Maithun -

I said it before and I'll say it again...........
All this bickering between cults and sub-cults is nothing but
REPRESSED SEXUAL ENERGY!

Does this topic have something to do with saffron cloth and too tight kaupin?

too tight kaupins and wearing any underwear beneath saris... YES!
those do have something to do with it ... but the seeds are deeper.

i meant - NOT wearing any underwear beneath saris... but ur visualizations already figured that out

This man here that I am referring you to says that this bickering has to do with definition of self and not-self, and it is particularly prevalent in religious discourse.
The text speaks for itself:



"While all the previous constructions of 'otherness' and of difference we have considered have been essentially affairs of the history of culture and, therefore, also relevant to the history of religion, the issue of problematic similarity or identity seems to be particularly prevalent in religious discourse and imagination. Thus the ancient Israelites created a myth of the conquest, fabricating themselves as outsiders and therefore as different from their encompassing and synonymous group, the Canaanites, from whom they cannot otherwise be distinguished. Paul never writes against Jews or members of Greco-Roman religions, but always against fellow Christians from whom he insists on counterdistinguishing himself and his teachings. John of Pian del Carpini and William of Ruysbroeck, thirteenth century missionaries to the Mongols, have no difficulty in recording scores of positive comparisons between the feared Tartars and their own Christian-European culture, even though they are at war; rather their deepest perceptions of problematic difference are focused on the Nestorian Christians who remain largely unintelligible to them. From heresy to deviation to degeneration to syncretism, the notion of the different which claims to be the same, or, projected internally, the disguised difference within, has produced a rich vocabulary of denial and estrangement. For in each case, a theory of difference, when applied to the proximate 'other,' is but another way of phrasing a theory of 'self.'
There are thousands of societies and world-views. In most cases, their actual remoteness guarantees mutual indifference. For example, by and large Christians and Jews have not thought much about the 'otherness' of the Hua or the Kwakiutl, or, for that matter, the Taoist. The bulk of Christian and Jewish thought about difference has been directed against other Christians and Jews, against each other, and against those groups thought of as being near neighbors or descendants: in this case, most especially, Muslims.
Today, as in the past, the history of religious conflicts and of strong language of alienation is largely intraspecific. The major exceptions occur in those theoretically unrevealing but historically common moments when proximity becomes more a matter of territoriality than of thought.35
As Levi-Strauss, among others, has convincingly demonstrated, when we confront difference we do not encounter irrationality or bad faith, but rather the very essence of thought. Meaning is made possible by difference. Yet thought seeks to bring together what thought necessarily takes apart by means of a dynamic process of disassemblage and reassemblage which results in an object no longer natural but rather social, no longer factual but rather intellectual. Relations are discovered and reconstituted through projects of differentiation.
In the bulk of the models and strategies we have considered, thought is provoked by postulations of reciprocity, by the mutual determinations of difference. A distance, initially formulated, is relativized--or, in the case of the last instance, a proximity initially perceived as too close is distanced. The only model which fails in these respects, the only model, I repeat, which has been raised to the level of a second-order theory, is one that is formed in terms of thought itself; but an inadequate notion of thought, as either transparency or opacity. The model of unintelligibility denies both the work of culture and the study of culture. It sets aside the reason that most of the Human Sciences are, first and foremost, linguistic enterprises. For it is the issue of translation, that 'this' is never quite 'that,' and, therefore, that acts of interpretation are required which marks the Human Sciences. It is thought about translation, an affair of the in-between that is always relative and never fully adequate; it is thought about translation across languages, places and times, between text and reader, speaker and hearer, that energizes the Human Sciences as disciplines and suggests the intellectual contributions they make. Vive la difference!"


http://www.asu.edu/clas/religious_studies/home/1992lec.html

All that I can say - most people here are married, and know maithuna not only theoretically...
So, there is no such thing, as repressed sexual energy among them.

Anyway, what do you propose? I don't think that extremal sexual practices, like that of saktas-tantriks, would be of any popularity among Vaisnavas... Who cares about sex in this material body, when extreme desire for sex with God exists?

The last post - ?

The one before it: Smith's analysis applies equally as well to the nature of disputes between Vaishnava sects. In cyberspace there are many more confrontations than one would ever find out in the real world. It is the ultimate melting pot.

I thought that was the whole point of dissension between the mainstream and sajahjiya Gaudiya sects. The latter obviously do have tantrik sex in their sadhana toolboxes.

I didn't even notice the double entendre in my last post until after I posted it. Freudian tantrik slip maybe?

http://www.haverford.edu/psych/ddavis/p109g/fslip.html

And here's a link for Pagal Baba:
http://freudian-slip.org/

Forget Freud - he was lingam-obsessed.
His theory was that all women are ling-dveshis when in fact -- all men are yoni-dveshis. Women have both a ling and a yoni. Men only have lings. This is verified in pre-natal science. Therefore men spend their entire lives trying to recover their lost yoni. Which, by the way, becomes even more interesting in the setting of Gaudiya theology.
Also, just because someone is married doesn't mean they are not sexually repressed. More about that later.....

Of course, you're right, dear Ramdas, but I supposed we speak about tradition, not about sahajiya-like sects...



I know the Freud's theory and what is Freudian slip, but can't guess what 'sajahjiya' resembles because of my poor English...

I guess I need to draw diagrams for these things around here. OK then, for the non-Americans in the crowd:

yoni = box (slang)
lingam = tool (more slang)

As far as Freud, please don't read more into my little quips than is actually there, Betel Seed. When it comes to the discipline of psychology, I think Carl Jung had much more valuable insights than his mentor. Anyways, you can take it up with my niece and her fiance, for they are the ones with PhDs in psychology, not me.