Current Page: 866 of 868
How cults + conspiracy theories make us see ourselves as heroes
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: October 18, 2024 11:00PM

Run, this is powerful and emancipatory.

This is why opposition and attempts to argue with people do not work - you become the Enemy and it cements them in the role of hero/martyr.

Readers: here is a tiny slice of the article recommended above:

Book Review: The Unpersuadables

Quote

Storr points out at least two aspects of the group thinker's mentality in the book, which revealsmuch of the process of inculcating the unwashed into the brainwashed. One is the use of repetition in embedding principles of the cult ideology in the brains of followers and soon-to-be followers of the cult. Second is the installation of the cult's framework into the follower's personal narrative. Storr posits that personal narrative content and its corruption is the principle process in getting peopleßinto the fold and keeping them there.

All of us have a personal narrative, meaning we have stories and fables we tell ourselves about ourselves. As Storr sees it, in our personal narrative we are the hero of our own stories. Anything that would make us doubt our own heroic nature is rejected and cult ideologies are designed to useour beliefs in our own story while simultanously injecting the group's ideology to inculcate and recruit. Narrative alteration and recruitment is easier when one's life trajectory shakes theindividule's foundational belief in the tales of their lives, making recruitment eaiser. How often does a religious conversion story start with a tale of woe. We have all heard these stories and know people who were at an ebb either spiritually or financially only then to have a come to Amway or Jesus experieince. Storr goes on to say that once the cult becomes the source of one's heroic story it's pretty difficult to get the believer to face up to facts which contradict their personal narrative.

The personal narrative is a powerful force for more than just cults and believers of woo; it also is central to those who believe in conspiracy theories.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Chris Butler, Jagad Guru, Science of Identity
Posted by: RUN_FOREST_RUN ()
Date: October 22, 2024 02:34AM

I am putting this one here as well.

https://www.echoes-of-eternity.com/vaishnavas-are-beyond-material-limitation

Just to be clear, I put these types of Gaudiya Math blogs/posts/sites on here because if any Chris Butler devotee comes upon it here, they may see what so-called "real" Gaudiya Vaishnavism is about. And that not only are ISKCON and SIF some random offshoots that has made up its own ideas and lineage, but they are almost unrecognizable as a Gaudiya cult. They are something altogether different and not anything remotely close to Chaitanya Bengal Vaishnavism. Not by a long shot (ISKCON has largely devolved into a quasi-Hindu cult that attracts mostly Indians—the Western followers are floating off in droves:

Yes, Corboy, that was the part that resonated with me in that article.

The guru in the equation then also acts as an extension of that hero narrative. Somehow, this "eternal" secret wisdom has made it to you through some sort of grace or elitism. The narrative in the group is often touted as "we are the chosen ones". Even in Gaudya Vaishnavism, the concept of sukriti (spiritual merit, as opposed to simple mechanics of karma—cause and effect—determinism), played a role in your accent to "worthiness." Hence in Gaidiya Vaishnvaism there is a naive idea that "preaching" is a way to spread the good word and divine "mercy". The narrative then becomes, "You matter to god, and so god came to save you, specifically you—that is God's boundless glory and grace". so god randomly chose to save me (which was just having a string of bad days) versus, say, the kids in Gaza...

Bhaktisiddhanta made a huge deal of Brahmanism and felt the need to establish Brahmin diksha in a cult that had nothing to do with that practice. He wrote extensively about it, and it is to this day a huge rite of passage in the cult. Nama diksha is fine, but Brhamin diksha really opens the doors of your progress.

In many devotees' stories, one will hear the repeating theme of "I was at my lowest, and the lord/Gurudev saved me)." Or, "I was minding my own business and all of a sudden, the devotees came, and I was overcome by XYZ emotion."

Those who do not come to the cult via an avenue of distress tend to be more on the fringes of the cult. They come for Sunday functions and enjoy chanting, dancing, and eating vegetarian food, but they never quite get taken by the rest of it beyond its surface pleasantry.

In fact, we often see the most fanatical of the cult followers are those who came to it via a crisis. Kind of like AA members can be cultlike and fanatical about recovery if they came to it via rock-bottom as opposed to just getting a handle on their drinking.

Ultimatly, methods like kirtan and other repetaive ritualism acts as a method to disengage the critical thinking parts of the brain. Which is neccessery to the success of most cults/religions.

Even modern advertisers know this mechanism of the brain and use mindless repetative scrolling and bombordign of cheap laughs and advertisements to keep the brain in a docile state.

I'm an advocate of personal spirituality. I don't believe one needs a group to access many of the poported benefits. I also do not feel that being part of a group of spirtually thinking people is harmful per se, but as soon as someone is telling you that you cannot access some "secret" aspects of the philosophy unless you "surrender" or "serve" or believe in XYZ or practice XYZ ritual, tha is when it gets hairy. are the mechanics of these things truly helpful? Are they in line with where you are at with your cirrent thinking and naural, experiantial, rational growth, or are they artificaly impossing some ideas on yoru mind that you are simoply accepting because someone told you that you will never be happy unless you accept it?

Culthusiast—

Jagad Gurus Siddhaswarupananda has never read or responded to any letter from his disciples unless it's to chastise them or ask for something. He could care less about his floundering followers spread across the globe. He literally thinks cause he recorded a handful of lectures, he has said all he needs to say, and now he can just fuck off and enjoy his Hawaii ocean-front lifestyle of sitting around listening to political TV, watching baseball, and getting massaged and fed like a baby. So, that poor Polish disciple essentially wrote that long letter to the wind.

The rasas of vatsalya, etc are not Gaudya Vaishnava goals. In fact, Bhaktivinode, in his Krishna Samhita, calls any Vaishnava with lesser goals than manjari bhava, as "asslike." The goals for other rasas, perhaps, are in the Madhva line more, but not the gaudiyas.

All bushittery aside though, lets take the claim of mantras with all of their purported powers:

A sound made of material energy, with material senses, and heard with physical material senses, is simply that: Another material sound vibration. One does not need a PhD or much brains to comprehend that.

All mantras are made of words created by humans in some sort of linguistic evolution and etymological framework. The words can mean one thing in one language and something totally different in another language. They can have connotations based on social/cultural influences and vary from religious tradition to religious tradition.

The so-called power of a mantra is, at best, corresponding to the following bias factors:

1. A religious tradition/guru/scripture with some wisdom ideas has told you to believe it has power. There are many examples of this in Vedic and post-Vedic (non-vedic, really), Puranas, etc., where the mantra is touted to have some fantastic power (along with fasting from grains on Ekadasi days). The mantra is said to appease all ancestors in the past, free one from all karma and sins, and elevate one "instantly" to some abstract transcendental platform. Whatever that means.

2. The inherent activity of murmuring a mantra on repeat has a soothing mental quality, similar to that of a parent repeating a song or string of words to a crying child.

3. If used in song, with instruments, and dance, the mantra is akin to singing any sound one finds pleasing. At best, and again, because of its association with one's implied intention, it can make you feel happy while doing it in the company of other people. Alone, it can be one of the most mind-numbing and boring activities you can undertake.

4. Associated with various religious beliefs, a mantra might "feel" powerful, but this usually lasts only while chanting. After a person is done with changing their mantra, it no longer has any sway on mental states.

Ultimately, if the mantra had the power it is touted to have by scriptures and gurus, the country of India would be the epitome of success and spiritual achievement. But alas. It is not. It is one of the top world exporters of need, riddled with health, social, and all-around issues on every level. How is this possible? The "mantra" has been chanted with utmost sincerity since the dawn of time there, yet there is little in the way of showing its purported benefits in practice/example.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DAlDQneh4_z/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Here are the facts:

Based on the available information, no credible scientific study demonstrates the effectiveness of mantras. Despite numerous claims and testimonials, the scientific community has not found any verifiable evidence to support the notion that mantras have a tangible impact on mental or physical well-being.

Insufficient Correlation

The search results highlight various studies and articles that discuss the potential benefits of mantras, such as relaxation, reduced stress, and improved mental health. However, these claims are often anecdotal or based on limited, non-randomized studies. The scientific consensus remains that no conclusive evidence supports the notion that mantras have a measurable, reproducible effect.

Methodological Flaws

Many studies on mantras suffer from methodological flaws, such as small sample sizes, a lack of control groups, and inadequate measurement tools. These limitations limit the ability to draw meaningful conclusions about mantras' efficacy.

No Empirical Evidence

Without rigorous, empirically-based research, it is reasonable to conclude that mantras have zero effect. The scientific community relies on verifiable, replicable data to support claims, and the current evidence base does not meet these standards.

Conclusion

Until robust, scientifically designed studies demonstrate a tangible impact of mantras, it is prudent to conclude that they have no verifiable effect on mental or physical well-being.

If chanting a mantra makes you happy, by all means. If it gives you a sense of "spiritual" upliftment or sense of belonging or communing with a higher power/god/self, by all means, but know there is no real "purification" taking place, nor is it possible by any rational method to extract anything out of a combination of ancient Indian words. Anything that is happening is purely in abstraction and very realistically simply a cognitive, speculative endeavor. Take it from someone who chanted 16 rounds a day+ and attended and led many Kirtans. And that hallowed number, "16" means nothing. Bhaktisiddhanta claimed that god would not accept the service of anyone chanting less than 64 rounds a day. God has standards people. Unless you are chanting yourself into a frenzy god wants shit to do with you.

RUN.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Chris Butler, Jagad Guru, Science of Identity
Posted by: RUN_FOREST_RUN ()
Date: October 22, 2024 02:37AM

The earliest mention of Radha in Hindu scriptures is found in the Prakrit text Gatha Saptasati, composed by King Hala in the 1st century CE. However, Radha’s character and significance evolved over time, with more detailed descriptions appearing in later texts.

According to the Brahma Vaivarta Purana and Garga Samhita, Radha-Krishna are considered the supreme deities. In the Radha-Krishna tradition, Radha is often depicted as an avatar (incarnation) of Lakshmi, the goddess of prosperity, and as the chief consort of Krishna.

The Puranas, such as Brahma Vaivarta Purana and Devi Bhagavatam, provide insight into Radha’s origin. According to these texts, Radha is considered an amsa (part) of the goddess Lakshmi, born as Padmini in Mathura and later becoming Radha in Vrindavana. This division of Lakshmi into two aspects, Radha and Lakshmi, is attributed to Krishna’s wish.

Additionally, the Agamas (Tantras) and Narada PancharAtra mention Radha, including the Radha Stotram, which comprises 37 names of Radha.

In summary, while Radha’s earliest written mention is in the 1st century CE Prakrit text Gatha Saptasati, her character and significance evolved over time. Later, Puranas and Agamas provided more detailed descriptions of her origin and relationship with another non-vedic deity with very clear Dravidian origins: Krishna. Done are the days where devotees of this cult just lump everything together as "hindu" or "vedic". Too much study and scholarly expose has shown that this specific cult is literally no older than 500 years, making it more akin to Mormonism and even incarnations like ISKCON and SIF, closer to cults like Scientology and other modern cults and offshoot movements.

RUN

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Chris Butler, Jagad Guru, Science of Identity
Date: October 23, 2024 11:04AM

In an obvious and contrived manner- Tulsi has now decided (on Butlers orders??) to declare herself a Republican.
My my, the whore of Vrindavan strikes again:

[www.newsobserver.com]

Anything to get a vote, right Tulsi?

When will she finally get exposed for the Manchurian candidate that she really is?
Now you know why she moved to Texas.
Now you see how she is being positioned for a possible appointment to a new cabinet position for DJT.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Chris Butler, Jagad Guru, Science of Identity
Posted by: Culthusiast ()
Date: October 28, 2024 04:53AM

RUN_FOREST_RUN Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Culthusiast—
>
> Jagad Gurus Siddhaswarupananda has never read or
> responded to any letter from his disciples unless
> it's to chastise them or ask for something. He
> could care less about his floundering followers
> spread across the globe. He literally thinks cause
> he recorded a handful of lectures, he has said all
> he needs to say, and now he can just fuck off and
> enjoy his Hawaii ocean-front lifestyle of sitting
> around listening to political TV, watching
> baseball, and getting massaged and fed like a
> baby. So, that poor Polish disciple essentially
> wrote that long letter to the wind.

Keeping to the Bhagavad Gita as the basic scripture establishing the rules of the guru-disciple relationship, the disciple is to approach and ask humble questions. The implicit assumption is that the "guru" should respond. If he does not respond, the Bhagavad Gita undermines him.

> The rasas of vatsalya, etc are not Gaudya
> Vaishnava goals. In fact, Bhaktivinode, in his
> Krishna Samhita, calls any Vaishnava with lesser
> goals than manjari bhava, as "asslike." The goals
> for other rasas, perhaps, are in the Madhva line
> more, but not the gaudiyas.

Is there a quote available somewhere for this statement/commentary? This would violate the freedom of the individual jiva to choose his/her own relationship with the Deity in this philosophy. Treating this choice with contempt is hardly " spiritual love."

From the information that has reached Polish former members of SIF, for example, the Nimbarka Sampradaya leads more towards sakhi rasa or Candra.

RUN_FOREST_RUN Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In summary, while Radha’s earliest written mention
> is in the 1st century CE Prakrit text Gatha
> Saptasati, her character and significance evolved
> over time. Later, Puranas and Agamas provided more
> detailed descriptions of her origin and
> relationship with another non-vedic deity with
> very clear Dravidian origins: Krishna. Done are
> the days where devotees of this cult just lump
> everything together as "hindu" or "vedic". Too
> much study and scholarly expose has shown that
> this specific cult is literally no older than 500
> years, making it more akin to Mormonism and even
> incarnations like ISKCON and SIF, closer to cults
> like Scientology and other modern cults and
> offshoot movements.
>
> RUN

The Dravidian origin of the deity Krishna is quite an interesting theory. Historically, it is known that the Aryans' invasion took place long after the end of the Indus Valley Civilization - although genetics actually places the Dravidians there. Later we have Alexander the Great and Bhaktria. Greek influences. In turn, after the Battle of Kosovo, the presence of Slavic migration is possible. What is confirmed is the fact that the cult of Vasudeva merged with the cult of Krishna. PS. Forgot Zoroastrianism. Awesta and language familiar to sanksrit. Not forgetting about Sanskrit archaisms in Lithuanian. Lithuania, or a bit higher on the map than the hypothetical location of the country of the Proto-Slavs.

Google Translate:
[translate.google.pl]

VoxVeritasVita Das Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When will she finally get exposed for the
> Manchurian candidate that she really is?
> Now you know why she moved to Texas.
> Now you see how she is being positioned for a
> possible appointment to a new cabinet position for
> DJT.

Any role to lie more and get money...



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2024 04:59AM by Culthusiast.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Chris Butler, Jagad Guru, Science of Identity
Posted by: RUN_FOREST_RUN ()
Date: October 30, 2024 01:28AM

Since manjari bhava is practiced through visualization and meditation, it relies on the practitioner's imaginative faculties to conjure images of Radha and Krishna's so-called divine pastimes. This makes it similar to guided fantasy rather than an experience grounded in empirical reality. Practitioners are encouraged to "see" themselves as participants in these stories, which can feel like playing a role and may even lead to "realizing" what they desire or imagine rather than discovering an independently verifiable truth.

Devotees engaging in manjari bhava often study the writings of key theologians like Rupa Goswami, which outline elaborate structures of devotion and various rasas (emotional flavors). For someone not already embedded in this tradition, this approach is overly complex and mostly arbitrary. The "knowledge" required here isn't empirical but instead involves familiarity with a prescribed set of beliefs and symbols, which are speculative at best.


Considering how recent the ritualistic systems of this cult and the cult itself are, as well as the modern invention and addition of Radha, the so-called chanting of the maha-mantra, the undeniably broken and fractured lineages, and so on, it is mostly, if not completely, a farce from start to finish.

The dating of the scriptures and even the rasa theory that Gaudiyas follow and believe and evolved, including much of the rasa theory they promote above, is largely the invention of Rupa/Jiva et al. It is not even explicitly mentioned or promoted by the Chaitanya siant as he left no verifiable doctrine.

Gaudiya Vaishnavism emphasizes the role of the guru, who is seen as a mediator of divine knowledge. This creates a structure where beliefs are reinforced within a community of like-minded practitioners who share, validate, and reinforce each other's experiences. While not unique to Gaudiya Vaishnavism, this structure can resemble the dynamics of a cult, where collective reinforcement replaces independent verification.

No rational modern-day expression of this cult exists where there is an example of its success as a spiritual and functional spiritual system. The average guru or lay follower chanting, serving, preaching, and so on is not experiencing any verifiable rasa state with the Krishna god or anyone. In theory, if they were, even mildly, the scriptures profess they would barely be able to function.

Nor are the many promises of the mantras or rituals having power in any way verifiable or evident. So-called claims of chanting, even once, purifying the sins of many lifetimes, etc., are naive exaggerations.

The majority of converts to this cult are duped into it mainly on the mechanism of Samkhya and the selfish motive of "bliss" and a desire to be "saved" from the sorrows of life.

In a naive state, I recall my mother telling me that we would serve Krishna together in the spiritual sky. She implied nothing more than her deep attachment to her son and a hope to reunite in some future heaven where we would be together.

Practices such as manjari bhava frame subjective emotional experiences as encounters with "divine love." While these experiences may feel profound to practitioners, there is an open question about whether they reflect anything beyond the individual's inner psychology. In other words, deep feelings of love, joy, or peace are interpreted as signs of divine communion, but this interpretation is subjective and not universally compelling. Seeing a person crying in "ecstasy" as they chant or pray rarely indicates anything more profound than a person driving in their car, listening to the radio, and becoming emotional over a familiar song or nostalgic emotion.

Often, old-time Prabhupada devotees get trapped in a sort of circular process of recalling the emotion they felt when they met Prabhupada. They like to relive that moment endlessly and recall it. Is this bhava? Is this prema? I am compelled to say it is docile sentimentalism at best.

Ironically, as with all cults, only the founders and writers of the "new religion" seem to have achieved the supposed state of "manjari bhava." So Rupa and Jiva Goswami et al. were the ones who claim to have gotten to this stage of their practice—no one has since. That is basically what all cult founders claim and do: They say they had a big revelation, they write a bunch of complex ideologies about it, and then they attract a following that never quite achieves the goal.

Subsequently, the gurus in his tradition are speculated to have achieved this goal (disciples were quick to claim that bhaktivednata was a cowherd boy in the spiritual cow-land of vrndaban, and Bhaktisiddhnata and his dad also were "revealed" as having so-called "manjari" eternal bodies in cow-heaven), and all others mostly struggle or perform repetitive "service" or chanting and reading to no real avail. Many of them, 40+ years into the cult, have little if anything of substance to show as their advancement other than "loyalty" to the cult and its founders/gurus. They all follow the leader, bow to him, and hope that something rubs off and that some big revelation and conversion happens for them.

These imagined mental states are said to come about by meditating that one is a medieval character in a cow/farm country in some transcendental world where they help God cheat with married women.

In fact, even within the lifetime of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, this has continued to be a MAJOR point of contingency and issue internally: Is God eternal "Lila" parakiya or swakiya? In other words, is God and his consort "married" and committed, or is it an illicit relationship? The Radha goddess and Gopis et al. are "cheating" with God to sort of up the emotional and sexual tension and ante.

This was an ongoing feud within the cult and faction sects of the Gaudiyas even before Chaitanya died.

The Goswami, of course, promote the Parakiya ideal as the "highest."

Again, what exactly are we talking about here? That God is married? Marriage is a human construct. It is not even universally exhibited and practiced from one culture to another. So essentially, what this means is that God got really ought up on the "Indian" way of things and culture and is either married or not married to his goddess counterpart. Do you see how naive this sounds?

Sure, if you want to understand this stuff as "symbolic," that is mildly more intelligent. But what exact use is there other than approaching an idea and personhood of divinity with such naive and almost cheesy considerations? What are we, 12-year-old girls, taken by the latest romance novel? Oh wait, that's the goal of the Gaudiyas.

When, oh when, will people stop taking these clowns seriously? Seriously!

RUN

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Chris Butler, Jagad Guru, Science of Identity
Posted by: RUN_FOREST_RUN ()
Date: October 30, 2024 10:38AM

Pasting this here. Some of the various debates that have historically plagued this cult. These are just the major ones, let's not forget the jiva orgins, and diksha versus shiksha. You would think that some of this stuff would have been canonized by now and figured out. Lord knows even the Mormons have gotten their ducks in a row at this stage and they're just as old as this cult.

1. Nature of Radha-Krishna Relationship (Parakiya vs. Svakiya)

One of the most significant theological debates within Gaudiya Vaishnavism concerns the nature of Radha and Krishna’s relationship:

Parakiya Rasa (Extramarital Love): Rupa Goswami and the early Goswamis promoted parakiya rasa, the notion of Radha and Krishna’s relationship as an intense, extramarital love, symbolizing the highest, most uninhibited form of devotion.

Svakiya Rasa (Marital Love): Some followers and later groups preferred svakiya rasa, interpreting the relationship as marital or more socially acceptable. This view aligns more closely with traditional Hindu values on marriage and loyalty, contrasting with the parakiya idea, which was sometimes criticized for its nonconformity.


The parakiya vs. svakiya debate continued for centuries, with sects like the Radha Vallabha Sampradaya leaning toward svakiya rasa, emphasizing Radha as Krishna's eternal consort within marriage.

2. Role of Chaitanya as Divine (Bhagavata) vs. Devotee (Bhakta)

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is revered as both a devotee of Krishna and, in some interpretations, an incarnation of Krishna himself. Different Gaudiya groups have emphasized different aspects:

Bhagavata (Divine Incarnation): Many adherents, especially those influenced by the teachings of the Six Goswamis, regard Chaitanya as the combined incarnation of Radha and Krishna, embodying both the divine lover and the beloved. This view elevated Chaitanya as an object of worship himself.

Bhakta (Pure Devotee): Other followers, particularly some later lineages, emphasized Chaitanya as an ideal devotee rather than a divine incarnation, focusing on his exemplary life of devotion as a model for practitioners.


This divergence influenced how certain sects view Chaitanya’s role in devotion and worship, with some sects focusing more on his divine identity and others on his human-like devotional practices.

3. Authority of the Goswami Writings vs. Guru Parampara

The Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition emphasizes both scriptural study and the guru-disciple relationship, but differences emerged over which held more authority:

Scriptural Authority (Goswami Writings no more than 500 years old): Some followers, especially those close to the writings of the Six Goswamis, prioritized these texts as the ultimate guides to devotional practice and philosophy. They stressed study and adherence to the writings of Rupa and Sanatana Goswami as essential.

Guru Parampara (Lineage-Based Authority): Other groups placed higher importance on the teachings of the living guru, even if those teachings diverged slightly from the Goswami writings. This focus sometimes led to unique interpretations and practices within different lineages, as each guru interpreted core concepts to suit the needs of their community.


4. Role of Manjari Bhava in Devotional Practice

Within the tradition, manjari bhava (the mood of the young female attendants of Radha) became a prominent devotional mood, especially promoted by Rupa Goswami and Raghunatha Dasa Goswami. However, some sects and later lineages within Gaudiya Vaishnavism developed alternative focuses:

Emphasis on Manjari Bhava: Many groups consider manjari bhava the highest form of devotional service, as it embodies selfless dedication to Radha and Krishna's pastimes.

Alternative Devotional Moods: Some followers, however, felt drawn to different rasas, such as sakhya (friendship) or dasya (servitude), and did not exclusively focus on manjari bhava. This led to a range of devotional expressions and practices, depending on which mood was considered ideal by each community.


These variations in emphasis reflected different views on which aspects of Krishna devotion were most spiritually meaningful, allowing for flexibility but also generating debate within the tradition.

5. Interpretation of Ritual and Ascetic Practice

The Gaudiya tradition is known for its emphasis on bhakti (devotion) over ritual, but debates arose over how much ritual or asceticism should be incorporated:

Minimal Ritual Emphasis: Some followers, particularly those influenced by Chaitanya’s ecstatic and spontaneous approach, emphasized informal devotion and minimized the role of ritual and austerity.

Incorporation of Ritual and Ascetic Practices: Others integrated more structured ritual practices, such as fasting, temple worship, and celibacy, into their devotion, sometimes blending Gaudiya practices with more traditional Vaishnava rituals.


Influence on Later Movements

These internal theological variations led to the development of sub-groups and branches within Gaudiya Vaishnavism, each with slightly different focuses.

I don't make this shit up... which group are you in? Is it the right one? If not, your spiritual life is at stake! You might not be chanting the Holy Name at all, but just croaking like a frog.

RUN

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Chris Butler, Jagad Guru, Science of Identity
Posted by: just-googling ()
Date: October 30, 2024 07:53PM

The drama intensifies. What's next... Tulsi serving hamburgers at Macdonald's in order to get more votes?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Chris Butler, Jagad Guru, Science of Identity
Posted by: RUN_FOREST_RUN ()
Date: October 30, 2024 11:04PM

Ironically, bhaktisiddhanta also said he was willing to serve meat at his temples/missions to attract followers to his new movement.

Butler abandoned all traditional links to gaudiya vaishnavism and even the maha mantra and beads made of tulsi to appeal to his followers. To this day it's near impossible to assess what they represent.

Getting a vote is hard when you got shit to offer and no one knows what the hell you're on about.

RUN

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Chris Butler, Jagad Guru, Science of Identity
Posted by: Culthusiast ()
Date: October 31, 2024 04:51AM

RUN_FOREST_RUN Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, great aspects covered in your recent posts.

> Ironically, bhaktisiddhanta also said he was
> willing to serve meat at his temples/missions to
> attract followers to his new movement.

This is interesting, because first he would have to wean them off meat eating, and thus get rid of the passion and ignorance that meat eating and breaking the yama represent - the foundations of mystical yoga. In this sense, it is close to Chris Butler's SIF addressing the offer to young people addicted to drugs (interviews in the press). Then, the reluctant ones have to admit after years of perturbation that it is the mode of goodness that, according to them, is the beginning of the so-called spiritual life. Interestingly, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's spiritual brothers criticized him for going to the USA precisely because this audience was not ready for this message, so in a way denying the teachings of his guru Bhaktisiddhanta.

And Buddha turned the wheel of dharma 3 times...

Chaitanya, on the other hand, said that he had no need of followers.

>
> Butler abandoned all traditional links to gaudiya
> vaishnavism and even the maha mantra and beads
> made of tulsi to appeal to his followers. To this
> day it's near impossible to assess what they
> represent.

Hawaia Sampradaya... Garlands yes, vyasasan yes, tilaks no. No tilaks..

Referring to the matters raised above, i.e. manjari-bhav, parakiya rasa, svakiya rasa etc., there are a few more aspects here.

Kinkaris are more trusted servants than manjari.

An important aspect is that if pure parakiya rasa is perceived only for beings with manjari-bhav, in kamanuga, then it is not perceived in sambhandanuga. However, social lack of acceptance for parakiya rasa requires a community. So it requires sambhandanuga. A community devoted to god Krishna in other rasas. Then the divine couple does not have this freedom and meetings are secret. But then kamanuga is not complete in itself or conversely sambhanda appears as its complement. Philosophically speaking. This is quite complicated.

Can something that is complicated be absolute perfection? Why then need a partner for Radha, her husband or apparent husband? Or maybe it only takes place in the earthly manifestation of Vrindavan and Vraja. "What is the difference between betrayal and love" - ??is in the text of the Bosnian "Cudna jada od Mostara grada". It has a very anthropomorphic character.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2024 04:53AM by Culthusiast.

Options: ReplyQuote
Current Page: 866 of 868


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