A Rational Approach to Modernizing - How to make a tradition relevant today

This topic was inspired by a phone conversation I had with Nitai Das last night. He brought up the subject of dating the Bhagavata Purana. Traditionally Hindus have always held that the text is five thousand years old, yet there is insufficient evidence to support such a claim if one looks at the current version of it. The Sanskrit language is clearly of the classical period with some earlier Vedic language sprinkled in. Edwin F. Bryant (Advaita Das) in his article entitled "The Date and Provenance of the Bhagavata Purana" from Journal of Vaishnava Studies (Vol. 11, No.1/Fall 2002) points out this problem with dating the text: "Another feature ... relevant to issues of dating -- one that is both unique and puzzling -- is the fact that the text is permeated with ancient Vedic linquistic forms that had become obsolete by the time of Puranic Sanskrit; in fact, Vedic archaism in classical Sanskrit is conspicuous by its absence." This is one of many facts Advaita Das details, which make giving the book a date any earlier than the 7th century A.D. virtually unsupportable.

My point is that we as practitioners of an ancient tradition that was reformatted five centuries ago face formidable challenges in updating it for our own hi-tech era. I don't think we want to fall into the stagnant mode represented by fundamentalist Christian groups clinging to the notion that the world is only four thousand years old based on their literal interpretation of the Old Testament. I also think we can avoid such pitfalls without losing the essence of the teachings of the six Goswamins of Vrindavan, which is unalloyed bhakti in madhurya rasa.

One way to view the entire set of Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrines is to separate the core from the outer shell. If we relegate the sections of texts that predate Mahaprabhu and his associates which read as historical accounts of ancient events to the outer shell, then it becomes that much easier to reconcile the tradition with our current body of knowledge. As Nitai pointed out in our conversation, Rupa, Santana and Jiva were writing based on all the available knowledge of their era, as was that 7th Century author of the Bhagavata. Because astronomy was not advanced and they lacked telescopes back then, the cosmology in the 5th Canto was flawed as a result. Hence, it behooves us today to take advantage of all the available works in theology and philosophy as well as scientific research, including the paradoxes of quantum mechanics. We should not hesitate to believe that if Jiva were living among us today, he would do the same.

That mystical inner core of the tradition which deals with the experiential realm should not need much, if any, updating. The sadhana does not become ineffective over time. There will be some evolution that occurs, no doubt about it. Narottama Das wrote many of the songs used in lila kirtan, building on what his predecessors like Jayadeva produced, and others will follow in his footsteps. We may even see English language works of that same genre being performed in our own lifetimes. And why just English? Why not Spanish, Russian and Chinese as well?

We always have to consider the audience in presenting a tradition to the rest of the world, while taking into consideration their cultural and educational backgrounds. Those are always changing and now are being transformed at an ever accelerating rate. Twenty five years ago, nobody could surf the net for references and most of the source materials on Vaishnavism that are readily available today were often difficult to find, often requiring traveling around to libraries and bookstores all over the Indian subcontinent and across Europe and North America.

There are always going to be a certain percentage of people that are content to blindly follow a religious path without giving much thought to the ritual foundations and doctrinal infrastructure underlying it. More discerning and judgmental persons are going to look at things with a critical and analytical viewpoint. Yes, much that is mystical in nature may not lend itself to dissection and deconstruction in the laboratory or the forum of philosophical discourse. (We have all heard the case some have made against 'dry scholarship' and 'mental speculation', but one needs to apply such filters judiciously rather than indiscriminately). On the other hand, there are many components that are part of that outer shell I defined above, which will need to stand up to severe scrutiny, and if it fails to measure up, should be revised or discarded altogether. I believe our tradition in the end will be that much stronger and vital for it.

What one could postulate as both a practitioner and critical analyst of one's own tradition is that the teachings of the Goswamins are not necessarily something new and unprecedented. Granted there was a long interim between the time of the events depicted in the Harivamsa and the Bhagavata around 3000 B.C. and the 16th Century A.D. Let us draw a parallel with the application of antibiotics in modern medicine based on the late 19th Century research of Louis Pasteur. Archeologists have fairly recently unearthed hard evidence of the use of the same type of medicines by ancient Incas in South America several centuries ago. Following that logical thread, it would not seem unreasonable to assume that raganuga bhakti could well have ebbed and flowed in various movements over that past time span, with its latest resurgence in Bengal of the 16th Century being sparked by Sri Caitanya. If one allows for ritual process that enable advanced bhaktas to access estoric truths, and hold that falling within the realm of phenomena that are beyond rational thought or objective empirical verification - then it gives us the possibility to validate a 7th Century text as having its roots in a far more ancient body of knowledge. Under that scheme of things, the outer shell may look different at various historical junctures, yet the inner core of the tradition remains fairly constant. We could even picture that inner core as sharing common characteristics with devotional movements within other faiths like Christianity, Judaism or Buddhism.

There are a number of possibilities to consider and much work to be done over the next several decades. It is up to us to now carry the torch as the next generation of would be acharyas (in the sense that we will shape the future direction of the tradition, even if we do not reach the deeper levels of realization of our predecessors).

Then there is the subject of something that has this great deal of mystique built up around it:

Hair

We all know that hair care products and hair salons are multi billion dollar businesses. It is not just our current society that has had such a level of mass obsession. In the past there has been ceremonial significance to hair, and practical approaches as well. Soldiers in the Roman empire were required to be clean shaven and well cropped so that enemies would have nothing to grab onto in hand-to-hand combat. Military dress codes to this day have carried on that ancient tradition.

We visited the wig maker’s shop at the Colonial Williamsburg living museum park a couple years ago and learned all about their obsessive behavior. Patrons would have their heads shaved to be measured for a new wig. Human hair wigs were too costly for all but the most well heeled, so most settled for horse hair knock offs. Little bags were tied at the back to catch the sweat and white powder when the wigs were worn at indoor functions. It sounds like a great deal of aggravation and discomfort just to be fashionable.

Hair actually serves an important function in nature. It keeps animals warm in winter and protects them from the burning rays of the sun. There is essentially no difference between the hair of a yak’s tail or the feathers of a peacock, which are considered to be ritually pure, and human hair. Hindus consider wool to be pure, but it is actually valued for being softer than other types of hair. The wool of Mongolian mountain goats, which is used to make cashmere sweaters, is even softer than sheep’s wool, so it costs much more.

I am not advocating that we start making chamara fans for use in puja out of human hair in place of yaktail hair, just that we have a rational attitude. Hindu astrology recommends only cutting hair on certain lunar days because of a loss of energy that results. If one wishes to accept as a matter of faith that there is some subtle energy that resides in the hair, that is fine. However, to recoil in a phobic manner to someone’s long locks out of some superstition that it is dangerous is beyond the pale of reasonable behavior. Certainly we do not want to offer bhoga on the altar that a hair has fallen into it, anymore than we would like to see it on our own plate of prasad. That is just a matter of good hygiene in food preparation. On the other hand, to become obsessed with keeping a clean shaven head, leaving only the traditional topknot, is an extreme that makes no sense, nor does it add any value to one’s quality of bhajan. If someone is born into a Hindu family and has the head shaved for certain samskaras, that is one thing. It is not part of the raganuga tradition, though, except maybe for those taking the order of babaji. Nor is there any precedent for keeping short hair. We know that Sri Caitanya had long locks as a householder. The only sensible approach is to wear one’s hair in whatever is the current fashion for one’s own culture and society. Many men who joined the bhakti movement back in the late 1970s and early 1980s went from shaved head or short hair to shoulder length styles. There was nothing undevotional about that. It was just wearing their hair in a style that was in vogue.

We have to keep in mind how others perceive us. If we have some hairstyle that is considered to be freaky or bizarre, then how does that paint us in a favorable light as practitioners of some unfamiliar religious tradition? If we have a hair do that is normal, how does that interfere with our projecting a positive image of a person that is serious about her/his spiritual life and on a path that leads to intense levels of devotional ecstasy?

Despite all the lip service in America to religious freedom, minority sects and faiths have always been subject to persecution in varying degrees. So, it may not be realistic to expect to avoid such treatment altogether. If, however, we can come up with strategies that will minimize it at the hands of non-Vaishnavas, then it will be beneficial to everyone. So, that is the razor's edge upon which we now stand. How do we present the tradition in a favorable and acceptable light without compromising it to the point of transforming it into something else that is just watered down bhakti? I have found that it is always easier to come up with a solution to a problem by breaking it down into its basic components, if at all possible.

Much of religious intolerance is caused by sheer ignorance of a tradition that is not one's own. There is always going to be that certain percentage that has been warned off by fire and brimstone sermons, and they will not be easy to reach, if at all. They are always going to be wary of anything unfamiliar and the knee jerk reaction is going to be to deem all such things as heathen or even 'satanic'. My older brother has admitted as much to me when I asked him if he thought Hindu saints were just demonically possessed. The right wing fundamentalist Christian groups have these blinders on that prevent them from seeing the common traits that Vaishnavas share with their own faith. If we can somehow get through to that demographic, then the more power to us. I am, however not going to hold out much hope for that at this point. If we can simply get our message out to the more liberal and open minded, then that will be an accomplishment in itself. As we have witnessed from the history of the past several decades, Westerners with an affinity for Eastern mysticism, yoga, etc. have been attracted to the path of bhakti, although the numbers may be somewhat disappointing when compared with the world wide converts to Islam that are increasing daily.

I do not think it is politically incorrect to view Vaishnavism as being in direct competition with other world religions. That is just a simple fact of life. I do think, however, that we can be automatically competitive just by keeping high standards and at the same time modernizing in order to appeal to the widest audience. One approach is to have a double standard: One set of practices for those living in temples and one set for those living outside. I know that sounds like selling out, but just for a moment consider the advantages. Also, consider the alternative and how it can easily scare off many viable candidates that are not yet ready to follow everything prescribed in Hari-bhakti-vilasa. Nitai even suggested that the rule on only eating prasad be relaxed. Although I have many reservations about changing any policies in that area, it does address the impracticality of adhering to such strict standards for those living and working among the general population. I have seen many bhaktas expressing anxiety on various internet forums over being vegetarian in a non-vegetarian society. We should not forget that the six Goswamis also lived among and worked for beef eating Muslims. One can take a sensible and practical approach of minimizing eating outside the house and finding vegetarian items on the menu on those occasions where protocol dictates going to restaurants, banquet halls or the homes of meat eaters. Personally I have always found friends and relatives to be very accommodating. I often tell them they they do not need to cook anything separately just for me or the other few vegetarians in attendance, because there are always sufficient non-meat dishes being served. I think to keep in mind that it actually tends to be more awkward for them than it is for us is helpful. It means it is our job to find a way to put them at ease. Sometimes I will even joke about it. You could say something like, "When it comes to animals, I only eat insects." They are not likely to take you seriously and most people find that to be a humorous remark. If they believe you, it also lets you off the hook, because they will not be serving any insects.

Now there may be a new theory in the field of physics that could support the Hindu conception of the universal cycles of creation and destruction. Portuguese physicist Joao Magueijo has set out to turn one of Einstein's long cherished theories on its head, that the speed of light is constant, and has some hard evidence building to back it up. If you want to know all of the details, you can refer to the article "At the Speed of Light, What if Einstein was wrong?" in the April 2003 issue of Discover Magazine. In short, the implication of Magueijo's work is that the primordial event know as the 'Big Bang' is not a one shot deal, but something eternally recurring. "According to Magueijo's calculations, this surge in the expansion rate is but a prelude to another stupendous infusion of energy from the vacuum in the far distant future. When that happens, the universe will essentially undergo another Big Bang. This sequence of Big Bang, expansion, Big Bang, would never end. If the varying speed of light theory is right, the universe is eternal."

It is not realistic to think that we will somehow discover how the ancient philosophers arrived at their conclusions, based on the legacy of texts that have survived the millenia. We could conjecture that the four elephants holding up the cosmos in Hindu literature actually represent the four forces that our modern science breaks down all phenomena into: The electromagnetic, gravitational, strong nuclear and weak nuclear. That may or may not be correct. There really is no way to prove it one way or the other. At any rate it is interesting to see common threads running through the ancient depictions and the results of current day research.

Since this is closely related to the topic, let's take a look at Swami Tripurari's latest ezine:

"It is difficult to verify the lila of Krsna by empirical methods. Indeed,
empirical methods offer evidence to support the idea that Krsna lila is
merely mythological. However, empirical methods are not perfect in general
and certainly not capable of delivering conclusive truth as to the nature
of reality. The mythic realm of the mind is incapable of comforting the
soul, what to speak of revealing God. Ultimate reality will only be
understood on its own terms--through revelation, or transrational knowing.
This is reasonable.

Among other things, Krsna's appearance within the realm of the mind and
senses is for the purpose of taking us beyond the limits of their rule.
When approached properly through the spiritual practice that the lila
itself articulates, Krsna lila effectively enables the sadhaka to transcend
the material realm and enter the lila itself. Where does such a devotee go?
He enters the realm of God's play that is under the jurisdiction of Krsna's
svarupa sakti. In that realm all things are possible. The descent of Krsna
lila within this world is also under this influence, one that causes it to
appear and not appear at the same time. It appears to the eye of devotion
and hides itself from the gaze of empirical inspection."

Although the intent is noble enough, there are some problems with this argument about the limitations of reason and empiricism. There is also some fuzziness when it comes to the concept and purpose of myth in human culture and theologies.

Regarding empiricism, let's first consider what the purpose of the empirical method is. It was evolved in the past couple of centuries as a means of verifying scientific research by performing experiments that are repeatable and that have measurable results. There is an interesting article in the current Discover magazine about an anthropologist that has been studying some tribal cultures in South America that believe that a child can have more than one biological father. Their strange theory is that the developing fetus is nourished and strengthened by repeated washings of seminal fluid. That is not the weirdest part of it, however. It turns out that those children who have an optimum number of such hypothetical fathers, more than one but not too many, are healthier and have a significantly lower child mortality rate. The reason for that phenomenon has nothing to do with seminal fluid, but is tied to cultural economics and nutrition. From the viewpoint of the tribals, their theory is correct and empirically verifiable by the outcome. On the other hand, once they understand the mechanism of conception and genetic reproduction, they will not be so ready to cling to such beliefs.

Granted empirical methods are not necessarily foolproof, and indeed we find scientific theories being overturned all of the time by newer research and more finely tuned experiments and more precise instruments of measurement. That does not mean that the approach itself is inherently flawed. In the case of sAdhana there are sayings like 'the proof is in the pudding'. The message is that anyone can repeat the process and achieve the end results. What could be more empirical than that? Yes, there are not instruments to measure those higher states of consciousness and ecstatic trances, but the practitioner experiences them directly and they have just as much reality as the measurable rate of decay of a radioactive isotope of uranium. What I suggest is that we seek to reconcile scientific research methodologies with mysticism, rather than simply attempting to discard them as inapplicable to the realm of metaphysics.

When it comes to myth, the term has lost virtually all of its historical stigma. Formerly one's own scriptures were regarded as historical fact and those of other cultures and religions were regarded as complete fabrication and fantasy, or 'myth'. The work of Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell, to name just a couple of many groundbreaking researchers, gives mythology a whole new type of credibility. We now can view these 'stories' as patterns that work on so many different levels of meaning - not just the literal interpretation, but symbolic, metaphorical, etc. If rituals are the hardware of religion, myths are the software. To set out to establish by hard archaeological evidence that the current tiny hill at the site of Govardhan was previously a mountain that Sri Giridhari lifted up becomes rather pointless, when you start to think about the accounts of the Puranas in a different light. To say that something is 'merely mythological' is something that would come out of the mouth of the semi-literate and relatively uneducated person. The more educated person of today does not just dismiss myth as meaningless and insignificant. Even the episodes of the original Star Trek TV series were written with the philosophy of Aristotle in mind. So the story says that God lifted up a mountain with his little finger. So what? If He's God, then He can do that. It is not really about some miraculous feat. It's about the motivation behind it: The reciprocation between a Deity and His loving devotees.

From yet another article in the current issue of Discover magazine:

"Keith Black, neurosurgeon and directory, Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center: 'If you look at the Book of Genesis, which describes the creation of the universe, what strikes me is that the sequence is exactly the way we explain it scientifically. First there was light, which corresponds with the energy of the Big Bang. Then God separates the days and nights, which is what happened when the planets formed and started rotating around the sun. Then God separated the land from the sea, which as the next step in the scientific view, then came animals, then came man. If you go through all of those steps, you have to ask yourself, What is the probability of someone getting that sequence exactly right 2,000 years ago? My belief is that essentially the brain has within it a precoded neural circuitry that contains the answer to the origin of the universe. When we quietly meditate, we are accessing information that is already there. We already have the answer.' "

So, perhaps Dr. Black is onto something here. Although he is speaking the language of modern neuro-physiology, his description matches those of siddhis that we find in ancient Sanskrit texts. We can sometimes find a way to validate mysticism with science and vice versa. There are already enough wars going on in the world, including the big one that is about to begin over in Babylonia. We don't need yet another one between the theologians and the scientists.

I just read an extremely fascinating article in the new June issue of Discover magazine, entitled "Can You See With Your Tongue?" A researcher by the name of Paul Bach-y-Rita has created a device that converts a visual image into electrical signals that activate a 12 by 12 grid of electrodes in a plastic strip placed on a subject's tongue. The author of the article, Michael Abrams was able to learn quickly to discern the position of a ball while blindfolded and attached to the device, to the point of being able to catch the ball when thrown to him. “Whether or not Bach-y-Rita is right about glial cells, more and more evidence suggests that the senses can be redirected. At Harvard University in the lat 1990s, for instance, neurologist Alvaro Pascual-Leone performed brain scans of blind subjects. When he asked them to read Braille with ther reading fingers, their visual cortex lit up. When sighted people performed the same task, their visual cortex stayed dormant. More recently, neuroscientist Mriganka Sur at MIT took young ferrets and connected fibers coming from their retinas to their auditory pathway. They grew up with perfect vision.”

So this may not be quite the same as the siddha deha as described in Brahma Samhita, wherein every organ can perform the function of every other organ (being able to taste with the eyes or hear with the tongue), but it is still a remarkable parallel. Even in these perishable bodies of flesh, blood and sinew we have some of that same capability, albeit in a much more limited capacity.

I've missed this thread altogether. Hmm... I'll have to go through it and contribute my share. I've been thinking of such topics lately.

We need to be cautious in describing various limbs of the Vedas, such as ayurveda and jyotish. It is not a wise idea to portray these as sciences in the same sense that modern physics and chemistry are recognized as adhering to the empirical method, which requires experiments that have results that are verifiable and reproducible. Some herbal remedy prescribed in an ayurvedic text, for example, might have some real pharmacological properties. However, until those properties are verified in double blind studies, modern medical science is not about to recognize the efficacy of said herb.

Hindu astrology when used by an expert may indeed have some predictive capabilities, and we may even observe directly that it does, but that does not mean that it has been proven to work by any empirical verification. It is not really science according to modern definitions, but it is a component of Vaishnava theology nonetheless. That theology holds that certain lunar days, which are not the same as solar days, are sacred. Observances are prescribed, such as fasting from sunrise to sunrise. The calculation of the Hindu calendar from year to year is predicated on some knowledge of basic astronomy (which is recognized as an actual science), since the exact time of full and new moon, as well as of sunrise, are critical to its accuracy. So in a sense it is pseudo-scientific in nature, but more importantly it is based on religious beliefs that have been around for many centuries.

So, how do we best present this concept of a lunar calendar that has various days marked off as holy in nature? I personally think it is a good idea to refer to cosmic cycles that govern the universe and our role in it, along with some explanation about what a lunar day is according to jyotish. It is really quite simple: Just an equal division of a half of each lunar cycle into fifteen equal parts. The fortnight from new to full moon is called the bright half (shukla paksha) and the fortnight from full to new moon is called the dark half (krishna paksha). The difference is that a complete cycle from full moon to full moon is not an exact number of solar days, being roughly twenty nine and a half days as measured by our modern clocks that mark midnight as the demarcation point. That means that a lunar day does not correspond exactly with a solar day and is on average several minutes shy of a full twenty four hours.

In the realm of raganuga bhakti, the calendar comes into play in various lilas that are meditated upon by a sAdhaka. Also, dividing up the day into eight parts, another application of jyotish, is critical to the daily lila meditations.

It perhaps behooves us to make our tradition even moreso a universal (rather than Indian) one than it has been. After all, outside of the advanced sAdhus over there and the holy places, there is not much in the way of a meaningful connection, given that the traditional culture has all but vanished. That country has become very westernized and that trend is continuing. So, how do we accomplish that goal and at the same time maintain the essential character of Caitanyaism? Consider Christianity for example - although the roots of that tradition are in Jerusalem, it is really a much more European and American faith today, with the defining characteristics having been shaped by European culture. I think there already is much that was once very Indian that has now become Westernized. Hatha yoga is a case in point.

Then there is this notion people carry around in their heads of a very romantic past. That does not jibe with reality, especially given the written and archaeological evidence, which speaks volumes to the contrary. It is hard to even grasp the level of suffering for ancient populations that lacked antibiotics and basic sanitation, and in which most people had to perform grueling hard labor just to survive. So maybe the chose few of the upper echelons of society had all sorts of comforts and amenities. Still, they would have had to have limbs amputated from simple infections that are easily and quickly treated today, just like the poorest common laborers of those times. Also there were constant famines and plagues in which thousands died horribly.

If there was some sophisticated level of technology over five thousand years ago, there is not way to prove or disprove such a postulate. I have often contemplated what archaeologists thousands of years in the future might dig up from the 21st Century AD and it is doubtful anything fashioned from metal would likely be intact, let alone plastics. So, that may give a thoughtful and reflective person pause, but it hardly is solid evidence of a high level of technological achievement in ancient times.

I guess this topic should be called 'Modernizing and Universalizing Our Tradition'. Here are a couple of ideas about how to make it more generally appealling to people of all locales:

- Adapting traditional kirton songs, such as those of Narottam Das, to the regional genres of music. For example, maybe sung in an Irish folk music style for Vaishnavas in Ireland. There is also the immensely popular rock 'n' roll genre, which I think is fine as long as it is neither very dark like heavy metal nor frivolous.

- Wearing white clothing, but of current fashions, rather than dhotis and saris. The same goes for hairstyles. There is no need to appear eccentric, and many westerners view shaved heads and robes as extremely weird.

- Offering regional vegetarian dishes (minus obnoxious ingredients like onions and garlic) on the altar instead of strictly Indian preparations. Some Indian dishes can be included, as long as other more familiar things are on the menu. After all, we are trying to get people involved at all levels, and presenting them with an exotic array of cuisine that is probably too spicy and/or sweet for many hardly furthers that aim.

- Designing temples with architectural styles other than the traditional types built in India.

- Avoiding the use of all buzzwords. Some Sanskrit terms that do not have English equivalents are fine, but Western Vaishnavas tend to fall into the trap of using a great deal of esoteric jargon, which only serves to shroud every doctrine needlessly in mystery. For example, in Tai Chi classes, the Chi or Qi is often referred to as 'energy', but that is not a very good translation of the Chinese term. After all, energy according to the dictionary is the ability to do work, and Chi is not the same as calories derived from eating food. The Sanskrit word 'prANa' is sometimes translated as life force, but that also fails to convey the meaning of the word accurately in English.

Hopefully Madhavananda (and others) will have some comments. So far, I seem to be the only one with any opinions on this topic.

I emphasize again, so that people reading this do not get the wrong impression:

It is the externals that should be flexible, in order for a tradition to be adaptive, rather than the internals. I do not see any reason to fiddle with the methods of mantra and leela meditation, nor with the rituals performed in puja. Something like the observance of ekadashi vrata seems to be more of a gray area, given that even in India there are concessions made for people that desire to eat various dishes that do not contain grains, or at least to drink water. Whether or not to dress in a dhoti or sari would have to fall under the category of an external practice, unless of course it is part of the rituals of doing puja on the altar. How many priests are actually on the altar during arotik? What is the difference whether or not the congregation out on the temple room floor is dressed in traditional ritual garb? Wearing around a dhoti may be fine for taking darshan or dancing in the temple, but how practical is it for everyday wear out on the street of a bustling metropolis? It brings to mind pictures of someone's hem getting caught in the automatic doors of a commuter train or the revolving door of an office complex.

People tend to be greatly concerned about the number of mantras they chant daily. Granted that there is some benefit to be derived from increasing that number to approach the ideal of three lakhs, but isn't quality more important than quantity? Does not chanting a single mala without offenses have more effect than chanting sixty four of them while commiting numerous offenses?

Just as an aside, I thought I should make one comment at this point.

This whole topic has been essentially a series of brief meditations that were inspired by various ideas that occured to me over the past few months, rather than essays based on elaborate construction, nor with the type of reworking to produce a polished version that essays require. My motivation was to spark some lively conversation on the subject. I know that Jagat is planning to dive in with his responses any minute now and that Madhavananda has said that he will be participating, so at least it finally has caught the attention of at least two people here. I may have some more to say as new ideas occur to me in the near future, but for now I think I am pretty much done.

I think that the first stage in any process that involves updating our tradition must be discussions among members of our various poribars, and I think just about everyone here would agree. Once that has been completed, the next stage would be to come up with some resolutions by committee, followed by the actual implementation of any changes that have been decided upon. I think we have already ventured into virgin territory here just by having some public discussions of rAga marga that have previously been reserved for confidential dialogue among the initiated, and typically only between teachers of smaran and their students. I had never even heard any discussion of siddha pranali or astakaliya lila smaran during my entire tenure as Sanskrit editor for BBT until one day it was brought to my attention by Jai Sacinandan in Los Angeles after I had resigned from my position at the gurukula and severed my affiliation with ISKCON in 1979 and he had just returned from a trip to Radha Kund. So, I don't see it as that much of a stretch for there to be a number of similar adaptations down the road. Also, the Western Vaishnava community has matured quite a bit since those days in the 60s and 70s, and there are many out there that have been doing sAdhana for a very long time now. The overall audience is different now.

To add something to the very lively discussion on this topic...
you know, I do not think that typical Indian stuff is out of place in the West. It is actually attractive to many due to its exotic nature. I think it is in the way it is lived and made "livable". Indians for some reason tend to be stereotyped, mechanical, approaching the state of rigor mortis ("dead-stiff"). In comparison, if you take Tibetans, with their smile, and the compassion, the flow, I think that is what is missing sometimes in our sadhaka circles. Joie de vivre...

I am speaking to myself here actually, it's missing in me too. If I look back to my 23 years of connection to the vaishnava world, it's been tough, not much fun. Visiting any holy place, any vaishnava sangha, is just another ordeal, there is so little joy perceptible, so much external clutter to deal with. All these "His Divine Graces" or "Holinesses" with their submissive servants around. I think it's an unhealthy climate.

I have seen the joy of bhajan in families where they do bhajan on their own, very inspiring. Whenever there is some position involved, some temple to be maintained, something to be structured and organized, death in the form of party spirit is approaching.

As I said elsewhere, keep it as personal as possible, do not delegate things to a committee. But I am afraid from what little I have read from Nitai's website, you are setting your western institution up to be an imitation of some Indian ideal setting. There will always be some comparison then, a gap between reality and ideal.

What is fruitful is to study the Western monastic traditions, e.g. the way the Benedictans civilized Europe, or the Franciscans approached people... there is more to learn from them than to just adopt some advice from an Indian source.

Love and let love.

Nadadip:

Please elaborate on what those monastic orders have to offer as a model. You have piqued my curiosity.

I think you have misinterpreted Nitai's site. He is the one that wants to develop a community entirely independent of the Indian Vaishnava community, whereas I am the one that seeks to integrate the Western community into the international Vaishnava community.

Keep in mind that we have no vision of vairagis in the Western Vaishnava community, just a strong householder base with the nuclear family as the basic unit. Our baba was a vairagi (he never formally took vesh or bekh of the babaji order), but he came in a familial line that propagated the sampradaya from father to son. That is more the model we want to emulate. Srila Prabhupada was able to pull off the sannyasi preacher role, but as we see from history, that is not something people can just imitate. He was a unique and rare individual, whatever the shortcomings might have been in that mission he founded. The preaching work and fulfilling the role of diksha guru is meant to be carried out by the householders, both men and women alike. Renunciation is for those prepared to retreat from society to become absorbed in bhajan. That is the standard and norm for the raganuga bhakti tradition. Jagat's opinion is that the gosthyanandi is needed, and he may be right to some extent. I seek to minimize that model as far as possible, short of eliminating it altogether. That is because I don't see that it is going to be effective in Western culture.

Some day we may have our own schools, but I don't picture them as being boarding schools, rather parochial education like the Catholic schools (the difference being that we won't have celibate nuns teaching and we won't cheat the students in the science and math curriculum).

The bottom line is that we are talking about a community rather than an institution. Building a temple here and there as a center of worship is not the same thing as an aggressive missionary organization.

I know I have been harping on the whole anti-scientist issue, but there are some limits to what I am advocating. I read an article just the other day about some scientists that feel they are on the verge of creating life in a test tube via insertion of an artificially engineered gene into a cell that has had its genetic material removed. They believe that they can get that one celled organism to then mysteriously spring to life and begin dividing. They want to ignore the role of consciousness, which is an attribute of the jiva and not of the physical form. Their conception is that life began on Earth as the result of spontaneous organization of complex self-replicating chains of molecules triggered by the ideal conditions for such an event to occur. I find that mentality to be patently naive, despite my respect for the empirical method in general and the advances in the life sciences in recent decades. In the realm of physics, chemistry and geology, they do not fall prey to such notions, but when it comes to biological processes, living, breathing organisms are the subject matter. They really need to avoid losing sight of that fact in order to keep a healthy perspective.


I am not suggesting that we should attack them for being materialistic, rather provide constructive criticism for their failure to take a holisitic approach that accounts for the presence of consciousness.

Anangaji, the point is not to be anti-science, much less to be anti-scientist,

but Scientism, the belief that Science alone can solve all problems is something we ought to challenge, and you here clearly agree. The problem is that some of your other statements appear to be Scientistic, or to support a Scientistic worldview.

Meanwhile, I've just been challenging you with what I can remember of my readings of people like Karl Popper.

There is a whole literature on what role Science ought to play, and I would like to discuss that, rather than recent discoveries.

Here's a good question to begin with: what is the soul? There are Vedantic views, there are also many views from western philosophy- Platonic, Aristotelian, etc, and there are the findings of modern neuro-science. Tom Wolfe wrote about this a couple of years back, 'Sorry, but your soul just died'. ( http://tetrica.com/science/soulhasdied.html ) Neuro-science has killed the soul, apparently. In a thorough discussion we should confront this, not by calling scientists demons, of course, but in examining and seriously critiquing their work, as you also suggest.

A holistic approach accounts for consciousness? I don't think it's that simple. The holistic idea was actually invented by Biologists to explain complex interactive processes in living bodies, its not that they haven't heard of it, so you've probably underestimated them.

We have to look deeper into philosophy. What's happened to the stuff you studied in college? Bit rusty thru lack of use? Nabadip gave us some insight by invoking the Frankfurt school (Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse). Its just that for me C20th philosophers are very contentious, except Popper. I prefer C19th and before stuff.

Yes, philosophy is the foundation, whether you are discussing the subject of theology or of scientific research. It behooves an educated Vaishnava in today's world to be steeped in Vedanta as well as the various reknowned thinkers of Western philosophy. There is no question that books I was required to read for my B.A. in philosophy twenty two years ago are not so fresh in my memory today. Those included Aristotle's Physics, works of Plato, and the writings of Kant, Leibnitz, Berkeley, DesCartes, Locke and Hume, as well as some twentieth century philosophers. Also, I looked at some of the texts of the Navya-nyaya school during my graduate studies. That type of background, along with classes in deductive logic, give one some tools for critical thought that otherwise could be out of reach.

I have to confess that I am not up to date on the current discourse among writers in the field of philosopy, Adiyen. If you or any of our participants on these forums have something to relate from those sources, that would be most welcome.

I have not been reading up on philosophy of late, on account of spending my time keeping current with recent developments in science and high technology, along with studying works of our six Goswamins and their chain of proteges.

Anyways... Getting back to my original thesis about reconciling science with texts such as Bhagavata Purana:
We need to be level headed in a subject such as astronomy. When a text like that clearly does not show a grasp by its ninth century AD author of the basic structure and dynamics of our solar system, then that is something to be harshly critiqued and relegated to the category of non-essential doctrine. After all, it is a theological work, not a cosmological treatise.

I know I have already made this statement, but I thought it appropriate to underscore my point, which is that of taking a rational approach as opposed to a reactionary one in such matters.

So that must be my fault. I guess I did not really make my position clear.

I am not familiar with 'Scientism". I always thought that science was dedicated to the furthering and expansion of knowledge via the empirical method of research. Problem solving I have always considered to be the domain of inventors, which would make it more an attribute of technology than of science. The scientist discovers the basic principles, whereas the inventor implements them to create new technology. Without the scientist, the inventor would be pretty much lost, and without the inventor, the scientist's theories would be pretty much ignored by the world.

Mysticism, on the other hand, deals with a whole other realm, and empasizes the experiential over the objective and measurable universe around us. The nature of the afterlife and worlds beyond is the purview of popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, acharyas, yogis, lamas, munis and rishis, and scientists steer clear of those subjects, as they rightly should. I personally have a real problem with a theologian dictating the course of scientific inquiry. At least in India, there is no history of people like Copernicus and Galileo being persecuted by religious leaders for their research. Let's hope it stays that way.

Certainly we should expect matters of science and technology to have no impact on one's bhajan, either now or at any time in the future. Likewise, religious doctrine will not hold any sway over scientific inquiry. It will, on the other hand, play a very crucial role in ethical dilemmas in areas such as genetics, and that just shows its greater power to influence our morality. Science can provide some of the raw material upon which we as moral agents make informed choices. For example: A medical doctor makes a diagnosis that a mother in delivery has a significant threat to her life and now must choose between her own survival and that of the unborn child. All the science in the world can provide little solace in those circumstances that require genuine soul searching efforts.

In the realm of theology apart from science we have some difficult philosophical and ethical issues to deal with. If a woman is raped by a psychotic and violent criminal and becomes pregnant thereby, what is our position on abortion in that circumstance? Our scriptures condemn infanticide, yet they also state that unwanted progeny is the source of all sorts of havoc wreaked upon society. Stopping the birth and monstrous life of a Hitler or Ravana has various merits on philosophical grounds. On the other hand, we ascribe the quality of free will to all jivas, so an evil despot could end up being a good citizen or even a saint instead, should they exercise their freedom of choice in the opposite manner.

scientism-

"Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful. Thus, scientism is either false or meaningless.

In the weak sense, scientism is the view that the methods of the natural sciences should be applied to any subject matter."

-from the Skeptics dictionary http://skepdic.com/scientism.html

I also discern in your approach, the view of the great American Educational Philosopher John Dewey, who argued in the late C19th that a Pragmatic Empirical approach to life and truth seemed to be necessary, overriding traditional metaphysical dogma. Dewey's thought was well argued and became extremely influential, especially in the US. Remember 'Democracy and Education'? It's still on college reading lists. Empirical Pragmatism is regarded as the American Philosophy. But Dewey was careful to avoid scientism.

His British contemporary Herbert Spencer, on the other hand, went all the way down the scientistic path - vulgarising Darwinism into a belief in racial supremacy which became an influence on Nazism (but also inspired the modern Birth Control movement!). Spencer actually coined the phrase "Survival of the Fittest" as well as the belief that Darwinian selection was always 'evolutionary progress' - Darwin himself was never so crude as to believe this, because, among other things, it does not fit the facts, what to speak of the moral dimension of human affairs. Spencer came to believe that we could 'help evolution along' by 'purifying the race' indeed that 'racial purity' was the 'goal' of evolution. But the only goal Darwin found that evolution was oriented to was adaptation to a constantly changing environment. That means constant change and variety, so as to adapt to unforseen environmental changes, in a word, Diversity! 'Racial purity' if there is such a thing, would lead, from Darwin's perspective, to extinction!

So: by all means argue Deweyan Rationalism, but try to avoid Spencerism...


****

I want to voice my full support for a scientific approach to religious scriptures. For one thing, sometimes we even appreciate them more this way.

But yes, we also have to find some way to approach moral problems. Abortion is probably the greatest moral dilemma. Honestly I don't know how to even begin to approach it, and I am very sensitive to the 'Old men telling women what to do with their bodies' criticism. On the other hand, momentary choices are not moral choices, and distance from a problem can be an advantage in seeing it in perspective, as can the relative freedom from emotional turbulence, and the experiential wisdom of old men and women.

I believe Spenser is spelled with an "s". Some quotes from the Oxford dictionary of quotations:

"Evolution is a change from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite coherent heterogeneity." (First Principles, 1862)

"Progress, therefore, is not an accident, but a necessity. It is a part of nature." (Social Statics, 1850)

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools."

"No one can be perfectly free until all are free. No one can be perfectly moral until all are moral. No one can be perfectly happy until all are happy."

"Education has for its object the formation of character." (Now we know where that one comes from.)

"Opinion is ultimately determined by the feelings and not by the intellect." (ditto)

Here's an example of adopting a scientific approach to scripture to understand a current (non-Vaishnava) controversy: Mel Gibson's attempt to create an 'authentic' film of the Bible Passion.

Unfortunately, Gibson's idea of authentic appears to be literally, 'as the scripture tells it'. Putting aside that the several Bible depictions in different gospels contradict each other in places, the gospel narrative puts almost sole blame for the crucifixion of Jesus on the Jewish authorities, with the Roman governor reluctantly agreeing. As all Jews at that time felt resentment at Roman rule it is unlikely that they would have been so hostile to a fellow Rabbi with an unusual teaching, and we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls and elsewhere that unusual teachings were common at that time. Because the readers of the gospels were mostly Romans, it seems likely that the narrative was 'spun' to minimise their guilt and project it on someone else. Unfortunately, blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus had very unfortunate consequences over the last 2000 years. The Church recognised this and from Vatican II in 1965 taught that the Bible was not to be taken literally on such questions. Gibson opposes Vatican II, but I find that even highly educated Catholics are not aware of this issue.

There is an accurate historical account of crucifixion and Roman due process available. Indeed it is known that Pilate, the Roman governor, was cruel and vicious, hardly the stoic philosopher-ruler as he is portrayed in the Bible. Gibson either did not do his research, or he has an odd viewpoint for a supposedly loyal follower of the Church. Catholics modern or traditional, are not usually Bible fundamentalists. Why didn't he make a film of the Sermon on the Mount or something less controversial?

****

It is rather nice that Gaudiyaism is not really reliant on historical accuracy in the same way. We know that Mahaprabhu and his followers existed. It is the writings by and about them, and the traditions descended from them, which inspire us. The accuracy of claims made in more recent books may need to be verified, but it is not that 'either Jesus was raised from the dead, or it is all a lie'.

An interesting point about the Bhagavatam cosmology is that Gaudiya commentators have been much more concerned about, for example, whether Radha and Krishna get married in the end, than about more mundane stuff.

Westerners may call the Gaudiya preoccupations Byzantine. Did anyone know that in Constantinople in the last days of the Byzantine era, the national assembly was engaged in a deep debate about the sex of angels? Apparently the Ottomans were already at the gate, about to conquer the city, but the citizens refused to be distracted from their philosophical dispute.

But public debate about mundane matters can also be vicious and pointless. In an atmosphere where hostile arguments about the merits of various policies abound, It is surely refreshing to direct our attention to another timeless world. A world where cosmically tiny, apparently human attributes, like teasing and playful dancing, have the utmost significance.

Yeah, Radha's kilakinchita and mottayita, those are what make it all worthwhile. Just a flash in eternity, for all eternity.

Adiyen:

I will reserve judgment until I have had a chance to actually see Gibson's flick. I don't want to take all of the criticism at face value. He has defended his treatment of the subject as being anything other than anti-semitic, so we should at least give him a chance to prove that claim. If what he says is true, the message of the movie is about sacrifice and not persecution.

I see your point about a scientific approach to scripture. In fact, I see that the six Indian philosophical systems do have a logical framework just like their Western counterparts. Books like Ujjvala Nilamani and BRS, on the other hand, should be considered 'hands off'. The problem with texts like the Puranas is that they contain sections that discuss objective reality, such as the 5th Canto of Srimad Bhagavatam. So one must make various judgment calls when it comes to how such material is to fit into a rational but theistic world view. There was one respected Vaishnava pandit in Braj that told me that Ravana having ten heads and twenty arms is not meant to be taken literally, rather as poetic hyperbole to indicate great intelligence and physical strength. In our own culture we use expressions like 'he has the strength of ten men' in the same way to describe powerful warriors or athletes. Those characters and deeds of mythic proportions present us with this problem: How do we best explain such texts without seeming like foolish persons of mere blind faith? Do we really want to head down the same road as certain Christian fundamentalists that are right now explaining away fossils of dinosaurs as the remains of some very recent creatures that lived on Earth within their timeframe of six thousand years since Creation?

Your point about Darwinism strikes a resonant chord, as I have recently read an interesting book, mentioned above, on Darwinian medicine. The biggest misconception people have about evolution is indeed that of mistaking supposed fitness for adaptability. The T-Rex faced no real threats from other species in his time, but could not survive the impact of a huge meteor, while the weak and tiny cockroaches and rats did just fine.

We base our tradition on a faith that sprang from the culture and religion of medieval Bengal. To trace it to some ancient civilization is a course fraught with peril. Many devotees would like to paint this rosy picture of how utopian the Vedic society was and will cite texts like Ramayana to back up such claims, since it describes a righteous rule by an avatar-king. The problem is that there is no archeological or historical evidence to support such a view. The reality, based on the evidence, is far different: An invasion by a warrior race from the steppes of Central Asia, which is now part of Russia (the Aryans), around 1500 BC, who were basically nomadic and conquered by dint of possessing horses. They loved to eat beef, and sacrified thousands of head of cattle to their gods. Once they settled in this new territory of India, they then started to build large cities, but prior to that they were much more tribal than agrarian in nature.

We can pretty much dismiss all attempts to rationalize this bit of history and link modern Hindiusm to the earlier Indus Valley civilization as a bunch of misguided hoopla. Unfortunately it is a mass hysteria in India today that has gripped millions with a zealous fervor. I do not see any good coming out of it, just confusion and eventually alienation from the rest of the world. It is really not an example of responsible leadership, but one of extremism and fanaticism based on xenophobia and ultimately racism. Yes, it is due to a delayed reaction to British rule and suppression. Still, that does not make it any more reasonable or meritorious.

I agree that there is no evidence to support the beliefs in a continuous civilization going back to 'ancient Vedic times' and the Indus Valley civilization.

But I don't see the harm of nationalism or of an exaggerated national myth in the context in which India finds itself. Forget the British, India right now is caught between two totalising chauvinistic worldviews: Islam on the east (oops! west) side, China to the North and (oops again!: to the east? ahhh, you get the picture). Both are eager to swallow India up for various reasons. A diverse democratic nation like India needs enormous cultural and physical strength to withstand such pressures. China has as much interest in controlling North India as it has in Tibet. Pakistan's ruling elites are the descendants of the Moghul court. Having failed to make a success of Pakistan, they would be glad to regain their former Empire.

There is a debate about some of this among Indologists, with the political ideologues who demand doctrinal purity from democratic India being challenged that they don't demand the same from India's threatening neighbours. Isn't it bizarre that the politically correct crowd are pro-Muslim and anti-Hindu? It is equally bizarre that some commentators just leave China out of their analysis. Those who study China at close quarters are not so blase. Hence the 'nuclear standoff' commentators are ignorant if they don't see China as the real threat to India, with which India must have ballistic parity.

Of course, India, in the form of the Hindu array of cultures, can and has absorbed and endured both the Muslim and 'Chinese' conquerors (what to speak of the Aryans and a dozen others over the centuries). What I am referring to by Chinese rule in North India is the Saka era Khushan Empire, which the Chinese call Yueh-chih. Technically they were not 'Chinese' (more like Mongols) but try telling the (Mainland) Chinese that! (Chinese even view Nepalese as 'their people' whose duty, like all Chinese, is to unite with the motherland! This also makes Buddha Chinese, you see...).

Indeed, in another era Hindus would not be so concerned about their place in the world, but we live in the age of nationalism, when a person's sense of self-worth is based on the status of the nation he identifies with. The fact that Hindus have experienced persecution in the modern world, similar to the persecution of Jews actually, (Uganda, Guyana, Malaysia, Fiji and just about everywhere sometime) contributes to their perceived need for a homeland which defends their rights.

Of course, Hindus are a complex people, and my argument here does not mean I defend everything they do. I simply want to put it in the right context.

I agree that fundamentalist extremism of the Islamic variety is a mounting threat against the non-Muslim world. China is also a nation to keep an eye on. Their sheer numbers are staggering and their problems of overcrowding and poverty more or less dwarf those of all other countries. People in the West that have not traveled to a place like India or China do not have a realistic perspective on the magnitude of the overpopulation issue. If they did, it would be discussed much more often and be taken far more seriously than it currently is. Natural resources are not in infiinite supply, and replenishible ones like rainforests are being depleted at an alarming rate. Political struggles over borders are minor in comparison with a problem like that, which is a genuine threat to our well being. We enjoy an abundant supply of breathable air (well... except for some of the more polluted urban sprawls like Mexico City), and potable water without giving much thought to how precious those items are. The challenges world leaders face today are of a far more complex and formidable variety than ever before in recorded history. Will ancient wisdom help them to address the issues? It might, but only if they actually learn about it first. That's where we have to play a role, and that is why our having an appealing presentation is so crucial.

Nabadip:

I agree with your comment about all things Indian being alluring to non-Indians on account of their exotic appeal. The more creative people will have an attraction for other cultures, simply because they are very different from what we have been born and raised in here in the West. Even the not so creative will have some degree of fascination with the exotic, although they may not be all that interested in participating in any of it. I get comments from people all the time about how weird they find Indian customs and religions. Most have at least dined at an Indian restaurant or two, but the question is how many have become accustomed to such fare on a regular basis. I can only count two that I know of personally. The rest pretty much think that the hot chilis, coriander leaves, etc. are way too overwhelming and that the sweets are way too sweet, plus they have an almost paranoid fear of the deep fried goodies that they think will clog their arteries or add inches to their waistlines. Fans of Ravi Shankar are similarly rare, as most are unable to relate to the raga genre. Many a Beatles fan will listen to sitar riffs played by George Harrison, but you won't find them listening to any Indian artists. Indian paintings are not all the rage either, which has probably more to do with the flatness and lack of realistic perspective in the compositions - sculpture is more popular (no issue of creating an illusion of three dimensions on a flat surface).

Then there is the continued misperception of India as a third world country, which in fact it never really was, given the infrastructure that the British Empire put in place early on. People in general are not aware that there never was a shortage of food in India, just a problem with floods that isolate people and cause them to then starve. There is certainly a high level of poverty there, but not to the extent that people imagine it to be.

Some of the refinements of Indian culture, for instance honoring a guest in one's home, are important cards in our deck. When people see that Western civilization is crude by comparison in those aspects, they gain a newfound respect for those ancient customs. What would be a real tragedy is for India to become so Westernized that all of those subtleties are lost over time. Hopefully they can make progress without being stripped of their dignity in the process, discarding the ugly side of their culture that includes forcing widows to commit sati, heinous burning of wives to extort their doweries and the degrading inhumane treatment of lower castes and outcastes.

Stereotypes are obstacles to productive intercultural exchanges. That is true on both sides of the East/West equation.

?

I don't really think we should equate updating (modernization) of an originally Indian tradition with Westernization of it. The invention of air travel has had this pervasive impact of creating one world culture, which is neither characteristically Western nor inherently Oriental. The point is not to give Caitanyaism some more culturally appealing facade, but rather to endow it with relevance. If certain features make it appear outmoded and superstitious, then those aspects of it are going to prevent it from having relevance, at least as a comprehensive package. Western philosophers have always updated their subject matter as discourse has required. We do not see the exact same discussions in the field today as were going on in ancient Greece. I do not know that we can say that is the case for Indian philosophers. They are plagued with a disconnect that needs to be remedied. The cure is not Westernizing them, but simply getting them to break the mold that has them imprisoned in a medieval era and unable to make any tangible progress. Simply throwing in a few remarks about the use of computer technology for devotional purposes does not constitute a genuine updating. So many people that believe that they have made adjustments for current times and circumstances are just self-deluded, and the persons they are lecturing to are their unwitting victims.

Unfortunately there is massive inertia and resistance on account of clinging to cherished ideals (nothing wrong with that - up to a point) and paranoia about rethinking various ideas. There needs to be a concerted effort to zero in on the constants that are not subject to geographic and temporal factors, as well as keeping the channels open to the entire body of knowledge that humanity is constantly expanding. It is not just Caitanyaism, but religion in general that is in danger of extinction as long as it fails to adapt. That very real threat looms larger as changes increase at an accelerating pace.

Just a small comment on your comprehensive discussion, Ananga:
You would like to make a mystical tradition socially more relevant? Or are you just feeling awkward with those features as the astronomy part, and the culturally difficult expressions that you mentioned in an earlier mail? I think it is one side to feel uneasy about a tradition being difficult to offer to western people, or in your case to U.S. Americans, due to its content being of a different nature, and another side to see the need of an implicite up-dating or a process of assimilation to the requirements of the time, to our specific needs toward a more responsible inner growth.

Personally I think the relevance is in the need, the demand on the "buyers' " side of getting into a different mode of conscious activity, which is in contrast to scientific, and rational approaches in general. In that our traditions are competing not with Western expectations but with other offers such as Buddhist meditation which has a very strong pull on seekers' interest. Buddhism has the advantage of being para-rational, or para-scientific from its inquiry point of view and the importance of observation in its application. The four noble Truths and the eightfold path with ethical behaviour as a consequence are really appealing to people in search for depth of understanding. (Interesting is that their 5th canto-view is similar to ours.)

How can our traditions which are so personal and yet with globalized demands compete with that? One of the most appealing features of Buddhism practically absent in our traditions, even though claimed to be implicitly present, is compassion. Compassion is hard to get by when you read all these totally demanding scriptures full with the heaviest kind of judgements on those who do not doggedly comply. The worst I read recently is that one who does not take diksha will be reborn as an animal next life (quoted by Advaitadas from Haribhaktivilas). Think of this, that means everyone except us few, so far one hundred Westerners, would be affected by that curse or whatever it is supposed to be. I do not know what such a statement is based on. It certainly does not speak of compassion, whoever was the great soul who spoke it. I wonder how such a statement coud be updated...made more relevant...by omission... or by explaining it mystically away.

I think here such believes as the Hindu concept of transmigration in respect to immediate re-immersions into the animal kingdom would be in place. Rational inquiry could be applied here, even some para-scientific approach is in place. Imagine all of present humanity becoming animals next life! Maybe there is a double entendre that I am missing.

What do you think of the relevance of that? I am not challenging here, just expressing my helplessness. Probably someone will say I just have to believe it because it is in one of the granthas. Is there a chance of another translation, Advaitadasji?

The general point I wanted to make though, is that our traditions are inherently relevant, except that certain features that are most appealing nowadays are not developed, like the compassion-issue. Is there a practice that actually helps develop compassion actively, not "just" as a by-product of japa or kirtan?

How could the trinad api sunicena be put into relevant practice so that it becomes a true growth experience? That is of real relevance to me.

In this regard I think we should focus in discussing the features of our traditions,
what is rationally explainable teaching,
what is purely to be believed without questioning,
what is ethically demanded, what is open to personal adjustment,
what field is left to personal growing into,
what is of mere appellative nature in cognitive respect (do this, do that, then you will see),
what is cosmologically presupposed
which are the eschatological goals
and the salvatory means etc.

In other words for us to get clear on what we work with and what it is that we bring into life. I believe we would convince much more if we had a person like the Dalai Lama, not as a public figure I mean, but ethically convincing for the whole world. (Ananta das Babaji does come to my mind. I sure felt I met an elevated soul when I met him.) I must admit though, that such exposure cannot really be the goal, because we are in a mystical tradition, where introversion and self-protection are important features. Personally I feel it is our personal growth that makes the difference to the world, to those we meet. How am I able to translate my believes and my daily practice into life for others to see? There is a relevance! Hard for someone like me. Bliss and tranquility is not written all over my face.

That, however, is the strength of our traditions, that we can take shelter of such a magnanimously compassionate personality like Sri Nityananda Ram. He is my refuge, even if I should become an animal next life. Jai Nitai, eternally, Jai Nitai.

No, there is no other translation possible. pasu yonim means 'animal species' and avapnoti means 'attains'. diksa virahito means 'without diksa' and janah means 'persons'. It goes without saying that any person who has performed devotional or pious practises is exempt from this curse. The shastras use heavy statements to bring a certain point over to the public. Srila Visvanatha Cakravartipada writes in his Sarartha Darsini-commentary of Srimad Bhagavata (6.2.9-10):

harir bhajaniya eva bhajanam tat prapakam eva tad upadesta gurur eva gurupadista bhakta eva purve harim prapur iti viveka visesavattve'pi no diksam na ca sat kriyam na ca purascaryam manag iksate. mantro'yam rasana sprg eva phalati sri krsna namatmakah. iti pramana drstya ajamiladi drstantena ca kim me gurukarana sramena nama kirtanadibhir eva me bhagavat praptir bhaviniti manyamanas tu gurvavajna laksana mahaparadhad eva bhagavantam na prapnoti kintu tasminn eva janmani janmantare va tad aparadha ksaye sati sri guru caranasrita eva prapnotiti—

"Some know that the Lord is worshipable and He is only attained by bhajana. For such devotion the guru is the instructor and, in the past, only the devotees following the instructions of the guru have attained the Lord. Still if they do not feel any necessity of accepting a guru and think: "It is said that any mantra with Krsna's holy name will grant perfection on the mere touch of the tongue, even without diksa or purascarana - and what about Ajamila? I can attain the Lord simply by nama-sankirtana!", then they commit the great offence of disrespecting the guru. Such persons can not attain the Lord. When this offence is nullified, either in this birth or the next, and if they take the shelter of the feet of a genuine guru they can attain the Lord."
So here it is clearly stated that a non-initiated person will take a next birth that will enable him/her to attain Krishna, and that must be a human birth of course.

Speaking of modernisation, it is a contentious issue indeed. Those of us who have taken diksa from a genuine Indian sadhu, who has little or no idea about our culture, have a lot of explaining to do to our Gurus, especially if we show up with a different partner each time we go to India, that woman has already children from several other men etc. Also we do not wear devotional clothes here in downtown Boston or Chicago, we dont wear tilak etc. Small items, big items of practise may be impossible to perform here, but I do believe that the basic principles of sadacara, f.i. the famous 4 principles of Iskcon can and should be practised, either with pants on or with a dhoti, with or without tilaka. Also the Shastras should be held in total respect, if not there will be namaparadha of criticising the shastras and one's progress is blocked. Whatever items of shastra can not be rationally accepted by a Westerner must still be revered as mystical visions, and not be separated from the rest of the shastras and dumped in the waste bin. It takes imagination to build bridges between west and east and especially sincerity. Western Vaishnavism does not mean beef-prasad and whiskey prasada. Just my 2 cents, or paisa.....

Okay, that basic purity, the four principles, goes without speaking, also that shastra are to be revered, but I think that we have more issues internal to our traditions that we have to understand for ourselves and be able to relate to and integrate into a growth experience that leads to wisdom rather than dogmatic guillotine type judgements, so that we are convincing as personalities to outsiders rather than modernizing the whole of the tradition which would inevitably lead to a loss of substance.

I do not mean to say that becoming convincing as a personality rather than a preacher be the aim of sadhana, but that in relating to outsiders that should be the factor and not some clever adjustment of the contents of the tradition. In other words be such a vaishnava that someone seeing you wants to be one too.

The one point you make, Advaitadasji, about the shastra bringing important points accross rather forcefully is a good and helpful one. Also the quote by Sri Vishvanath Cakravartipad is gratefully accepted. By my inclusion "even as an animal", I did not mean to say I expected to go there next birth, I meant to illustrate further the magnanimity of the holy name of Sri Nitai and all other holy names.

One thought though, why is being an animal so horrible except for not being able to appreciate bhakti and take the needful steps toward diksha and sadhana? The judgement included there is not easy to explain to people who have not taken diksha with a genuine guru yet. These kind of harsh statements are often found in shastra, and at least to me they give a sting in the heart ... another item to be explained to someone else.

Considering how difficult a path bhakti is with all these offences left and right and all the rules to be obeyed and understood, this is not for many people. It will always be an elitist small group. How about everyone else? That is why I bring up the compassion issue... I am not saying that those saints who speak harsh words are not compassionate, it just does not show the way we would like to present it to others. In our rather differentiated psychological environment such expressions tend to lead to the opposite, intolerance and fanaticism.

Well yes, this brings us to the heart of this thread: A Rational Approach....
Is there any rational approach to these matters? Rupa Goswami says no : acintya khalu ye bhava na tams tarkena yojayet (BRS) "One cannot argue about inconceivable matters." For those who wish to approach Vedic truths rationally there is not much scope, I'm afraid. It is approached by faith (adau shraddha, BRS) and is furthermore anubhava-vedya, only known through one's own experience. Because of their scientific and rational approach most westerners place themselves out of the scope of GV. It will never be a world religion, as ACBS envisioned rather naively. Because of their simple faith, the Indians have a great advantage over us westerners. Don't get me wrong, I'm not speaking about blind acceptance, hearsay and prejudice, that leads to blind fanatacism or sentimentalism - one must certainly follow shastra, but what is in shastra itself is really not up for negotiation.

Acintya khalu ye bhava na tams tarkena yojayet -- but what about that which is not beyond the reach of the mind and the senses, but nevertheless a part of a religious tradition?

You mean religious practises which cannot be understood by the mind and intelligence? They cannot be reached by the mind and intelligence. Take f.i. Ekadashi - who can explain why we should fast on the 11th day of the moon? Why not on the 12th or the 10th? Why at all? Asking this is futile. The Gosvamis have unanimously prescribed it and it was ordered by Mahaprabhu in CC Madhya 24. It is just to be followed, though it cannot be rationalised.

It seems, however, that many of the "lesser" rules of for instance Hari-bhakti-vilasa have been rationalized as irrelevant due to whatever reason.

That would make an interesting study, read through the HBV and note down how much of it is generally followed.

Krishnacaran Das Baba told me that this - plus anukalpa - is done in order not to make it too difficult for aspirants to join our club. To keep the threshold on a human level, so to say.

But, aspirants aside, how many long-time practitioners embrace all the rules and regulations therein?

Interesting comments. I think we should not confuse faith and tradition with philosophical discourse, because they are not necessarily one and the same.

Let's take the subject of myth as an example. To analyze the symbolism involved and various elements that when taken symbolically rather than as literal truth yield some significant value is entirely different from just disgarding it all as mere superstition.

To speak of myth and symbolism is itself already a rational approach. Myth is in itself complete, it does not represent, it just is, it just speaks, it is a circular process, two dimensional, perfect as a circle is, whereas rationality is linear running towards the indefinite, one-dimensional, but fragmentizing. Rationality and myth do not go together.

Myth is spoken, while rational logic is thought.

Problem is that our era is fully immersed in mental fragmentation. Myth does not speak to us as much anymore as it did at its own time. When we think of myth, we turn it dysfunctional. That is why meditation, acceptance, opening of the heart, and just hear what is spoken is the way to receive myth.

The dilemma we are faced with (and its formidable challenge) is that of reconciling rationalism with mysticism. Is it realistic to expect a person living in today's world to make the quantum leap of faith required to totally disregard all rational thought processes in order to become immersed one hundred percent in the mystical ocean of bhakti and rasa? Is it not more reasonable to give them a starting point that does not require such drastic mental gymnastics?

Consider as well the practical obstacles along the way. You can easily demonstrate that the drinking of urine (from a cow or one's own) is a valid therapy recognized by science for certain medical conditions. That hardly makes it more palatable for someone willing to actually try it to cure themselves of one of those maladies.

The issue is also one of fundamenalism versus something more moderate in approach.

More later... I have a house guest to entertain (have to be 'Vedic' about such things, you know) that should be ringing the doorbell momentarily - called me from his cell phone.

I think all the acaryas have decided to take the essence. yat sara bhutam tad upasaniya - the essence is worshipable. hamsa yathaiva ksiram ambu madhyat - like the swan filtering the milk from the water. As I said before, I believe that Sanatan Gosvami took his task very seriously and presented a comprehensive rule book just to have the GV sampradaya nicely and wholly represented on the stage of Indian religious life. Jiva did the same for siddhanta in the form of the Sandarbhas. Basically the siddhanta of the CC suffices, but Jiva wanted to present comprehensive philosophy, leaving no room for any loopholes or doubts. Not that each Vaishnava has to memorise and practise each syllable of these vast books. They should, however, never be dismissed as ridiculous due to their over-elaborateness.

But, Nabadipji, have you studied any actual Buddhist texts of the same type as HBV etc?

I think you will find they are very similar, and that Tibetan Buddhism and Gaudiyaism in particular have very similar (common?) roots and development.

Thoughtful commentators see through the present hype and note that modern 'compassionate' Buddhism was largely a creation of 19th Century liberal Europeans wishful thinking. As you say it was a product of the demand from those consumers.

Medieval religions all tend to be similar in offering inducements and punishments.

The most shocking 'religious' book I ever read was a Japanese Buddhist Monastic manual, half of which was devoted to the techniques by which the older monks relieved their sexual desires using the young monks.

I do support your analysis of Ananga's 'mysticism versus rationalism' dichotomy though. As I think I've said before, the two are seperate and independent, what's more the world has enough rationality but an increasing mysticism deficit, if demand is any indication!

To respond directly to Ananga, there seems to be no reason at all why we can't present Gaudiyaism to modern westerners as just as enlightened as Buddhism. Historical texts are the same everywhere and don't prevent us.

When talking about rationalism, we have to consider its inherent limitations. There is always going to be a whole gamut of phenomena that we would have to categorize as beyond the reach of intellect. The task before us is this: To arrive at what category all components fit into to decide what updating can be undertaken, if any at all. It is just my personal opinion that some of them are suitable for an overhaul, but not everyone may agree. When it comes to the treatment of women, there may still be some minority out there who firmly believe that they should always hold some inferior position in society. No matter how hard the rest of us try to convince them to change their attitude, they are going to remain stubborn.

If someone has cancer and there is some new treatment that is going to give them an eighty percent chance of a complete cure, are they going to accept what medical science has to offer or are they going to rely upon some Ayurvedic herbal remedy that may or may not have any effect at all on their condition?

There is much to consider, and I have only tried to stimulate an initial dialog on the subject. For lack of a better word, I chose 'rational' for a proposed approach. Perhaps that is somewhat misleading for some, as evidenced by the responses posted here. It really is just to differentiate the approach I had in mind from the quasi-reactionary variety of modernization that has often occured historically.

This is incorrect. Tithis, the so-called lunar days, are not of equal length. If we start from the conjunction of the Sun and the Moon, the first tithi of the bright pakSa will have elapsed when the Moon has gained 12 degrees in longitude over the Sun, the second when the Moon has gained 24 degrees, etc. As 360=30*12, there are 30 tithis in a full lunar cycle, the first fifteen constituting the bright paksa (between conjunction and opposition) and the last fifteen constituting the dark paksa (between opposition and the next conjunction). Since the velocities of the Sun and the Moon varies, the length of each tithi is different. Although it happens rarely, it is possible to have two sunrises within the same tithi; tithis longer than 24 hours thus do occur.

Also, it is not a good idea to use the word "fortnight" here. It suggests a fixed length of time (14 times 24 hours), but a paksa is not a fixed length of time, it varies.


I have a question in this regard. Since the terrestrial Vrndavana is not on the terrestrial equator, there will be variation in the length of daylight throughout the year: during summer the days will be longer, and during winter shorter. Is this taken into account by the sadhaka? Are the pastimes in the various daily lilas adjusted to sunrise at the particular time of year? If so, how is this achieved?

Or is the celestial Vrndavana considered to be like a location on the terrestrial equator where the length of day is constant throughout the year and the sun rises at the same time every day?

Sincerely,
Elpis

Well, astronomical theories that are better and more advanced than those presented in the 5th book of the Bhagavata were certainly available at the time of the composition of that text.

AryabhaTa and Brahmagupta both wrote their treatises on astronomy before the composition of the Bhagavata, and Lalla wrote his at about that time. These astronomers were all aware that the Earth is round, but the Bhagavata still presents a cosmology involving a flat Earth. Perhaps the author(s) of the Bhagavata were not aware of their work or wanted to follow the cosmology delineated in earlier puranas. Lalla's ZiSyadhIvRddhidatantra has a whole chapter (entitled mithyAjJnAna) where the various misconceptions of puranic cosmology are debunked.

The flat Earth cosmology cannot, for example, explain eclipses. If the Moon is further away than the Sun (an idea that Lalla debunks as well), a lunar eclipse cannot be caused by the Moon covering the disc of the Sun. A solar eclipse cannot be explained because if the Earth is flat, there is no possibility of the Moon, which is always above the Earth, to enter into its shadow. Thus Rahu is introduced to account for these phenomena. Lalla has many good arguments as to why eclipses cannot be caused by Rahu. Brahmagupta says that Rahu enters the lunar disc or the Earth's shadow at the time of a solar or lunar eclipse, respectively, thus trying to harmonize things. His commentator PRthUdakasvAmin says that he is afraid of the public opinion, not daring to challenge the cherished beliefs of the common people. Anyway, any serious astronomer at the time of the composition of the Bhagavata would have known that the Moon is closer than the Sun, the real cause of eclipses, etc.

What I am getting at is that while your point has some validity (astronomy has certainly evolved since the days of acarya Brahmagupta!), it does not seem that the author(s) of the Bhagavata consulted professional astronomers when writing down the 5th book; rather a traditional and mythological cosmology was outlined in the work. There is thus more at work here than just the fact that astronomy was not advanced.

Sincerely,
Elpis

I was referring to the division of the degrees of arc into equal parts to derive the tithis and not to any length of time. The actual length of time is variable as you have pointed out, Elpis. I apologize for any confusion. I should have been more clear about it. I was just avoiding getting into the details (as you have done) for the sake of simplicty and in order not to confuse the readers. The main thing is that people understand the distinction between a lunar day and a solar day, since they do not coincide.

Thanks for the information about those medieval astronomers. I was not aware of their work.

I like the idea of independent cottages. That is one feature I found very impressive and practical from a very strict old Christian order, stricter than Trappists (?), called Cartusians. They are into silence and prayer. Each monk has his own little hut which consists of a downstairs where he gets his wood for winter, and an upstairs with a bedroom and a prayer-room. then they have an assembly hall for where they eat together, with a kitchen, and the bathrooms etc. Each hut is facing away from the neighbours'. Then each one has his little garden area...

Ideally a place should not have electricity because that gives you more of a sense of rhythm with nature. It is electric light which takes our attention away from the natural dynamics. I think that would give more of a sense of dependence from the divine and give more inspiration for bhajan. Can't use your laptop though to check in with Gaudiyadiscussions... that would have to happen in the communal section.
That should be top modern though. So I would go for both, simple and modern, but divided.

So less is more. Of course, you Americans with your crap quality in materials would have to go for top quality instead of the cheap solution. Something simple, but solid.

No power and wood burning fireplaces?

Not my idea of comfortable. To each his own I guess. Have fun chopping wood and fumbling around for your lantern in the dark. Personally I detest the burning of wood or anything similar. Although I like the smell, it wreaks havoc on my respiratory tract.

How about in a warm place? Best would be outside, but near the U.S., so non-U.S. citizens can also stay... would have all the advantages, plus not that expensive to build and maintain.

How about in a warm place? Best would be outside, but near the U.S., so non-U.S. citizens can also stay... would have all the advantages, plus not that expensive to build and maintain.

I have leaved through a text in the Theravada tradition. Awfully detailed prescriptions for monks.

But on the teaching side I am not aware of a statement that says you will become an animal next life if you do not become a Buddhist now.

They do have active compassion visualization. Do you think that is a modern introduction?

I wonder about the actual vibrational impact of japa and kirtan. How it pierces the three worlds and it really affects the heart of all the jivas in the universe. Being fully aware of that is a great tool to opening my heart to the fate, destiny and deliverance of all suffering beings without me intruding into their lives.

Sort of like TM practice affecting the Chicago crime rate, but on a really transcendental level...

And what of the real saints effecting that...

Comments please?

I know of a warm place, but it's not exactly in North America. In fact, it's in the middle of the ocean, about as far from continents as you can get. Land here on the windward side of the Big Island is becoming more expensive, but it's still cheaper than many other places. Food can be expensive to buy, but it's also possible to grow your own food all year. Conventional building materials can be a little pricey, too, but there's a movement afoot to promote traditional (for Hawaii) building methods and materials. There is a large, diverse community of Chaitanyaites here. Narayana Maharaja seems to be increasingly influential among the devotees here, but we profess to be welcoming to all devotees of the Lord. I wonder whether anyone would be able to extend that beyond those following Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhnta Sarasvati (perhaps not).

And I don't know about lakes, but there are some properties (prices are going up, kids, so act now!) with waterfalls and ponds. In the '80s, ISKCON Hawaii had an incredibly beautiful 100-acre property with two year-round streams and an enchanting waterfall.

Just an idea . . .

I can't help wondering whether this might be a place where Sarasvata Chaitanyaites and followers of more "traditional" lines could at least live peacefully. Don't worry: I'm not talking about effacing distinctions. But it would be an interesting test. After all, I've known this place as New Navadvipa since 1969.

Please see:

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/roots.html

which summarises a lot of similar comments by Buddhists and historians.

Quote:

'Nontheistic, nondogmatic, nonviolent, emphasizing individual practice rather than institutional membership or obligations, the Buddhism expounded by, say, the Dalai Lama fits nicely with a modern, largely Western world view based on science and respect for the individual...

Is this modernity surprising? Not really, because this Buddhism is itself a modern creation, a late-19th-century development deeply influenced by Western ideas even while emerging as a counterweight to Western colonial domination...

...a handful of cosmopolitan Buddhist intellectuals from Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), Thailand, Burma (now Myanmar), China and Japan created this modern Buddhism. They were aided, curiously enough, by an American, Col. Henry Steel Olcott.

In 1875, Olcott co-founded, with Helena Blavatsky, the Theosophical Society for the study and propagation of an esoteric religious knowledge drawing on spiritualism, Eastern religions and 19th-century science. Five years later, Olcott and Blavatsky went to Ceylon where he embraced Buddhism and was soon founding a Young Men's Buddhist Association, publishing the first "Buddhist Catechism," trying to unite all the different forms of Asian Buddhism around a common denominator of beliefs and encouraging the leaders and intellectuals who would reshape Buddhism for their time.

Naturally, this new Buddhism presented itself as a return to the authentic teachings of the Buddha. The Buddhism of the Buddha's experience of enlightenment was seen...as "most compatible with the ideals of the European Enlightenment, ideals such as reason, empiricism, science, universalism, individualism, tolerance, freedom, and the rejection of religious orthodoxy, precisely those notions that have appealed so much to Western converts."

In effect, this modern Buddhism distanced itself from the actual Buddhism surrounding it. It rejected many ritual elements...implicitly conceding the charges of Western officials and missionaries that Buddhist populations were ridden by superstition and burdened by exploitative monastic establishments: "The time was ripe to remove the encrustations of the past centuries and return to the essence of Buddhism."

That essence was to be found in Buddhist texts and philosophy, not in the daily round of "monks who chanted sutras, performed rituals for the dead and maintained monastic properties."...'

Olcott was quite a character. I believe he was also responsible for inventing the Krishnamurti messiah cult. On this page is a more detailed analysis of the Colonel's impact on modern Buddhism: http://aryasangha.org/index.htm

Costa Rica would be ideal. Belize and Mexico are also alternatives.

How about Cuba?

Only if you're catholic or communist...:-)

You can't be serious. That is about the worst possible choice in the entire Western hemisphere. Besides, US citizens are prohibited from going there.

No, I obviously wasn't. Unless of course we can fix up a good deal with that Castro fellow. Do you think he would be sympathetic to our cause?

What do you think of Babhru's Hawaii idea? It's a rather long & expensive way from Europe. How far / expensive is it from the U.S.?

Kinda ironic that a free country prohibits the movement of its people, isn't it? After visiting China's "Golden Province," I'm convinced that fraternization and money are the best destroyers of communism.

Cuba does have a very developed ox-power program (varnasrama anyone? ), plenty of sugar, and lots of cool old cars (unfortunately with Russian engines, but could also be used with aforementioned oxen also).

And actually, Che had his own vision of a sacred place, of sorts:

"I will be with the people, and I know it because I see it etched in the night that I, the eclectic dissector of doctrines and psycho-analyst of dogmas (!), howling like one possessed, will assault the barricades or trenches, will bathe my weapon in blood and, mad with fury, will slit the throat of any enemy who falls into my hands.

And I see, as if an enormous tiredness shoots down my recent exaltation, how I die as a sacrifice to the true standardizing revolution of wills, pronouncing the exemplary mea culpa. And I feel my nostrils dilated, tasting the acrid smell of gunpowder and of blood, of dead enemy; now my body contorts, ready for the fight, and I prepare my being as if it were a sacred place so that in it the bestial feeling of the triumphant proletariat can resonate with new vibrations and new hopes."

That's not always cheap, either. I think Central America is probably more realistic.

Hawaii sounds like too much sense grat anyway!

I think Mexico gets much closer to creating a true Indian atmosphere.

U.S.A. should be out of consideration, because Europeans can only stay for 3 months, others I do not know. U.S becomes more and more restrictive to travel there. Repeated travel in a year brings up concern in Immigration Service. Now U.S. government has demanded from EU Airlines to be supplied 38 units of info re their passengers including choice of meal. Being a vegetarian is soon qualifiying one for special scrutiny in a place where meat eating is so predominant.

I heard Costa Rica, in the mountains, is an attractive place where new age people go to have/give workshops, yoga... Affordable place, nice people around.

Radhapada, you're fresh out of Costa Rica aren't you? What's your view?

Mina, I do not have the explicit answer to this, I am just aware that there is so much experience available that we should not leave out of consideration. If you look at f.i. a Benedictan monastery as a self-sufficient economic unit, they have a tradition of around 15, 16 hundred years, there is a lot of experience there of what works and what does not. I think this should be considered when talking about one solid house as a residential place, or individual huts etc. I have unpleasent memories of bhakta guest house situations where bhajan is disturbed because of the noise interference from neighbouring rooms, or the distraction of people seeking friendship and laughter rather than seclusion and practice.

The other part is what is to be learnt from what is called the rule (regula) of different orders, such as "ora et labora" of the Benedictans, the spreading of intervalls of prayer and work during the day. that would roughly fit our aroti time schedule idea.

On the other hand insights into impact of book-possession and obsessive learning on a sanga should be considered. Here the idea of the mendicant orders such as the Franciscans comes in. Francis of Assisi started his order on the basis of observation that possessions lead to corruption, and that learning leads to arrogance, so he wanted to institute simplicity instead. There was degradation in that order too, and how it happened should be studied to see what is to learn from it.

Then questions of Hierarchy could be studied from X-ian experiences.

I think sanga tends to get chaotic or sterile if there is not a guiding principle which is really alive from experience through the centuries. It would be wisdom applied rather then just rules imposed.

I am sure there is so much more to learn from others, that I am missing here.

What I really like with Buddhist practice, I do not know how modern introduction that one is, is their dhana dependence. They eat only what they get unasked for. sort of like madhu-kari, but not just chappatis... I do not know, some middle way perhaps.

As a principle I think simplicity is really valuable. Where it starts and stops, no idea, since we are using everything in yukta-vairagiya, even the latest portable DVD player...

There is also Feng shui applied without knowing about it. We should be aware that external circumstances do affect predisposition for internal practices. A wired house is definitely different from a simple hut, just from the electro-magnetic fields created.

Okay, most of it is inevitable, and we can't have the ideal bhajan solution, or bhajan is independent of this. I just meant this as an illustration that simplicity is of real positive value also in our time. and these principles applied can be studied from various traditions where real wisdom has been accumulated. that is the idea here.
Joy Nitai.

Deleted by request of opponent as topic that not belong to gaudiya religion.

What is popular here in Europe now is called building biology (Baubiologie), building with close to zero poison involved plus considering the place about water-veins in the ground that give off radiation, and shutting out electromagnetic impact.
Simple huts in India are certainly close to that biological understanding, except for the omnipresent DDT.

I've heard the complaints about Hawaii and sense gratification for almost 35 years now. It just always seemed to me to be a perfect place for practicing Krishna consciousness because I've generally been able to live simply here. More recently, I've beome burdened with debt (except for the mortgage on our little house, all incurred in California), so my wife and I have to work more than we'd like. Now that we're in our 50s, we'd both like more time for practicing and sharing spiritual life. On some islands, like ours, it's actually possible to live away from the distractions of city life while still having the benefits of American infrastructure and a small city (Hilo has a population of about 40,000) fairly nearby.
That said, I agree about Mexico. I remember observing how simple life was in Mexican villages. And I would probably like Yucatan and Costa Rica very well.

I just started reading "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. Therein he discusses his own and others' theories about how genetic material is propagated from one generation to the next. His thesis is basically this: That traits that are successfully passed on are done so at the level of the individual organism and not at the group or collective species level. His focus is on altruism and whether or not it serves any purpose in survival at the chromosomal level, but that is not what is most interesting. What struck me was how, if we draw a parallel between genetics and religious traditions, we might discern a similar process at work that makes for a successful sect. Let's face it -- Hinduism and its various branches, which include Vaishnavism, have not been all that successful outside of their indigenous regions of the Indian sub-continent and sections of Southeast Asia. Why is that the case? Even Buddhism managed to take hold in large regions of Asia and spread all the way to Japan.

If we consider the individual practitioner as the equivalent of an individual organism and one component of practice as a single gene, and attempt to trace propagation through time, perhaps we can discover what makes one such component more robust and prolific than other less hardy varieties. One key difference in this analogy is that we are pretty much stuck with our genes from birth, whereas we have conscious choices available to us when it comes to spiritual practices and doctrines. So there are basically two principles at work in propagation - those components of practice that are inherited (basically passed on through families and communities) and those that are acquired (people from outside of a tradition are attracted to them and take them up upon learning of them).

Another aspect to the propagation process is what the guru chooses to teach, which can be entirely 'by the book' (whatever he was taught with no changes), some new set of practices and doctrines, or a combination of the two. Certainly there are limits imposed upon anyone in the position of guru by dint of peer pressure and the standards of the community. Still, there are plenty of opportunities for both conscious preservation and introduction of brand new things.

When viewed from this perspective, then those components that have staying power will automatically stand the test of time, whereas those that lack such power will not.

So, then the question is this: Which components have given international Vaishnavism the limited success it has enjoyed? Some further questions: Can these be even further enhanced? Are the others that would be even more successful and that should be exploited instead? Is it all an exercise in futility due to the Asian regions of greatest success being unique as fertile ground?

Actually, I started reading Dawkins' book a while ago but didn't finish due to the pressure of my work (about 650 student essays a semester, and other duties as well). the cultural analog to genes is memes. I've done some reading in this area (but not in the last couple of years), and it raises fascinating questions for devotees hoping to transplant Mahaprabhu's tree in different cultural environments. I'll try to see if I can find some sources in the area of memes other than Dawkins (I think that's why I was reading The Selfish Gene). One name that comes most readily to mind is Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi of the University of Chicago.

Hmm . . . it may be time to revive another project!

Interesting

Can you give us an example of what would constitute a meme?

Someone brought up fundamentalism on another topic.

It brings to mind the famous Clarence Darrow trial that revolved around the controversy of Darwin's theory of evolution:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...opes/evolut.htm

Fundamentalism is just another form of fanatacism. It does little to further the mission of Mahaprabhu, in fact it does more to impede the cause, IMO.

One of the reasons I was attracted to ACBS and accepted him as my guru was because he presented his teachings as coming through a recognized disciplic succession rather than something made up as some other gurus of the time seemed to be doing. I guess my question now is how to present my family roots without sabotaging my preaching work by association with ISKCON. As I have said elsewhere, by 1974 I considered ISKCON detrimental to preaching because of the corruption. How does one carry on the family tradition without carrying on the family disfunction and constantly having to deal with the skeletons in the closets?

Family is a funny thing. My wife and I went to Italy last fall and met some of her family members we previously did not even know existed and learned much family history. I have a brother whom I have minimal contact with because of his dysfunctional behavior and offensiveness to me. Yet when we get together for my mother's 70th and 80th birthdays as we will do next month, we try to get along for my mothers sake.

I realize I am not starting a movement but carrying on a tradition. I simply used that language because that is the title of this discussion. I am part of a tradition, but I realize others before me were reformers and innovators in the tradition. I am likewise. I believe we need more reformers and innovators than blind followers as we seek to adapt the teachings and practices to times and places those who have gone before us could not have imagined.

I understand that through Sri Lalita Prasadji you belong to Sri Jhanavi Thakurani Parivar. That is Sri Gauranga's Family you belong to. Iskcon is not a family, it is an organisation, without real roots in the tradition. In acquainting others with the tradition it should be easy to just mention that you first got to know Sri Gauranga's tradition through this Westernized organisation, but that you have out-grown it. You were there in the beginning, when everything looked promising, and you had the courage to leave, when corruption started. Meanhwile you found out more of the roots of the tradition, and luckily got connected to the real life-line of Sri Gauranga. Iskcon is not your family root. It is just part of your biography, and it is good to acknowledge that part too.

You were looking for a real thing, believing the story about the disciplic succession which turned out ot be a fairy tale only later when you learnt more about the principle of guru-pranali, the life-line of gurus going back to Sri Gauranga's associates, into one of which you got connected.



There were some discussions a while ago about this topic.

Mina started one with this heading:

A Rational Approach to Modernizing, How to make a tradition relevant today

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?showtopic=618

Joy Nitai.

Split. If someone wishes to continue with ISKCON-related comments in this vein, it would be best done in the thread from which this one was split off.

"There were some discussions a while ago about this topic.

Mina started one with this heading:

A Rational Approach to Modernizing, How to make a tradition relevant today"

I have just finished reading this topic. Let me give my response. I believe I see more radical changes needed than was discussed. Of course this is my own opinion and all of you are entitled to yours and I think that is good. It seems you are trying to come to a point of common agreement as to what to include and what to exclude, e.g. make decisions by committee. By doing that you would be able to develop an organization, a sect, etc. Do the various traditional babajis in India consult with one another as to what they will teach and how they will go about their practices? I doubt it, at least not among those who are not directly related. In the same way I think we need to just teach whatever we are comfortable with individually.

Isn't raganuga bhakti "spontaneous devotion"? Why so much emphasis on following regulative principles? That is vaidi bhakti. What about grace and engaging in whatever one does as devotion to Radha Krishna? What about sanatan dharma? Can't we loosen up and universalize this a little more? Regarding the "four regulative principles," aren't they meant for brahmins? Aren't vaishnavas transcendental to all castes and yet in their embodied state may be of any caste or none? Of course, following the four regulative principles is ideal, but are they necessary for all?

Regarding the scriptures, I can't quote the source, but I remember BVT saying, and I quote from memory, "Don't believe everything you read in old books. Much is interpolated to keep the people in line." Some of you admit to the necessity of adjusting the teachings of scripture and other favor not messing with them. Remember, they were all written by people addressing the issues of their time using the knowledge, inspiration and wisdom that was available to them. It's just like if some of us were to write books and five hundred years from now they were considered scripture. If we are removing some of the veils and projections from our living and recent gurus, perhaps we need do so with those more distant.

Just my own thoughts on the subject. Take them or leave them for what they are worth.

Exactly. The concepts like "only those following the 4 regs are human beings" have been proved to be false. In some older thread we discussed that all of us knows "karmis" being a lot more honest and pure than some guys in dhotis with 4 regs. Some things must not be changed, some must. Presently, KC is considered by most Western people as a strange Indian cult or sect. I am sure this is the result of unnecessarily adopting Indian customs, clothes etc. Caitanya Mahaprabhu asked his followers to worship Krishna and to preach the holy names. He never ever suggested that the whole universe should run around in dhotis, eating Indian food with much spice and ghee. But many devotees think that sabji, sikha and dhoti are organic parts of bhakti. In my opinion this is a completely mistaken attitude. Just like you do not have to have a beard and wear long robes in order to become a true Christian, you can be a pure devotee wearing jeans and eating Western food. All these external things often divert the attention from the essence: the change of the heart. So if we ever establish some kind of Gaudiya sangha, I think an important task would be to present people with an alternative, to let them see that becoming a Krishna-bhakta does not necessarily include becoming an Indian and rejecting one's own culture, habits etc.

Funny thing is that most of these 'Indian dishes' are actually Persian and Turkish, Muslim instead of Vedic. Hence these things are not even Indian either, though they are yummy of course!

Openmind,

Let me register a small disagreement.

Since our goal is to change the heart, we will naturally want to adopt, to the fullest extent possible, those practices that help us absorb our hearts in remembering Mahaprabhu and His associates. If the Six Goswamis specifically suggested a practice that today seems too ephemeral or outmoded to be implemented, I think that our ideal should be not to reject it, but rather to find creative ways to implement its essence.

Too often, when I see devotees say that they want to value the "internal" while deemphasizing ephemeral "external" trappings, what they are actually saying is: "I want to superimpose the ideals of Western 'consumer culture' atop the ideals of Vraja-bhakti.'"

I believe that this "West is best" mentality can be just as dangerous as the naîve mentality that says, "We need to recreate 16th century India in our devotional lives today."

However, I think we need to distinguish between the "ideal" and the "acceptable and practical." For example, the ideal is to live in the holy dhama. Yet most of us spend most of our lives in cities that do not directly help us cultivate the mood of the holy dhama. Does this mean we are missing an opportunity to enrich our bhakti? Certainly. Does it mean that our bhakti is hopeless and we should give up until/unless we can hop on a plane to India? Of course not!

Similarly, the standards we maintain in our private bhajan or our temple worship may be counterproductive if showily extended into our dealings with wider society. Dressing the Deities in jeans is a different decision from wearing jeans on the altar. Wearing jeans on the altar is a different decision from wearing jeans during kirtan, which in turn is a different decision from wearing jeans while shopping at the mall. Eating a sabji that Mahaprabhu liked might well be more conducive to our personal bhakti than eating a vegetarian pizza. Yet offering pizza to our guests might be far more conducive to bhakti than turning them off with some exotic dish that they will refuse.

In any case, we ought not to treat our personal choices as mandates for others, aside from the most basic guidelines given in shastra.

I think it is helpful, though, to watch out for a "double-standard" that many maintain even while they assert that "external things" don't matter. Many who say that they don't care about the externals DO in fact have an attachment to some of those "externals." Unless we address this in ourselves, we risk making some bad decisions. For example, take a look at this picture:

http://www.raganuga.com/gallery/details.php?image_id=1

Would our reactions be different if the speaker were wearing a Brooks Brothers suit and a Jerry Garcia tie? Would many be less likely to take initiation from a saint in a suit than from a saint in a dhoti? I think so. Like it or not, many of us do have expectations about devotion and dress.

We do not aspire to enter a divine realm where the gopis are wearing Chanel and the gopas are wearing Brooks Brothers, while driving their SUVs to the Internet cafe where they will eat pizza. As such, the Vraja ideal will naturally inform not only our bhajan, but our choices in daily life. The challenge is to maintain the ideal, while applying the essence -- not simply the "cultural trappings" -- in the real world in which we live.

I think Vamsi Das has made some good points.

Yes I fully agree with Vamsidas. Over the years my personal life here in Holland has become an intricate and fascinating mixture of Indian and western lifestyles. In my country it is a clear 'no no' to go out in dhoti. It is too cold and is really drawing a lot of laughs and jeers, while I want to keep a low profile. At home, during devotional activities like cooking, puja, kirtan, arati and japa I do wear devotional clothes, already because they are much cleaner than pants. To do puja or arati in bluejeans I find very impure and disrespectful. I use soap instead of clay on the toilet but I do use water and dont wear cotton cloth there. The dishes I cook for the deities are also a mixture of Indian and western dishes. Etc etc. You get the point. It takes some intelligence and sincerity to find a proper version of Vaishnava sadacara in 21st century western countries.

I would expect different approaches, but it is true that if we jettison too many of the cultural elements, much of the spirit will be lost.

We may want to note that some of those "externals" are specifically outlined as aspects of sAdhana-bhakti in Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu (1.2.84) - dhRtir vaiSNava-cihNAnAM, to carry the marks of a vaiSNava. Note that the verse does not speak of the marks of an Indian gentleman or anything of the sort, but of the marks of a vaiSNava. They are explained further on (1.2.122) as being a necklace of tulasI-beads, tilaka-markings, and so forth.

Pandit Sri Ananta Das Babaji comments on this in his TIka on Visvanatha's Raga-vartma-candrika:

>>> While putting on the twelve marks of tilaka, which constitute the twelve forms of Narayana, the Vaishnavas pronounce Sri Hari’s holy names like Kesava, Narayana, Madhava and Govinda, and think of placing the twelve-fold energy of Lord Narayana, such as fame, luster, satisfaction and nourishment, on the twelve parts of the body. Thus, by wearing the Vaishnava-tilaka that is described in the scriptures, and by meditating with it on the power of Vishnu, the body, mind and life-airs of the Vaishnavas will gradually and habitually become Vishnumaya, filled with Vishnu.

Not understanding these secrets of the wearing of beads and tilaka, some people say: “Bhakti is an internal matter, what is the use of these external signs like mala and tilaka? You cannot just purify the heart by wearing the signs of a Vaishnava. When one engages in sadhana bhajana for purifying one’s heart, then what use is this wearing of external signs?”

To this, one may answer that by wearing signs like the mala and the tilaka, the Vaishnava awakens his svarupa-jnana, his awareness of his constitutional position, and since this is a positive act of surrender to the Lord, it is most helpful in bhajana. Apart from that, one can find even more glorifications mentioned. Therefore, it is definitely a duty to wear the mala and tilaka from the beginning of one’s engaging in bhajana. If not, the dignity of devotion and the devotee will be diminished and Sri Hari will not be pleased. <<<

Interestingly, dhoti and sikha are nowhere mentioned as signs of a vaiSNava. However, as Advaitadas points out, and indeed as suggested throughout the scriptures dealing with worship (arcana), one ought not to engage in worship of the Deity with impure clothes. Impure in this connection means clothes that have been used outside the house, or otherwise inside the house while engaged in acts of cleaning and so forth. If one is for some reason unable to wear a simple dhoti or lungi (I find them more simple and comfortable to wear) while worshiping, it is of course possible to use other kinds of clothes, provided that they are pure.

Of course, in following the principle of nAdevo devam arcayet, that one must be akin to a deva to worship the deva, we will certainly find it helpful to also externally adopt an attire akin in style to that of the deva, to blend in with the environment so to say, to assist us in awakening our svarUpa-jJAna. Now, of course we don't dress up as maJjarIs here, since that has been specifically added to the restricted list of activities, for those in male bodies anyway. I suppose if ladies like to dress up gopI-style, it is all right.

I don't think it is a matter of West is best. If I were to go to India, I would most happily wear a lungi, etc. I recentlly gave serious consideration to doing that here, but didn't think that would go over too well in West Michigan. I don't wear a Brooks Brothers suit, but usually casual Western clothes. Of course I find that a disadvantage and consider Indian gurus to have an unfair advantage by virtue of just being exotic, spiritual Indians in the minds of Westerners whether they are learned and advanced or not. People are gulllible.

I do agree the various devotional practices including dress are helpful for focusing our consciousness on the spiritual. However, many or most of them are impractical for the average Westerner, even those who are well intentioned. I don't think it is necessary to make everyone a brahmin, sannyasi or babaji. That was a major flaw in ISKCON, except for the babaji part.

As for diety worship, I don't have dieties, just pictures to aid my meditation. Therefore, I don't concern myself with ritual purity. It doesn't matter.

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says that how so ever a devotee approaches him, he responds accordingly. While I find the Vraja ideal which has been passed down to us very attractive, it is none the less an ideal Indian pastoral society from a time long past. While I do not want to replace it with a yuppie society as you suggest is the alternative, it might be nice to have some updating and Western influence in the eternal, spiritual Vraja too. For example, playing electric guitars and synthesizers might be part of my service to the divine couple. After all, the spiritual world is unlimited.

This comes down to a question of whether the realm of Vraja is derived from the social climate of a pastoral society from a time long past, or whether the realm of Vraja is an eternal reality which descended into this world when the ebb and flow of the time came to a point when a clear semblance of the eternal realm was manifest on earth.

The reason for our hesitance over tampering with the landscape and social conventions of the realm of Vraja arises out of an understanding that the realm of Vraja as we know of it is the ideal scenario in which rasa may find its fullest expression, the utopian playground if you will, in which nothing lacks in essence.

If you wanted to play electric guitars and synthesizers, you would need some electricity in Vraja, and for that electricity, you would need electric wires and power plants, and so forth. Why, one may ask, is it not the realm in which everything comes as required, as if magically delivered? Yes, certainly that potential is there, but to preserve the mood of nara-lIlA (human pastimes), the scenario must remain realistic so as to not disturb the intimacy of the moods there.

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

Excellent points! I think it is rather difficult for one to dictate, in absolute terms, what is "the" rational approach to modernizing practice. We need to assimilate the essence into our lives while being very conscious that we don't chose what is essence based on what we truly care to practice as opposed to what is the actual essence (okay that makes a lot of sense in my head but I don’t know if I articulated it very well).

Anyhow great post.

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

I would like to believe the second premise is true. However, I have become cynical, skeptical and rational. I have wondered why if that is the way the spiritual Vraja is and our eternal relationship is to be manjaris, why do we have to do all this visualization to make it so. It's like all the Gaudiya vaishnavas have agreed on a common vision for the next life and by everyone focusing on that it becomes so. After all, our next life is the result of our thoughts and actions in this life. Besides, it's a lot more enjoyable thinking about the Vraja leela than what is going on in this world so there is no loss. How we visualize things to be is usually how they manifest. It would be nice to regain a second naivete.

The rest of your post makes sense. When you have a good thing going, why mess with it.

Radhe! Radhe!

Here's a challenge for your rational sensibilities: Does it even matter whether the Vraja lila is "true" in the historical sense? What if it were merely "optimal for experiencing rasa" and Mahaprabhu embraced it as such?

If there were some eternal lila that included electricity and electric guitars, but this eternal lila lacked the intimacy of the Vraja lila, then doesn't it make perfect sense that Mahaprabhu and His followers wouldn't be interested in pursuing the less intimate lila?

Can you apply your rational sensibilities to the question of "aesthetic" vs. "historical" truth? We know, for example, that the denizens of Vraja are ignorant of some "truths" that we in this forum take for granted. Here, we understand Radha and Krishna as the topmost forms of divinity, and have no interest in demigod worship. In Vraja, however, the young girls worship Katyayani, and have no concept of their beloved Krishna as God.

So we know that there are "facts" unknown in Vraja. But if Vraja lila is the topmost aesthetic truth, then don't questions of history or theology or fact become secondary, if not entirely irrelevant?

Of course, Mahaprabhu's historicity is undisputed, and His example provides a historical "anchor" for the truths of Vraja lila. So we should not be so quick to dismiss the historicity of Vraja lila -- though this is a secondary point at best, as Vraja lila's aesthetic truths are far more satisfying and transformative than any mere historical truths.

Historical truth doesn't matter. Quality of rasa matters. I agree.

In regards to the exact historicity of the pastimes narrated, of course in the end it is doubtful whether all pastimes occured exactly as depicted. There is certainly room for the individual insight of the loving devotee, and that insight in itself becomes the reality in which the loving devotee dwells, and the kingdom of rasa unveils as the veils are pulled aside by his various deep aspirations and insights.

Certainly new components may be introduced through the divine insight of the loving devotee, but they must be compatible with the scenario of Vraja. For example, it is generally thought that Vatsyayana, the author of Kamasutra, lived sometime in the early centuries of the common era. Nevertheless, we find in particular Visvanatha narrating pastimes in which Sri Krishna and the cowherd damsels jokingly refer to the hymns of sage Vatsyayana. Evidently these elements have therefore been introduced into the kingdom of lila through the devotional insight of the loving devotee, but they are fully compatible.

In the end, the compatibility and non-compatibility of elements can obviously be justly assessed only by a person well experienced in the intricacies of rasa. Hence, let us proceed with caution in recreating the setting of the lila in our hearts.

Eternal certainly, but is it inherent within us since time beginningless? As far as I have researched the matter, it is not. Logically, if it is not inherent, work is required to internalize the scenario, although the ultimate catalyst for the revelation always remains grace.



Certainly the principle is that whatever we visualize during sAdhana, that we will attain in our siddha-deha, this has been established. Why not, then, recreate the lila in our minds in the scenario of the 70's, free sex revolution and all of that? Would that be theoretically possible? Well, if visualization and mental work was all there was to it, then in theory yes, it would. However, the mere act of visualization is a futile mental exercise if the essential dynamics of smaraNa are neglected; smaraNa as an act of devotion must comply with the principles of uttama-bhakti, it must be anukUla, favorable for the optimal scenario of rasa, as our devotional intention ought to be to selflessly serve God our level best. If we are to serve someone our level best, we are to inquire into His needs and the specific nature of His taste. Once that has been ascertained, we may begin to pursue the path of ideal servitude. Therefore, a truly loving devotee will end up with the scenario of Vraja, the land in which rasa reaches its zenith.

Could you give an example of an author and a work of his or hers, for which it is true that the mentioning or recitation of the work by the milkmaids would be incompatible with the scenario of Vraja? Or is it rather the manner in which it is integrated into the narrative rather than its contents that decide whether or not it is compatible?

Sincerely,
Elpis

I cannot think of one. I could, however, imagine that the text of Vatsyayana could be presented in rather distasteful ways which would not be befitting for the realm of Vraja.

In my post, I employed the example of Vatsyayana's text as an example of the general principle that an element may be introduced to the lila, and that Visvanatha had accomplished that succesfully in the case of Vatsyayana's text. However, a less accomplished author could very well come up with a distasteful outcome. I would rather not start devising examples of this, I am certain we can all think of something.

The narration in the fifth chapter of Antya-lila in Caitanya Caritamrita is very instructive in this regard. One must heed cautiously so as to not present contrary conclusions and incompatible flavors in narrations of lila and in hymns of praise.

Sometimes it happens that when a beginner attempts, in his fresh enthusiasm, to explain the lIlA in new ways by dint of his speculative faculty, it only brings about pain and discomfort in the hearts of those who are more acquainted with the transcendental dynamics of lIlA. Hence, Caitanya would have Svarupa approve all poetry and narration that someone wanted to present to him, so as to not disturb his natural flow of loving emotions.

Thank you for the clarification. It seems, then, that it is more a question of presentation rather than a question of contents when new elements are introduced. This is what makes sense to me. A village is a dynamic environment, and travellers could bring in all sorts of tales and new elements.


Yes, great qualification is needed, both in terms of knowledge and in terms of actual advancement in bhakti. It is a rare and great soul who has the qualifications to present such narrations. ho d' olbios, hon tina Mousai philôntai: glukerê hoi apo stomatos rheei audê, "Blessed is he whom the Muses love: sweet is the speech which flows from his mouth" (Homeric Hymns, 25.4-5).

Sincerely,
Elpis

As a disciple of ACBS, I am under the impression that the soul is unchanging, eternal, immutable and has a relationship with Krishna which is eternal. It is like a diamond that has to be picked up from the mud and washed off or something that grows from its own nature such as an oak tree grows from an acorn. In other words it is "inherent within us since time beginningless." Elsewhere, it was recently said that Sridhar Maharaj was critical of Bhaktivedanta's understanding of the nature of the spirit soul. Is there a discussion where this has been elucidated more thoroughly or a website you can direct me to? If not, could you provide more clarification? Thank you.

Here is a recent thread

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?showtopic=1017

Thanks. I just read three pages of it, but the discussion seemed to quickly deteriorate into whether it is right to question the teachings of ACBS rather than a discussion of the nature of the embodied jiva. Too bad.