

I don't know what you mean by "appealed to materialism".

Your refutation to what I wrote

Quote

It is interesting to me that both ACB and Siddha appealled to materialism and then acted suprised that their followers developed a material attatchment to Krishna.

ACBS didn't teach like that, his disciples would say things like that in order to appeal to counterculture types. But you won't find stuff like that spoken or written by ACBS. Alan Ginsberg would often say things like that when teaching others about Krishna consciousness.

Well then even if that was the case, and I do not agree that it was, then they were pretty cheap disciples and ACB presided over it all. When Ginsberg made such speeches ACB was sitting right there endorsing it by his prescence and lack of contradiction.

ACB infact shamelessly courted celebrities, and declared the Beatles to have done more for KC than his other disciples despite the fact they were fly by nighters looking for their next spiritual trip who never gave up millionaire lifestyles and never became initiated. I imagine that he set the example for L Ron Hubbard into how to start a successful cult with Scientology's 'Project Celebrity' (www.xenu.net has the original documents for this) bearing a striking resembelance to some of ACB's writings on preaching. To use fame to appeal and bring others to Krishna is to appeal on a material level.

Under ACBs guidance Hare Krishnas were considered to be out for money to the extent of being public nuisances and with very good reason. He fully condoned deceptive fundraising, devotees dressing up as Santa Claus for example, and badgering members of the public creating gauntlets at airports and other public places.

ACB was aware of debaunchery in the temples, abuse of wives and child molestation. He denounced Tamal Krishna for cutting down a tulsi tree but he didn't do a thing against the child molestors that he was aware of deeming that the disgusting affair should be handled internally.

As for being an adherent to GV ACB was highly critical of GV referring to his godbrothers among other things non human. It is said that he resolved this before he died, but it this really just another historical convenience neccessary to perptuate that ACB is a saint and keep the KC religion intact. GV wanted nothing to do with him until ISKCON took off and began making money.

As for not wanting worship I have yet to see a picture of an ISKCON temple where there is not a deity of ACB seperate to the altar to be bowed down to. At the Sydney temple there is a large, I guess probably life sized cast likeness presiding over the temple room that it is expected that one bow down and offer their obeisances to and a pair of his shoes in a glass case. Unlike the altar which is closed outside cermonies ACB can be worshipped at any time.

It is very well to criticise Siddha, you are not about to see me defending him, but let's not forget who granted him his validation as a guru in the first instance.

Quote
maui
..... On that same page he writes how the spiritual master must be a "seasoned explorer of the entire spiritual realm" and that a spiritual master "must be able to take the aspiring soul through the lesser realizations of god and into the realization of the supreme personality of godhead Krishna." ...

No wonder he wanted these pages burned! It looks as if he was just making this stuff up as he went along! Just as nowadays, while claiming to have his "ears in the spiritual world and mouth in the material world," and stating that it is Krishna's will to become "soldiers for Jesus" and to send his disiples to fight the "infidels" in Iraq. Sounds more like he has his ears in the White House at George Bush's feet, his nose in the air, and his ass on the throne.

:?:

Quote
zelig
Looking back 31 years, 1976 was a real turning point. That is when all the temples, the places people would go to kirtans and put on public feasts stopped or closed down so that the political campaigns and businesses would become the focus.

Later, CB's initiated disciples started meditation centers and money generating businesses all over the world, but the Maha Mantra was no longer taught. The rationale for the decentralization was presumably to claim there was nothing to join -- not a cult -- not an organization -- and to protect CB's interests.

Yes, I think that 1976 was the beginning of the political focus and the religious focus was put on the back burner. I remember that Siddha's followers put on a feast to try and woo some political people on Maui. (After all, free food that tasted delicious was a proven way to sway people into your camp, wasn't it???). This was the "Godly Government" agenda at that time... I distinctly remember Siddha told Wayne Nishiki not to say things like "Haribol" to these people - to act like a normal karmi and to hide any affiliation with any kind of Eastern religion. The whole idea was that making money and engaging in politics, if done for Krishna, were just as spiritual as chanting and engaging in worship.

:) Tuko says: "There are two kinds of people in this world - those with spurs and those without spurs." (The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly)[/size:9fdab1afa1]

:wink: