Hare Krishna
Posted by:
natural mystic
()
Date: July 06, 2005 07:06AM
zeroland you wrote:
I would have to disagree with that last sentence. Iskcon espouses the teachings of Bhaktivedanta Swami, not Chaitanya. Bhaktivedanta Swami incorporates Chaitanya's teachings into a new religious teaching not found within the original teachings. Those new teachings, many of which are attributable to BV Swami's own Guru, are at the heart and soul or causation of the problems within Iskcon i.e the cult mentality of trying to control and incite fear in everyone , and allowing criminal behavior to go unchecked until it's unfeasible.
Chaitanya taught a more or less traditional Hindu religious teaching. What Bhaktivedanta and his Guru did was to change those teachings because of the disrepute that their religion had come under because of the [i:c03eb971af]Sahajiya[/i:c03eb971af] movement. The Sahajiya's were claiming to belong to the Chaitanya tradition but were very sexual. They taught and practiced a [i:c03eb971af]Tantric[/i:c03eb971af] version of Chaitanya's teachings. While the Tantric style of Hinduism was quite popular 1000 years ago, after the muslim and British occupation Hindu sexual mores had changed to reflect the sexual mores of their overlords. Tantric Yoga became a target of both muslim and christian leaders and in time the Tantric aspect of Hindusim was stigmatized. It never died out but it became considered low class by most people.
When the Sahajiya movement became popular in the traditional Chaitanya Hindu strongholds, to many non Chaitanya Hindus the Sahajiya's were seen as emblematic of the enitre Chaitanya milieu.
This became seen as problematic by certain preachers of the Chaitanya school because Tantric Hinduism was seen as a degraded or low class inauthentic tradition, even though it wasn't. What had happened is that Hindusim went through a de-sexualization that took place over a period of around 1000 years. Imagine what would happen in the western world if the Christian fundamentalists and other extremists took complete control over government. They are very victorian and anti-sexual. They would enforce "decency" laws much more so then the ones in effect today. That is exactly what happened in India. If we look at ancient Indian architecture in many places we will find erotic sculptures adorning temples. This is because sexuality and Tantric Yoga was an integral part of Hinduism. Women commonly were topless, nudity was commonplace. Even today there are vestiges of this with the [i:c03eb971af]nagababas[/i:c03eb971af]. They are a sect of [i:c03eb971af]sadhus[/i:c03eb971af] who roam around nude and openly smok ganja (marijuana). They are allowed to do that because it is a religious and cultural tradition that goes back to the original Hinduism.
But by the 19th century the original Hinduism had been perverted by the enforced anti-sexual mores of foreigners. Hinduism had been transformed into a highly anti-erotic culture. Even today there is no kissing allowed in Indian cinema, what to speak of nudity. All of this suppression has led to the mistreatment of women as a cultural norm. Because sexuality is missing from young peoples lives and those who are not married, the fetishization of women's bodies have made women more like commodities to be used then people to be treated as fellow humans. There is a psychological imbalance in the minds of Indian men due to desire for females and the cultural stigmas attached to sexuality. This results in women being abused when they do not live up to the fantasy submissive sexual plaything men want and feel deprived of before they are married. It also leads to abuse of women through rape and violence because they are seen as things rather then people.
Anyways because of the victorian mores of 19th century Indians some in the Chaitanya religions were concerned about their reputation because of the well known Sahajiya Chaitanya sects Tantric proclivities. They wanted to expand their religion, preach and convert. So what they did was to change the teachings of the Chaitanya school to a very strict anti-sexual type of teaching. No sex unless you are trying to produce a child was the new teaching, and no ganja (marijuana). It was intended to change the image of the Chaitanya Hindus out of fear of being seen as Tantric because of the Sahajiyas.
That is what Bhaktivedanta brought. Even though both Tantric sexuality and Ganja use as a religious sacrament had been long established traditional Hindu practices on a wide scale, these things were know harshly forbidden as "sinful".
Add to that the emphasis that Bhaktivedanta placed on very structured social conventions based on mistreatment of women as second class humans to be owned, that were originally marginal at best in traditional Hindu society, as well as some novel teachings sourced from muslim and chrisitan influences on Hindu society, and we end up with Iskcon. And since some of you have mentioned Chris Butler aka Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda, we also end up with his cult and their fanatic anti-sexual anti-gay rhetoric. Thats because Chris Butler "derives his authority" as a Guru by claiming to be the successor to Bhaktivedanta, so he has to teach the same things as Bhaktivedanta.
The truth is that the Hindu religion, specifically the Chaitanya school was never anti-sexual, anti woman, nor anti-intoxication until modern times. While the renunciates in the Chaitanya school were expected to be celibate, it wasn't required for everyone, sex was not considered "sinful", and even renunciates could quit being renunciates and still be accepted. Chaitanya's number one follower, his co-leader, Nityananda, was a renunciate who gave that up and had several wives. A number of Chaitanya's closest followers are written about at the time as smoking ganja and leading sensual lives. Today in the Bhaktivedanta type of Chaitanya sects they write those things off as eccentricities, not to be taken as something us lowly mortal should do.
The anti-gay teachings found in those sects is also not the traditional terachings. In fact in the Kama Sutra, which is accepted by the originators of the Chaitanya school as being authoritative in their writings, there, homosexuality is written about as acceptable behavior. Find a copy of the Kama Sutras online and you can read about how the various homosexual relationships in terms of their appropriateness are described.
What Bhaktivedanta has done, not just him by the way, the entire smorgasborg of anti sexual anti sensual Gaudiya sects that have gained in prominence, is that they have changed the original liberal teachings, into a victorian repressive controlling cult and cults of mind control by self interested "Gurus" seeking conversions, fame, profit, and power, over anything else.
They present themselves in the trappings of authentic "Vedic" teachings, but if we examine closely the source works we will find that to be in fact not true. The authentic Vedic or Hindu teachings are not based on non-sexuality, no form of intoxicant, no goal in life but to renounce all things and be a mendicant, discrimination against Gays, mistreatment of women as second class citizens.
These false teachings are paraded around by people who are misled and misleading others, unknowingly for the most part. The cult atmosphere created by Bhaktivedanta is not only his doing, others in the same milieu do the same thing. They use the unversal teachings of the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, and the Puranas, and then graft on to those teachings their own peculiar cult like inauthentic teachings.
That has been the problem with Iskcon and the related Iskcon type of cults. They create psychological imbalances which are reflected in the actions and relationships of the groups members. They are almost all highly socially dysfunctional and sexually confused. They cannot maintain peace and prosperity in their cults, nor can they retain their membership, they always need to convert new folowers because 99% get fed up and leave. Although most continue on in the same belief system and then continue to experience problems in their lives because of that.
As far as chanting, yes they chant too much. Chanting does have positive effects, but to much of a good thing is bad. What chanting does is focus the mind on a mantra. By meditating on the mantra over and over what you are doing is forcing the mind to focus in a very concentrated pointed way. It actually strengthens your power of concentration and can help you in your life, it's like working out with weights in your mind. But the overly dogmatic philosophy they attach to the mantra is unnecessary and often interferes with the purpose of the chanting. That is the [i:c03eb971af]japa[/i:c03eb971af] chanting done on beads aloud, or in ones mind, which is common to most Hindu sects and Chrisitans as well. Too much of that and it simply tires the mind out, it makes you mentally exhausted.
As far as [i:c03eb971af]Sankirtan[/i:c03eb971af] or [i:c03eb971af]Bhajan[/i:c03eb971af], these singing of mantras and also dancing along sometimes, are not about concentration. They are about an experience, something intangible unless taken part in, a group or solo musical/mystical experience often leading to feelings of rapture or bliss, [i:c03eb971af]ananda[/i:c03eb971af].
Quote
There have been many, many horrible things that have taken place by ISKCON devotees over the years. None of these can be excused, no matter what the rationale. That being said, none of those abuses reflect the spirit or teachings of Caintanya. He was the founder of the chanting movement, which started in Bengal around 500 years ago. One thing to keep in mind is that ISKCON is a man-made organization, with all of the short-comings of any human endeavor. ISKCON is seperate from the spirtual teachings that it espouses.
I would have to disagree with that last sentence. Iskcon espouses the teachings of Bhaktivedanta Swami, not Chaitanya. Bhaktivedanta Swami incorporates Chaitanya's teachings into a new religious teaching not found within the original teachings. Those new teachings, many of which are attributable to BV Swami's own Guru, are at the heart and soul or causation of the problems within Iskcon i.e the cult mentality of trying to control and incite fear in everyone , and allowing criminal behavior to go unchecked until it's unfeasible.
Chaitanya taught a more or less traditional Hindu religious teaching. What Bhaktivedanta and his Guru did was to change those teachings because of the disrepute that their religion had come under because of the [i:c03eb971af]Sahajiya[/i:c03eb971af] movement. The Sahajiya's were claiming to belong to the Chaitanya tradition but were very sexual. They taught and practiced a [i:c03eb971af]Tantric[/i:c03eb971af] version of Chaitanya's teachings. While the Tantric style of Hinduism was quite popular 1000 years ago, after the muslim and British occupation Hindu sexual mores had changed to reflect the sexual mores of their overlords. Tantric Yoga became a target of both muslim and christian leaders and in time the Tantric aspect of Hindusim was stigmatized. It never died out but it became considered low class by most people.
When the Sahajiya movement became popular in the traditional Chaitanya Hindu strongholds, to many non Chaitanya Hindus the Sahajiya's were seen as emblematic of the enitre Chaitanya milieu.
This became seen as problematic by certain preachers of the Chaitanya school because Tantric Hinduism was seen as a degraded or low class inauthentic tradition, even though it wasn't. What had happened is that Hindusim went through a de-sexualization that took place over a period of around 1000 years. Imagine what would happen in the western world if the Christian fundamentalists and other extremists took complete control over government. They are very victorian and anti-sexual. They would enforce "decency" laws much more so then the ones in effect today. That is exactly what happened in India. If we look at ancient Indian architecture in many places we will find erotic sculptures adorning temples. This is because sexuality and Tantric Yoga was an integral part of Hinduism. Women commonly were topless, nudity was commonplace. Even today there are vestiges of this with the [i:c03eb971af]nagababas[/i:c03eb971af]. They are a sect of [i:c03eb971af]sadhus[/i:c03eb971af] who roam around nude and openly smok ganja (marijuana). They are allowed to do that because it is a religious and cultural tradition that goes back to the original Hinduism.
But by the 19th century the original Hinduism had been perverted by the enforced anti-sexual mores of foreigners. Hinduism had been transformed into a highly anti-erotic culture. Even today there is no kissing allowed in Indian cinema, what to speak of nudity. All of this suppression has led to the mistreatment of women as a cultural norm. Because sexuality is missing from young peoples lives and those who are not married, the fetishization of women's bodies have made women more like commodities to be used then people to be treated as fellow humans. There is a psychological imbalance in the minds of Indian men due to desire for females and the cultural stigmas attached to sexuality. This results in women being abused when they do not live up to the fantasy submissive sexual plaything men want and feel deprived of before they are married. It also leads to abuse of women through rape and violence because they are seen as things rather then people.
Anyways because of the victorian mores of 19th century Indians some in the Chaitanya religions were concerned about their reputation because of the well known Sahajiya Chaitanya sects Tantric proclivities. They wanted to expand their religion, preach and convert. So what they did was to change the teachings of the Chaitanya school to a very strict anti-sexual type of teaching. No sex unless you are trying to produce a child was the new teaching, and no ganja (marijuana). It was intended to change the image of the Chaitanya Hindus out of fear of being seen as Tantric because of the Sahajiyas.
That is what Bhaktivedanta brought. Even though both Tantric sexuality and Ganja use as a religious sacrament had been long established traditional Hindu practices on a wide scale, these things were know harshly forbidden as "sinful".
Add to that the emphasis that Bhaktivedanta placed on very structured social conventions based on mistreatment of women as second class humans to be owned, that were originally marginal at best in traditional Hindu society, as well as some novel teachings sourced from muslim and chrisitan influences on Hindu society, and we end up with Iskcon. And since some of you have mentioned Chris Butler aka Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda, we also end up with his cult and their fanatic anti-sexual anti-gay rhetoric. Thats because Chris Butler "derives his authority" as a Guru by claiming to be the successor to Bhaktivedanta, so he has to teach the same things as Bhaktivedanta.
The truth is that the Hindu religion, specifically the Chaitanya school was never anti-sexual, anti woman, nor anti-intoxication until modern times. While the renunciates in the Chaitanya school were expected to be celibate, it wasn't required for everyone, sex was not considered "sinful", and even renunciates could quit being renunciates and still be accepted. Chaitanya's number one follower, his co-leader, Nityananda, was a renunciate who gave that up and had several wives. A number of Chaitanya's closest followers are written about at the time as smoking ganja and leading sensual lives. Today in the Bhaktivedanta type of Chaitanya sects they write those things off as eccentricities, not to be taken as something us lowly mortal should do.
The anti-gay teachings found in those sects is also not the traditional terachings. In fact in the Kama Sutra, which is accepted by the originators of the Chaitanya school as being authoritative in their writings, there, homosexuality is written about as acceptable behavior. Find a copy of the Kama Sutras online and you can read about how the various homosexual relationships in terms of their appropriateness are described.
What Bhaktivedanta has done, not just him by the way, the entire smorgasborg of anti sexual anti sensual Gaudiya sects that have gained in prominence, is that they have changed the original liberal teachings, into a victorian repressive controlling cult and cults of mind control by self interested "Gurus" seeking conversions, fame, profit, and power, over anything else.
They present themselves in the trappings of authentic "Vedic" teachings, but if we examine closely the source works we will find that to be in fact not true. The authentic Vedic or Hindu teachings are not based on non-sexuality, no form of intoxicant, no goal in life but to renounce all things and be a mendicant, discrimination against Gays, mistreatment of women as second class citizens.
These false teachings are paraded around by people who are misled and misleading others, unknowingly for the most part. The cult atmosphere created by Bhaktivedanta is not only his doing, others in the same milieu do the same thing. They use the unversal teachings of the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, and the Puranas, and then graft on to those teachings their own peculiar cult like inauthentic teachings.
That has been the problem with Iskcon and the related Iskcon type of cults. They create psychological imbalances which are reflected in the actions and relationships of the groups members. They are almost all highly socially dysfunctional and sexually confused. They cannot maintain peace and prosperity in their cults, nor can they retain their membership, they always need to convert new folowers because 99% get fed up and leave. Although most continue on in the same belief system and then continue to experience problems in their lives because of that.
As far as chanting, yes they chant too much. Chanting does have positive effects, but to much of a good thing is bad. What chanting does is focus the mind on a mantra. By meditating on the mantra over and over what you are doing is forcing the mind to focus in a very concentrated pointed way. It actually strengthens your power of concentration and can help you in your life, it's like working out with weights in your mind. But the overly dogmatic philosophy they attach to the mantra is unnecessary and often interferes with the purpose of the chanting. That is the [i:c03eb971af]japa[/i:c03eb971af] chanting done on beads aloud, or in ones mind, which is common to most Hindu sects and Chrisitans as well. Too much of that and it simply tires the mind out, it makes you mentally exhausted.
As far as [i:c03eb971af]Sankirtan[/i:c03eb971af] or [i:c03eb971af]Bhajan[/i:c03eb971af], these singing of mantras and also dancing along sometimes, are not about concentration. They are about an experience, something intangible unless taken part in, a group or solo musical/mystical experience often leading to feelings of rapture or bliss, [i:c03eb971af]ananda[/i:c03eb971af].
Hare Krishna
Posted by:
corboy
()
Date: July 06, 2005 07:40AM
This sounds fascinating. Could you give us some citations to some published material to aid readers who may wish to do further library research?
It does seem that a puritanical anti-pleasure mentality took hold in India during foreign occupation, and this is discussed in detail by Agehananda Bharati in his book The Light at the Center: Context and Pretext of Modern Mysticism.' 1976
.
In page 29-30, Bharati works with textual evidence and describes various ways in which scriptures linking pleasure with spiritual breakthrough were rationalized by modern puritanical readers as not being about pleasure at all-
-mysticism had to be made controlled, moral and respectable at all costs.
The book is not hard to find on abebooks.com or via alibris.com--and a university library may have it, too.
Bharati was born in Austria, learned modern Indian languages and Sanskrit as a young man, became a sanyassi monk in India--and became a Tantric initiate. He had to write about this quite carefully and not give any tips on who initiated him and where this took place, because by the 1950s, these practices were illegal in India and had to be conducted secretly.
Oddly, he did think Bhaktivedanta's version of Vaishnavism was authentic--but Bharati wrote in 1976, the early years of the movement
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2017 03:18AM by corboy.
Quote
(From above post:) 'They present themselves in the trappings of authentic "Vedic" teachings, but if we examine closely the source works we will find that to be in fact not true. The authentic Vedic or Hindu teachings are not based on non-sexuality, no form of intoxicant, no goal in life but to renounce all things and be a mendicant, discrimination against Gays, mistreatment of women as second class citizens. These false teachings are paraded around by people who are misled and misleading others, unknowingly for the most part.
It does seem that a puritanical anti-pleasure mentality took hold in India during foreign occupation, and this is discussed in detail by Agehananda Bharati in his book The Light at the Center: Context and Pretext of Modern Mysticism.' 1976
.
Quote
'Indian writers of this century cannot let pleasant things be as they are; ecstacy and delight may be phases en route to religious consummation, but the ultimate rule is asceticism. The pamphleteering of neo-hinduism is deeply anti-hedonistic; the quest of pleasure is condemned. That pleasure can be the means to religious consummation is borne out by passages in the canonical texts but these are ignored or explained away' (Bharati, The Light at the Center, page 112)
In page 29-30, Bharati works with textual evidence and describes various ways in which scriptures linking pleasure with spiritual breakthrough were rationalized by modern puritanical readers as not being about pleasure at all-
Quote
The basic content of the Hindu doctrine is hedonic, the canonical scriptures talk overtly about delight and pleasure, and even the last five centuries of puritianical subversion have not quite succeeded in suppressing them.
'In the Taittiriya Upanishad there is a famous long passage called the 'hierarchy of ananda (pleasure).' Now official Hindu exegesis (interpretation) today, informed by that puritanism which I view as verging on the pathological, declares that ananda does not mean pleasure, it has no hedonistic underpinnings; rather it means controlled spiritual wellbeing, etc.
'But the passage resists these dampening attempts, and if you really want to get a rise out of a modern Hindu pandit](scholar) who speaks English (meaning he's had a Western/puritanical education--moderator comment), you quote the ananda-mimamsa, the 'hierarchy of pleasure'.
'There it says that one unit of [i:6e73d1dfd1]ananda [/i:6e73d1dfd1]is what a young mature man in full control of his senses, enjoys when he does his thing--which is being like other active, loving men and women according to the natural rule, having cattle and kin, etc.
This basic delight-unit, multiplied by a hundred is what a 'human satyr' manusyaganharva]--a mythical being, much lower than the gods, but more powerful than men) enjoys; then multiply this satyr's delight by a hundred and we get a 'divine satyr' devagandharva); multiplied by a hundred, it is the pleasure experienced by a long-lived heavenly ancestor (pitr-ciraloka); times one hundred we get the delight felt by the Vedic high-gods, then the text keeps multiplying by a hundred at a time, going through various kinds of divinities, and then in the end, beyond the pleasure of Indra, arch-hedonist and lecher of the Veda, comes the pleasure of the person who has reached supreme intuitive identity with the supreme self (atma-brahma), the mystic, in our terms.'
Bharati, page 29-30
-mysticism had to be made controlled, moral and respectable at all costs.
The book is not hard to find on abebooks.com or via alibris.com--and a university library may have it, too.
Bharati was born in Austria, learned modern Indian languages and Sanskrit as a young man, became a sanyassi monk in India--and became a Tantric initiate. He had to write about this quite carefully and not give any tips on who initiated him and where this took place, because by the 1950s, these practices were illegal in India and had to be conducted secretly.
Oddly, he did think Bhaktivedanta's version of Vaishnavism was authentic--but Bharati wrote in 1976, the early years of the movement
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2017 03:18AM by corboy.
Hare Krishna
Posted by:
natural mystic
()
Date: July 06, 2005 09:06AM
Quote
corboy
Could you give us some citations to some published articles to aid those who want to do further library research?
Yes, it appears that a puritanical anti-pleasure mentality took hold in India during foreign occupation, and this is discussed in detail by Agehananda Bharati in his book The Light at the Center: Context and Pretext of Modern Mysticism.' 1976
'Indian writers of this century cannot let pleasant things be as they are; ecstacy and delight may be phases en route to religious consummation, but the ultimate rule is asceticism. The pamphleteering of neo-hinduism is deeply anti-hedonistic; the quest of pleasure is condemned. That pleasure can be the means to religious consummation is borne out by passages in the canonical texts but these are ignored or explained away'
(Bharati, The Light at the Center, page 112)
In page 29-30, Bharati works with textual evidence and describes varoius ways in which scriptures linking pleasure with spiritual breakthrough were rationalized by modern puritanical readers as not being about pleasure at all--mysticism had to be made controlled, moral and respectable at all costs.
The book is not hard to find on abebooks.com or via alibris.com--and a university library may have it, too.
Are you answering me? I can't tell because my post has not been published yet.
Hare Krishna
Posted by:
natural mystic
()
Date: July 06, 2005 10:50AM
I'm busy right now, but if you could be more specific in your request for links or citations, I'll get back to you later.
Hare Krishna
Posted by:
yourmaster
()
Date: July 06, 2005 09:48PM
In any case all religious teachings are a way to divert attention from the truth of life.
Love,
YOURMASTER
Love,
YOURMASTER
Hare Krishna
Posted by:
natural mystic
()
Date: July 12, 2005 07:14AM
corboy you wrote:
Most of what Bhaktivedanta presented is authentic. If we take the totality of his writings and lectures, IMO, the deviations from the original are very few in number, but very substantial in their effect on those who accept everything he says as gospel and without fault. His deviations are the no-sex rule, the diminishing of women's potential, the harping on women taking a back seat to men in all things, considering ganja use and intoxication in general as "sinful", the demeaning of people who cannot follow his strict rules aka "The four regulative principles" which are:
No sex except for conception
No intoxicant of any kind
No gambling
No animal eating
and his insistence that everyone must follow the austere sadhana (spiritual practices) regiment he made mandatory i.e rising by 4:30 a.m. to go to Kirtan, and then continuous chanting, classes, Kirtan until around 8 a.m. or so.
If you didn't do that every single morning then you were considered some kind of weakling, insincere, and unworthy of living in the ashrama. People would get angry at you, disrespectful if you didn't show up every morning by 4:30. Interestingly when his disciples took over ISKCON the leaders more often then not, did not go to any of the early morning sadhana, or they may show up at 7:30 a.m. or later. People would grumble about the leadership not having to follow the strict routine everyone else was forced to go to. But only the naive would complain if they valued remaining in the ashramas or in the leader's good graces. The ashramas were and are very authoritarian. The leadership is an elite and can pretty much do as they please. They won't rat each other out, but they have to be cautious with those not in the leadrship clique, they themsevlves often lead double lives.
They have to hide their "enjoying" e.g sexual relations, intoxicants, media entertainment, etc, from the rank and file because the rank and file would be told to leave if they did those things. So the rank and file are generally much more prudish and victorian then the leaders. This is because most of the rank and file are newer members, whereas the leadership is generally comprised of long time members. As with any religion it is the recent converts who are generally the most fanatic. With a religion like ISKCON and it's mass of anti-sensual, anti-enjoying, anti-sexual rules, the fact is that after a certain amount of time most members get "burned out" [sic] and leave. Usually they then feel a sense of relief that they don't have to follow such a strict regimented self-denial based lifestyle.
BUT...those who are in leadership positions have a good gig going. They essentially don't have to do any kind of real work, they may give a lecture here and there, they don't have to follow the early morning sadhana, they have money coming in from donations and business investments, they are given free housing and cars and travel expenses, they get very high quality free food, free lodging in nice homes and apartments the world over etc. So they don't want to leave, yet they also are generally all "burnt out" on following strictly the ISKCON rules, as much as everyone else who leaves after a few years. So they live secret double lives. They fear exposure for not following the rules and regulations of the society. The leaders all know more or less what is going on and often will join each other in their pleasure seeking lifestyles outside of the vision of ISKCON.
It's a Catch-22 for them. They have to demand enforcement of all of the rules and regulations put forth by Bhaktivedanta, or else the rank and file will see them as deviants from the founder. Yet they do not want to follow them, and they don't want to leave. So they have to be very careful in their politics amongst themselves. They don't want to upset the apple cart, they got a good thing going, they don't want enemies made between themselves because that can cause vengeance and an "outing" of a leader as a sensualist. Which has happened quite a few times in the last few years. In fact that is pretty much why almost all the leaders who left ISKCON left. They were outed by someone seeking vengeance for some reason or another.
I am sure they would love to change the rules of ISKCON, but they fear that they would lose their credibility if they changed Bhaktivedanta's strict policies and victorian teachings. Pity really.
Bhaktivedanta would constantly preach about the necessity of what came to be known in ISKCON as "The 4 regs" (see above). He would commonly say in lectures and in his writings that "human life means following these 4 regulative principles, otherwise you are an animal, 10th class man." But also Bhaktivedanta would contradict himself on his puritanical emphasis.
One example was when he first started ISKCON it was unheard of in India for women to live in an ashrama communal living situtation with men. The ashrama culture in India was either male and in rare instances there were female ashramas as well. Bhaktivedanta came under heavy criticism from within his own religious mentors and group because of allowing women into the communal ashrama situation. Also before he gave the management over to his disciples the women were pretty much on an equal footing with the men in the ashramas. They would lead kirtans (groups singing and dancing), they would give classes, and they were not treated as they would come to be.
I've read many of the female apologists for Bhaktivedanta state that it wasn't Bhaktivedanta who advocated that women be treated in a less then egalitarian fashion, they claim it was his immature disciples who took leadership positions who were responsible for changing the male-female dynamic in ISKCON. I have to disagree with that assessment. The disciples got their ideas from Bhaktivedanta's teachings. While in his personal dealings and management of his society he was not authoritarian with women, in his writings and lectures he was. Bhaktivedanta's writings and lectures are what the sexists in ISKCON use to validate their sexism. Although Bhaktivedanta also had a sense of humor about women in general, many of his statements were whimsical in intent to some degree, but that was lost on most of his followers, they would take him dead serious. For instance he is famous for saying "women like a man who is expert at rape". He didn't mean it in the modern usage most people think of when they hear the word rape. He meant that women like a man who is sexually aggressive, they like to be seduced. He had both an extreme puritianical side as well as a naughty humorous side when he spoke about male female sexua relationships. But the disciples were too unsophisticated to get his humor often times and they took every word he said as dead serious, gospel on the mount kind of stuff.
Quote
Oddly, he did think Bhaktivedanta's version of Vaishnavism was authentic--but Bharati wrote in 1976, the early years of the movement
Most of what Bhaktivedanta presented is authentic. If we take the totality of his writings and lectures, IMO, the deviations from the original are very few in number, but very substantial in their effect on those who accept everything he says as gospel and without fault. His deviations are the no-sex rule, the diminishing of women's potential, the harping on women taking a back seat to men in all things, considering ganja use and intoxication in general as "sinful", the demeaning of people who cannot follow his strict rules aka "The four regulative principles" which are:
No sex except for conception
No intoxicant of any kind
No gambling
No animal eating
and his insistence that everyone must follow the austere sadhana (spiritual practices) regiment he made mandatory i.e rising by 4:30 a.m. to go to Kirtan, and then continuous chanting, classes, Kirtan until around 8 a.m. or so.
If you didn't do that every single morning then you were considered some kind of weakling, insincere, and unworthy of living in the ashrama. People would get angry at you, disrespectful if you didn't show up every morning by 4:30. Interestingly when his disciples took over ISKCON the leaders more often then not, did not go to any of the early morning sadhana, or they may show up at 7:30 a.m. or later. People would grumble about the leadership not having to follow the strict routine everyone else was forced to go to. But only the naive would complain if they valued remaining in the ashramas or in the leader's good graces. The ashramas were and are very authoritarian. The leadership is an elite and can pretty much do as they please. They won't rat each other out, but they have to be cautious with those not in the leadrship clique, they themsevlves often lead double lives.
They have to hide their "enjoying" e.g sexual relations, intoxicants, media entertainment, etc, from the rank and file because the rank and file would be told to leave if they did those things. So the rank and file are generally much more prudish and victorian then the leaders. This is because most of the rank and file are newer members, whereas the leadership is generally comprised of long time members. As with any religion it is the recent converts who are generally the most fanatic. With a religion like ISKCON and it's mass of anti-sensual, anti-enjoying, anti-sexual rules, the fact is that after a certain amount of time most members get "burned out" [sic] and leave. Usually they then feel a sense of relief that they don't have to follow such a strict regimented self-denial based lifestyle.
BUT...those who are in leadership positions have a good gig going. They essentially don't have to do any kind of real work, they may give a lecture here and there, they don't have to follow the early morning sadhana, they have money coming in from donations and business investments, they are given free housing and cars and travel expenses, they get very high quality free food, free lodging in nice homes and apartments the world over etc. So they don't want to leave, yet they also are generally all "burnt out" on following strictly the ISKCON rules, as much as everyone else who leaves after a few years. So they live secret double lives. They fear exposure for not following the rules and regulations of the society. The leaders all know more or less what is going on and often will join each other in their pleasure seeking lifestyles outside of the vision of ISKCON.
It's a Catch-22 for them. They have to demand enforcement of all of the rules and regulations put forth by Bhaktivedanta, or else the rank and file will see them as deviants from the founder. Yet they do not want to follow them, and they don't want to leave. So they have to be very careful in their politics amongst themselves. They don't want to upset the apple cart, they got a good thing going, they don't want enemies made between themselves because that can cause vengeance and an "outing" of a leader as a sensualist. Which has happened quite a few times in the last few years. In fact that is pretty much why almost all the leaders who left ISKCON left. They were outed by someone seeking vengeance for some reason or another.
I am sure they would love to change the rules of ISKCON, but they fear that they would lose their credibility if they changed Bhaktivedanta's strict policies and victorian teachings. Pity really.
Bhaktivedanta would constantly preach about the necessity of what came to be known in ISKCON as "The 4 regs" (see above). He would commonly say in lectures and in his writings that "human life means following these 4 regulative principles, otherwise you are an animal, 10th class man." But also Bhaktivedanta would contradict himself on his puritanical emphasis.
One example was when he first started ISKCON it was unheard of in India for women to live in an ashrama communal living situtation with men. The ashrama culture in India was either male and in rare instances there were female ashramas as well. Bhaktivedanta came under heavy criticism from within his own religious mentors and group because of allowing women into the communal ashrama situation. Also before he gave the management over to his disciples the women were pretty much on an equal footing with the men in the ashramas. They would lead kirtans (groups singing and dancing), they would give classes, and they were not treated as they would come to be.
I've read many of the female apologists for Bhaktivedanta state that it wasn't Bhaktivedanta who advocated that women be treated in a less then egalitarian fashion, they claim it was his immature disciples who took leadership positions who were responsible for changing the male-female dynamic in ISKCON. I have to disagree with that assessment. The disciples got their ideas from Bhaktivedanta's teachings. While in his personal dealings and management of his society he was not authoritarian with women, in his writings and lectures he was. Bhaktivedanta's writings and lectures are what the sexists in ISKCON use to validate their sexism. Although Bhaktivedanta also had a sense of humor about women in general, many of his statements were whimsical in intent to some degree, but that was lost on most of his followers, they would take him dead serious. For instance he is famous for saying "women like a man who is expert at rape". He didn't mean it in the modern usage most people think of when they hear the word rape. He meant that women like a man who is sexually aggressive, they like to be seduced. He had both an extreme puritianical side as well as a naughty humorous side when he spoke about male female sexua relationships. But the disciples were too unsophisticated to get his humor often times and they took every word he said as dead serious, gospel on the mount kind of stuff.
Hare Krishna
Posted by:
corboy
()
Date: July 12, 2005 11:28PM
This is interesting.
It is commonplace for groups and individuals to demonize one particular area of human mis-behavior but indulge in other areas.
There are many different ways to be 'a sensualist.'
A guru may vigorously condemn sexual acting out, teaching disciples to become obsessed with sexual sin. At the same time, while the leader and disciples are fretting about sexual sin, the leader and his favorites may be self indulgent in other areas, such as craving power, or fine clothing----or excessively fussy about about what they eat.
Years back, I got curious about Indian cooking and purchased the full sized version of [i:f393201f04]Lord Krishna's Cuisine [/i:f393201f04]by Yamuna Devi.
Devi was one of Prabhupada's early disciples in the United States--she reported meeting him in 1966. (First page of the introduction to [i:f393201f04]Lord Krishna's Cuisine)[/i:f393201f04]
[www.amazon.com]
If you read through it and study the italicized headings over many of the recipes, you will get fascinating glimpses of Prabhupada's likes and dislikes concerning food.
Devi was a very early devotee of Prabhupadas' and travelled with him as his personal chef in the early years of ISKON. She loved her guru very much, but without realizing it, Devi's affectionate descriptions of his likes and dislikes concerning food, the lengths she went to cater to his preferences, suggest that Prahupada was a sensualist at the table.
On page 8 of Lord Krishna's cuisine, Devi reports appreciatively:
'My spiritual master, Srila Prabhupada, was expert in all kitchen matters and very particular about his daily steamed rice. One cooking utensil which always accompanied him in his world travels was a three tiered brass steamer known simply as "Prabhupada's cooker" by his resident cooks.
'At every port of entry, the cooker was unpacked and polished until it shone like gold...the tempered heat in the top of the steamer yielded the butter-soft (rice) grains he preferred."
It is commonplace for groups and individuals to demonize one particular area of human mis-behavior but indulge in other areas.
There are many different ways to be 'a sensualist.'
A guru may vigorously condemn sexual acting out, teaching disciples to become obsessed with sexual sin. At the same time, while the leader and disciples are fretting about sexual sin, the leader and his favorites may be self indulgent in other areas, such as craving power, or fine clothing----or excessively fussy about about what they eat.
Years back, I got curious about Indian cooking and purchased the full sized version of [i:f393201f04]Lord Krishna's Cuisine [/i:f393201f04]by Yamuna Devi.
Devi was one of Prabhupada's early disciples in the United States--she reported meeting him in 1966. (First page of the introduction to [i:f393201f04]Lord Krishna's Cuisine)[/i:f393201f04]
[www.amazon.com]
If you read through it and study the italicized headings over many of the recipes, you will get fascinating glimpses of Prabhupada's likes and dislikes concerning food.
Devi was a very early devotee of Prabhupadas' and travelled with him as his personal chef in the early years of ISKON. She loved her guru very much, but without realizing it, Devi's affectionate descriptions of his likes and dislikes concerning food, the lengths she went to cater to his preferences, suggest that Prahupada was a sensualist at the table.
On page 8 of Lord Krishna's cuisine, Devi reports appreciatively:
'My spiritual master, Srila Prabhupada, was expert in all kitchen matters and very particular about his daily steamed rice. One cooking utensil which always accompanied him in his world travels was a three tiered brass steamer known simply as "Prabhupada's cooker" by his resident cooks.
'At every port of entry, the cooker was unpacked and polished until it shone like gold...the tempered heat in the top of the steamer yielded the butter-soft (rice) grains he preferred."
Hare Krishna
Posted by:
zeroland
()
Date: July 13, 2005 01:18AM
Natural Mystic-
I enjoyed reading your posts very much. You are quite knowledgable on the subject matter, and I have to say that everytning that you posted sounds right to me.
If you feel like answering-What is your background and/or experience that you have such an overview of the history of Indian religous movements, and ISKCON specifically?
I enjoyed reading your posts very much. You are quite knowledgable on the subject matter, and I have to say that everytning that you posted sounds right to me.
If you feel like answering-What is your background and/or experience that you have such an overview of the history of Indian religous movements, and ISKCON specifically?
Hare Krishna
Posted by:
natural mystic
()
Date: July 13, 2005 07:39AM
corboy: in response to your post about Bhaktivedanta being a sensualist when it comes to food, you are very correct. Food was the one area in ISKCON where it was perfectly alright to be a sensualist. In fact they take great pride in their opulent and varied "feasts". And even on a daily basis there is cooking going on continuously throughout the day and evening as part of their worship. The deities (icons) on the altar in ISKCON temples are treated as real people. They are "woken up" and "put to bed" daily. Their clothes and jewlery are changed every day, sometimes more then once. Their faces are painted with decorations daily. They are bathed in special aromatic liquids every morning after they are "awoken" and they are offered the richest, most varied, most opulent foods that the temple can afford, throughout the day and evening. Also the doors to the altar are opened throughout the day and the deites are worshipped i.e [i:6907af0099]puja[/i:6907af0099] in an [i:6907af0099]arati[/i:6907af0099] ceremony. Also there are kirtans and bhajans sung to the deities, that's where all the temple music occurs.
To people unfamiliar with Hinduism that all seems very weird. But it is done daily in tens of millions of households and temples all over India. It is a basic Hindu practice common to all sects and people.
Bhaktivedanta called ISKCON a "Kitchen religion". He emphasized food, free high quality Indian food given out to the devotees and anyone who came to the temple as well as public distribution of food, as being the reason for his sect's success. ISKCON indulges in very rich opulent food in most of the temples. Not all, some are too poor to eat everything soaking in butter, fresh cheese, etc. They take pride in their food. Their restaurants don't usually feature the kinds of foods offered to the deities in the temples because that food is saturated in butter and sugar, and they use expensive items like saffron as well. The restaurants are much more health conscious for the most part. Except in India where they go all out with the rich Indian food. They run very popular even famous restaurants in major Indian cities. Their Bombay restaurant is a major gathering spot for the rich and famous, New Delhi as well.
Generally they eat very well, much better and much more variety then the average person, but some complain about the high amount of sugar they eat. The average non-ISKCON person in the west consumes huge amounts of sugar daily, what with cereals, soda pop, candy, cakes etc. So ISKCON's sugar intake is not as unusual as some people suggest for westerners.
They are very very food centric and food conscious. Most temples have very large restaurant style kitchens stocked like a restaurant. There's good food always available for anyone at any hour in most temples. Although in recent years some temples have started to charge a fee for non-members of the ashrama at their weekly feasts.
zeroland: you asked for my background and I can tell you that I was involved in and around ISKCON for around 10 years, mostly around, not in. I lived in the temples for a couples years altogether and was a fringe member the rest. I never stayed in one temple for too long. I liked to travel and I would come in and out of different temples. I would live in a temple for 3 months or so and then leave to go do my own thing and travelling. Then later I would join another temple elswhere and stay a few months. All together over a 10 year period I spent around 2 years living in the temple's ashramas. But I got to know a lot of people in ISKCON; leaders, ex-leaders, pariahs, common devotees, Indians, etc. So I gained a lot of insight into ISKCON.
As for your other question; I've read a lot.
p.s
I made a typo on this post. Where I wrote:
That should have read "non-members". (It does now) At many temples temples they now charge a "donation" of between 5-10 dollars for their weekly feasts.
To people unfamiliar with Hinduism that all seems very weird. But it is done daily in tens of millions of households and temples all over India. It is a basic Hindu practice common to all sects and people.
Bhaktivedanta called ISKCON a "Kitchen religion". He emphasized food, free high quality Indian food given out to the devotees and anyone who came to the temple as well as public distribution of food, as being the reason for his sect's success. ISKCON indulges in very rich opulent food in most of the temples. Not all, some are too poor to eat everything soaking in butter, fresh cheese, etc. They take pride in their food. Their restaurants don't usually feature the kinds of foods offered to the deities in the temples because that food is saturated in butter and sugar, and they use expensive items like saffron as well. The restaurants are much more health conscious for the most part. Except in India where they go all out with the rich Indian food. They run very popular even famous restaurants in major Indian cities. Their Bombay restaurant is a major gathering spot for the rich and famous, New Delhi as well.
Generally they eat very well, much better and much more variety then the average person, but some complain about the high amount of sugar they eat. The average non-ISKCON person in the west consumes huge amounts of sugar daily, what with cereals, soda pop, candy, cakes etc. So ISKCON's sugar intake is not as unusual as some people suggest for westerners.
They are very very food centric and food conscious. Most temples have very large restaurant style kitchens stocked like a restaurant. There's good food always available for anyone at any hour in most temples. Although in recent years some temples have started to charge a fee for non-members of the ashrama at their weekly feasts.
zeroland: you asked for my background and I can tell you that I was involved in and around ISKCON for around 10 years, mostly around, not in. I lived in the temples for a couples years altogether and was a fringe member the rest. I never stayed in one temple for too long. I liked to travel and I would come in and out of different temples. I would live in a temple for 3 months or so and then leave to go do my own thing and travelling. Then later I would join another temple elswhere and stay a few months. All together over a 10 year period I spent around 2 years living in the temple's ashramas. But I got to know a lot of people in ISKCON; leaders, ex-leaders, pariahs, common devotees, Indians, etc. So I gained a lot of insight into ISKCON.
As for your other question; I've read a lot.
p.s
I made a typo on this post. Where I wrote:
Quote
Although in recent years some temples have started to charge a fee for members of the ashrama at their weekly feasts.
That should have read "non-members". (It does now) At many temples temples they now charge a "donation" of between 5-10 dollars for their weekly feasts.
Hare Krishna
Posted by:
natural mystic
()
Date: July 28, 2005 05:55AM
After coming across some new data I felt I should point out a mistake I made. In my first post I wrote:
And in my second post I wrote this:
My new information is that Bhaktivedanta's Guru; Bhaktisiddhanta; did not have the no sex rule. That appears to have been created by Bhaktivedanta. That was what I had believed was coming from Bhaktivedanta's guru. In fact the most popular elderly Indian Guru in the Gaudiya tradition outside of ISKCON, and I assume others as well who are still alive and who are disciples or were contemporaries of Bhaktisiddhanta, are not teaching the no sex rule to their followings. It appears to be purely a creation of Bhaktivedanta.
The source of the info is from swami.org which is run by another guru who is a disicple of Bhaktivedanta as well as of Sridhar Swami who was a friend and contemporary of Bhaktivedanta as well as a disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta, he passed away some years ago.
This is the info from swami.org, I take it as truthful because this guy has spent a lot of time in India around the elderly disiciples of Bhaktisiddhanta . This is from that websites Q and A section.
Quote
I would have to disagree with that last sentence. Iskcon espouses the teachings of Bhaktivedanta Swami, not Chaitanya. Bhaktivedanta Swami incorporates Chaitanya's teachings into a new religious teaching not found within the original teachings. Those new teachings, many of which are attributable to BV Swami's own Guru, are at the heart and soul or causation of the problems within Iskcon i.e the cult mentality of trying to control and incite fear in everyone , and allowing criminal behavior to go unchecked until it's unfeasible.
And in my second post I wrote this:
Quote
Most of what Bhaktivedanta presented is authentic. If we take the totality of his writings and lectures, IMO, the deviations from the original are very few in number, but very substantial in their effect on those who accept everything he says as gospel and without fault. His deviations are the no-sex rule, the diminishing of women's potential, the harping on women taking a back seat to men in all things, considering ganja use and intoxication in general as "sinful", the demeaning of people who cannot follow his strict rules aka "The four regulative principles" which are:
No sex except for conception
No intoxicant of any kind
No gambling
No animal eating
My new information is that Bhaktivedanta's Guru; Bhaktisiddhanta; did not have the no sex rule. That appears to have been created by Bhaktivedanta. That was what I had believed was coming from Bhaktivedanta's guru. In fact the most popular elderly Indian Guru in the Gaudiya tradition outside of ISKCON, and I assume others as well who are still alive and who are disciples or were contemporaries of Bhaktisiddhanta, are not teaching the no sex rule to their followings. It appears to be purely a creation of Bhaktivedanta.
The source of the info is from swami.org which is run by another guru who is a disicple of Bhaktivedanta as well as of Sridhar Swami who was a friend and contemporary of Bhaktivedanta as well as a disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta, he passed away some years ago.
This is the info from swami.org, I take it as truthful because this guy has spent a lot of time in India around the elderly disiciples of Bhaktisiddhanta . This is from that websites Q and A section.
Quote
Q. What is your understanding of how Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura dealt with initiation and regulative principles?
A. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura expected his disciples to live a moral life, with a license for sexual indulgence restricted to marriage. He gave initiation to those in whom sraddha had developed after they were recommended for initiation by senior disciples and he gave sannyasa only to the brahmanas in his system of daiva varnasrama.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.