Quote
cultreporter
Well somebody likes Siddha's views about homosexuality...

Bottom of the page if you can brave the content to scroll down that far.

[bvml.org]

That is one weird website! Is this web-site produced by devotees???? It looks like the pro-Bush right wing, pro-war stuff that Jagged Guru is into, doesn't it?

:?:

:shock: OMG! As Rama pointed out and I missed this is the website for the Bhaktivedanta Memorial Library front page here

[bvml.org]

Their mission statement reads :

Quote

Dear Readers of Bvml.org,
Please accept our dandavat pranams. All glories to Sri Sri Guru and Gouranga. All glories to Sri Sri Radha Govindaji!!! All glories to Sacinandana Goura Hari!!!

Bvml.org was established as an alternative to other highly politically oriented websites that concern themselves with the Gaudiya Vaisnava community. We found that posting articles on such sites and on various internet forums only incited contention, especially with regard to any deep understanding of suddha-bhakti, and guru-tattva. Rather than waste energy on fruitless arguments we decided to put that energy elsewhere. We felt more was accomplished by simply making available the positive assertions of our Gaudiya Acaryas with regard to the absolute truth through their articles and lectures, for anyone interested.

To think I laughed when I saw the picture of this guy at the top of the original link I posted [bvml.org] (on that sign does it say "No Germs Beyond This Point"??) and said there he is standing outside Siddha's Hawaii compound.

It wouldn't be suprising for SOI to have this as one of their projects without putting their name on it - certainly it has the stench of their right wing garbage.

The only hint maybe - he refers to Siddhasvarupa Prabhu (master) although this is not the title that appears for him on the article link.

Now I need to go and try and wash my eyes.

Quote
alfalfa
Back in the1970's, in the Philippines, The Tamayo brothers were Sudama Vipras main warriors.
Mike Gabbard's daughter, Tulsi Gabbard Tamayo, seems to have married into the family.
Maybe Siddha has a plan for her too.

Do you have any more insight on this? I am assuming that Sudama Vipra joined ISKCON with Siddha and then went on to run the Phillipines mission for him? Not sure who the Tamayos are or what being a 'main warrior' entails.

All these little pieces start to go together nicely.

For your consideration :

Siddhasvarupa came into ISKCON with his 50 or so followers, the largest group to ever join ISKCON. Prior to that he had been gaining the devotion of those willing to follow him with all sorts of ideas, most of which are entirely inconsistent with KC. These people were obviously willing to follow his every order and it was certainly a planned infiltration, making the appearance of being sincere such as by wearing the dress, one of the practices he has never observed seriously, offering his respects in his Back to Godhead article, dividing up his followers and sending them to different temples. If you go back over this thread and read the articles that cultreporter has posted you can observe the pattern, all these little pieces that Siddhasvarupa was the beginning of the end of ISKCON with his influence. Not to say that he was the only bad seed - that much is obvious - but no single devotee or disciple has done more to undermine Bhaktivedanta Swami his teachings and his organisation that Siddhasvarupa. Even some of those who have a bad name now and are challenged as bogus disciples were still close to and trusted by Bhaktivedanta. Siddhasvarupa did nothing but pursue his own interests and cause trouble wherever he went within ISKCON. He was the first to go out and start up his own organisation because it was clearly his goal from the start. The passive idea not to cast out anyone is obviously a huge mistake. That he was a disciple at all has allowed him validation to which he was never entitled, and it is up to those now to expose him as a bogus guru.

The only reason that he is anti ISKCON is because of what can be revealed about him through their records and the recollections of those who were there.

This thread has been going for about 2 years now, even from the beginning asking Siddhasvarupa's followers to come forward and evidence that they were watching. It is very tempting to dismiss them as cowards, but I suspect it is just because most of them are fools and those that do know the truth are just as demonic as their spiritual master.

Devotee world is not very big. I noticed that I was mentioned in passing in science-of-identity.blogspot.com although not by name, I guess because I am not a devotee of Siddhasvarupa. I am a devotee of Bhaktivedanta Swami - that is that I was born to his disciples and I have not taken up any other spiritual master although I have studied extensively.

I have enough sense to recognise a sincere devotee when I see one, unlike Siddhasvarupa's followers who are so material that they mistake humbleness and submissiveness for ignorance and blindness. I spent many days with Cara (cultreporter) during her time with ASM and just after she left. She used to love to dress the deities in my home and make garlands for Narasingha. Oh yes I am a male and she was in my home unchaperoned - but the slights against her character by those clutching at straws of defence are total rubbish. What they should be worried about is what sort of 'fag' they have in their ranks that was living under the same roof without doing the right thing. :lol: Man I used to laugh at that idiot and his ideas over the MSN.

It is a simple process, one studies and prays for service, one is shown to a spiritual master that is bogus and given the knowledge that they are bogus and one exposes the bogus. Blessed be. My only concern is that she is too kind in extending them the opportunity to make amends. While it is the rightful thing to do that makes it that they will not. Keep going forward. It is not easy to leave them behind, but remember that is where they want to be.

Namas Dhru,

Good times :D

It would seem that Siddha had quite an extensive and negative impact on ISKCON and I wouldn't dispute your reasoning - but I would like to be able to substantiate it.

The criminality speaks for itself, and unless a significant number of those responsible were associates or disciples of Siddha I think it could be a little debatable as to who had the biggest impact. I would love to prove that Siddha wrecked ISKCON, just depends what evidence is out there for one determined to look I guess.

Quote
cultreporter

Quote
alfalfa
Back in the1970's, in the Philippines, The Tamayo brothers were Sudama Vipras main warriors.
Mike Gabbard's daughter, Tulsi Gabbard Tamayo, seems to have married into the family.
Maybe Siddha has a plan for her too.

Do you have any more insight on this? I am assuming that Sudama Vipra joined ISKCON with Siddha and then went on to run the Phillipines mission for him? Not sure who the Tamayos are or what being a 'main warrior' entails.

All these little pieces start to go together nicely.

I wonder if Mr. Tamayo goes off to fight in Iraq also??? Being such a great warrier, he could be a pilot or artillery man, dropping bombs on innocent civilians, women and children. He could chalk this message onto those two thousand pound bombs: "A present from the Karma-Kulas - karma[/color:1898f00d83]"

:evil: :(

Quote
cultreporter
JG instructs his followers that affection and love are wrong. Illicit sex is against the 4 regulative principles, with JG interpreting this to be any sex that is not within marriage and for reproductive pruposes....

Actually, one woman once asked JG "Is it okay to show affection?" to which JG answered, "Of course it is."

The big question arises as to where does affection end and where does "illicit sex" begin? Is hugging and kissing okay??? Is touching okay??? Is illicit sex just the dreaded orgasm without possibility of having children?

If sexual pleasure can be measured on a scale of 0-10, with 10 being the orgasm, is it okay to reach number 9, or would only 5 be okay, or should it remain only at zero - which would rule out hugging and kissing??? If a man's lust can be measured in inches, is it okay to reach 6, but 7 is verboten :oops: :?: :shock:

Unfortunately, the Bhagavad-gita does not make this clear, stating, "It is lust only, Arjuna, etc etc...." And the word "Lust" is pretty ambiguous, isn't it??? The Oxford dictionary: Lust: sensuous appetite regarded as sinful; animal desire for sexual indulgence; lascivious passion.

As can be expected, no spiritual master wants to get into the steamy details, which leaves the followers just scratching their heads. A lot of these relationships go stale when both partners do not recognize any sexual attraction between themselves. In an effort to avoid "illicit sex" they do not look at each other, no talking to each other (other than Hare Krishna mantra of course), no touching, no holding hands, and of course using separate bedrooms... Thus, the relationship grows cold, unfulfilling basic human desires and emotions, and thus the high divorce / separation rate among both ISKCON and SOI followers.

:?:

Someone has actually taken the trouble to compile this all about sex from a KC perspective which may be of interest.

[www.hknet.org.nz]

I must confess that I have not picked up my Gita for a while but knowing that it is a more scholarly language translation, making it closer to what the original text actually says (more as it is than 'As It Is' :lol: ) published by the Theosophical Publishing House, first edition, 1905 and does not take the interprative liberties of puports I couldn't find a single mention of the term 'illicit sex'.


Just as an example of how interpretative ACB translations are...

Cross referencing Gita sites on illicit sex apparently one of the verses relevant to it is 4:26

Some pour as sacrifice, hearing and the other senses into the fires of restraint;some pour sound and the other objects of the sense into the fires of the senses as sacrifice;

The ACB translation and porport to this is

Quote

Some [the unadulterated brahmacārīs] sacrifice the hearing process and the senses in the fire of mental control, and others [the regulated householders] sacrifice the objects of the senses in the fire of the senses.

PURPORT

The members of the four divisions of human life, namely the brahmacārī, the gṛhastha, the vānaprastha and the sannyāsī, are all meant to become perfect yogīs or transcendentalists. Since human life is not meant for our enjoying sense gratification like the animals, the four orders of human life are so arranged that one may become perfect in spiritual life. The brahmacārīs, or students under the care of a bona fide spiritual master, control the mind by abstaining from sense gratification. A brahmacārī hears only words concerning Kṛṣṇa consciousness; hearing is the basic principle for understanding, and therefore the pure brahmacārī engages fully in harer nāmānukīrtanam — chanting and hearing the glories of the Lord. He restrains himself from the vibrations of material sounds, and his hearing is engaged in the transcendental sound vibration of Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa. Similarly, the householders, who have some license for sense gratification, perform such acts with great restraint. Sex life, intoxication and meat-eating are general tendencies of human society, but a regulated householder does not indulge in unrestricted sex life and other sense gratification. Marriage on the principles of religious life is therefore current in all civilized human society because that is the way for restricted sex life. This restricted, unattached sex life is also a kind of yajña because the restricted householder sacrifices his general tendency toward sense gratification for higher, transcendental life.

[www.vedabase.net]

:?

Even in his own translation there is no words meaning the clarifying terms in square brackets in the original text.

All very much subject to interpretation - and rather fanciful interpretation at that since there are actually quite a few references to sex in the scriptures, but when it comes to giving out direct instructions it would appear that there was no specific word for it in the language :roll:

[i:2cdd8d32a1]Therefore let Scripture be thy authority, in determining what ought to be done, or what ought not to be done. Knowing what hath been declared by the ordinances of the sastra though oughtest to work in this world.[/i:2cdd8d32a1] 16.24

[i:2cdd8d32a1]But if the question should arise:'What is Sastra and what is not Sastra, what is good Sastra and what is bad Sastra, is this Sriptire true or that other contradictory Scripture right, which to believe?', then the answer must be and can only be, Krishna expressly says the final judge, in the the last resort, is the person's (own, because Universal Self and Reason), and Sastras are only the outcome of this intelligence. The following verses from Mahabharata, supply the needed commentary on these Gita Verses :

That is, "Krishna has created the Sastras, sciences, enunciating laws as well as exceptions after deep meditation. Therefore men should discriminate between right and wrong with the help of reason. Buddhi, intellect, which cognises all three, past, present and future is the very Self and Soul of man and is his final refuge." ch 254

And Pancatantra verse-proverb, quintessence of wisdom clinches the whole argument thus : "How can Sastra help him that has no intelligence? The looking glass is of no use to the person without eyes[/i:2cdd8d32a1]"

Of course all this talk about applying reason does not have any place within SOI where one accepts the words of Siddha as absolute and applying one's own reasoning would be deemed blasphemous in the extreme.

One key aspect of Siddha's teachings that I have never grasped and no one among his followers was ever able to explain to me is where it is scriptually supported that one must have a living spiritual master. The closest relevant reference to this is apparently that one cannot approach Krishna themselves but must go through a bonafide representative.

It says that one should surrender submissively and serve him, but no where does it define service as washing his dishes, piloting his jet or scrubbing the floors in his mansion. There were written teachings which included instruction from Caitanya onwards - and yet still there is a need for more??

Quote
just-googling

Actually, one woman once asked JG "Is it okay to show affection?" to which JG answered, "Of course it is."

Maybe I was overly simplistic in my statement that Siddha instructs that affection is wrong.

When I first went to the Gold Coast I was suprised at how completely stand-offish the people were. There was a clear divide between 'new people' and the 'serious devotees' and always much conjecture about who was serious and who was not and among those who were who were serious [b:33b53cdd78][i:33b53cdd78]enough[/i:33b53cdd78][/b:33b53cdd78]. Any attempt to be open and friendly towards anyone was met with suspicion and ultimately rejection.

I really didn't understand this as there were many ways that the devotees were quite forward about being friendly, it seemed, like offering lifts and invitations and enquiring about how one was going but I later realised that all of this was only due to getting you to chant and trying to offset any aspect of my personal life that might affect this ability (such as a relationship with someone who was generally deemed not that serious himself) but any attempt to reciprocate with them on a normal human basis was just impossible.

I asked Bren about this and he told me that he had had the same experiences and feelings when he was a 'new person' and that he had spoken to one of the devotees about it. What they had told him, and what he accepted and passed on to me was that it is easy to make friends with someone, you can walk up to a bum on the street and be friends with them, but in spiritual life, what value is that person going to have? Real friendship as he put it (and honestly he is the best Siddha parrot that I have ever seen - he remembers everything he hears him say even if he does put a spin on it later that is not the general consensus) is on a spiritual level and on a spiritual level someone may be your friend and you don't see them or have any contact with them for a year but when you do they are still your friend and you still have that close connection to them.

Maybe - but to me it seems pretty easy (oversimplistic even) to have a relationship on such a basis. It is a lot more difficult to actually maintain contact with a person and form and maintain a relationship over a year than it is to have a friendship with no involvement with the other person. I wonder if that is even possible, but that seems to be the ideal.

Another example I was told repeatedly is that a 'proper' marriage is one where you could be seperated from your husband for a year or even longer, like for example if he went off to be in Siddha's service and still not lose any love for him and maintain the relationship. I can do this I swear, I can be treted like absolute shit and sepearted from my beloved and still love him just as much - but let me tell you our relationship is no good.

I just see this attitude as being extremely cold. I read an article by Siddha that said that it is natural for us to crave affection but the mentality is illusion, if we put our love into God then we will lose the feelings of sadness or being neglected because God will fill the gap left by your husband ignoring you or not seeing your friends for a year at a time.

He does talk a lot about what our natural desires are and does not really refute them but the conclusion always seems to be if you were chanting enough and serving enough and loved Krishna enough that you would lose the desire to give or take affection from others because well, if you [i:33b53cdd78][b:33b53cdd78]really[/b:33b53cdd78][/i:33b53cdd78] have Krishna you don't want for anything.

This is what I mean when I wrote about how the women seem to have a contest as to who is burdened by their husband more because whoever begrudges their relationship the most is the least attatched and therefore the more serious devotee.

I know very well that love has no value to these people because unless it is directed at Krishna they not only consider it not 'real' but infact some sort of perversion of spiritual life or offence.

Quote
cultreporter
..... He does talk a lot about what our natural desires are and does not really refute them but the conclusion always seems to be if you were chanting enough and serving enough and loved Krishna enough that you would lose the desire to give or take affection from others because well, if you [i:13bfd94770][b:13bfd94770]really[/b:13bfd94770][/i:13bfd94770] have Krishna you don't want for anything.

Which is a contradiction that gets to the very core of their philosophy...

I.E. Supposedly we originally [b:13bfd94770]really[/b:13bfd94770] had Krishna in the very beginning - BUT we still [b:13bfd94770]WERE NOT HAPPY [/b:13bfd94770]and thus [b:13bfd94770]wanted something more[/b:13bfd94770], i.e. to be the supreme enjoyers, and thus fell down to the material world...

Supposedly we were full of transcendental [b:13bfd94770]knowledge[/b:13bfd94770] in the spiritual world but were still [b:13bfd94770]stupid enough [/b:13bfd94770]to fall down into the material world, despite knowing the incredible amount of suffering here - WHO WOULD DO IT??? It does not make any sense, really. Does anybody else see this contradiction, or is it just me with blinders on???

PS - I did ask this question of Jagged Guru a long time ago, and he gave a very roundabout answer, but the question did really not get answered.

:?: :?: :?: