Shiva's Philosophy - The theology of Dirty Hari

Instead of cluttering all ongoing topics with obscure debates over his views, let us focus our efforts into this single thread and keep all posts related to Shiva's philosophy here, and not elsewhere.

If Shiva wishes to comment on other topics, he should do that by presenting appropriate references from the gauDIya-granthas at his disposal; otherwise, he should post here.

Perhaps Shiva (Dirty Hari) could open the show with a clear delineation of his philosphy/theology, and particularly those aspects of it we seem to be unable to comprehend.

For people who take Mahaprabhu as their ultimate preceptor I am glad you take His instructions to heart...trnad api sunicena...

As for all the rest I am simply making the point that you claim that gopi bhava is what Mahaprabhu teaches and nothing else, I disagree.

As for your claims of superiority that is fine with me, and to be expected.

Still until one actually meets Radha (within) one would be well advised to see oneself as somewhat lacking in the arena of "knowing" Radha Dasyam, after all:

In Srimad Bhagavatam (3.29-21-27), Lord Kapiladeva explains:

"I am present in every living entity as the Supersoul. If someone neglects or disregards that Supersoul everywhere and engages himself in the worship of the Deity in the temple, that is simple imitation.

"One who worships the Deity of Godhead in the temples but does not know that the Supreme Lord, as Paramatma is situated in every living entity's heart, must be in ignorance and is compared to one who offers oblations into the ashes.

"One who offers Me respect but is envious of the bodies of others and is therefore a separatist never attains peace of mind, because of his inimical behaviour towards other living entities.

"My dear mother, even if he worships with proper rituals and paraphernalia, a person who is ignorant of My presence in all living entities never pleases Me by the worship of My Deities in the temple.

"Performing his prescribed duties, one should worship the Deity of the Supreme Personality of Godhead until one realises My presence in his own heart and in the hearts of all other living entities as well.

"As the blazing fire of death, I cause great fear to whoever makes the least discrimination between himself and other living entities because of a differential outlook.

"Therefore, through charitable gifts and attention, as well as through friendly behaviour and by viewing all to be alike, one should propitiate Me, who abide in all creatures as their very self."

I finally got the clue! Dirty Hari = Dirty Harry = Clint Eastwood = cowboy = cowherd boy! It all adds up! This is his eternal siddha gopa-nama in marshmallow Goloka! He actually mercifully revealed his siddha svarupa to us!

Why how fitting, each and everyone of you can be as offensive as you like as long as you tow the party line , but if someone presents a different point of view he is removed.....good luck with that thing called bhakti lata bija.

Have you been removed? I mean, in terms of these forums?

Thank you for your kind advice, Shivaji. We are well aware of these verses. May we expect some of the same from you ?

I have told you where you went wrong with me. If you want to correct that, then feel free.

While you're at it, why not find an avatar that is more appropriate to the spirit of this forum. Could it be that the ones you choose have the specific purpose of being "in our face"?

Is this your way of showing that you respect the presence of Krishna in the hearts of those who come to this forum? Do you go into a church playing rap music on a ghetto blaster? Not the same? It's a matter of degree.

Don't think you fool us with your holier-than-thou advice to be humble and lower than the straw in the street. We are not quite that blind.

O.K. Finished with that.

I agree, Shivaji. Madhava has taken the moderator's prerogative and split a thread. He has given you your own area where you have the chance to explain to us your own philosophy. Admittedly we find it unorthodox, but no one has kicked you out.

I believe you were saying that Radha is Krishna, and therefore Krishna cannot enjoy her and so the gopis are best served by devotees in male bodies who can pleasure them. Am I correct in this understanding?

Now you know, you are not as way out as you may think. There are Sufis who also sometimes have expressed divine love as a man to a woman, and some scholars have even opined that the metaphor is to the love of a homosexual man for a boy lover! Divine love is full of surprises. But then this verse from the Gopala Champu also gives pause--

kSauNI-bhAraM vidhUya svar-adhipatim api sthApyaitvAdhipatye
svaM goSThaM hRSTamatyA vrajitavati harau tena sArdhaM sakhAyaH
aGgAny AliGgya tasya zrita-zayanatayA vRttam ApRcchya sAmnA
vaktreNAspRzya vaktraM hRdayam api hRdA sakthi-saktha nidadruH

When Krishna had erased the burden placed on the world
and reestablished Indra on his throne;
he joyfully returned to the cowherd pasture
where he was greeted by his sakhas.
They embraced him with their limbs and lay down together with him.
They engaged in sweet and pleasing conversation.
Their mouths touched, their hearts touched, their thighs touched,
and they went to sleep.

Let's not read too much into that. But it does remind me of Sudama Maharaj asking his favorite brahmacharis at night, "Well, what do you think Krishna does all the time with his cowherd boyfriends?"

So you are quite right. God transforms himself according to the desires of his devotees. But if, as you yourself stated, we are to bend to His will, then perhaps we should take account of our sampradaya's teachings. After all, I think frankly that Bhaktivedanta Swami would be not a little shocked to hear you presenting your philosophy as having the remotest connection with his teachings. It seems I have heard you profess allegiance of some sort to Srila Prabhupada. Perhaps you could clarify your relation to him and to Sridhar Maharaj, whom I believe you also frequented for a while. I doubt that he would look kindly on the doctrines you espouse either.

But to get back to Radha and Krishna--yes, Radha IS Krishna. But Brahman has become two in order to enjoy. The two moieties, to use Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's expression, are meant for increasing each other's pleasure. Perhaps you could explain your philosophy in light of the fourth chapter of Chaitanya Charitamrita Adi Lila?

Maybe this will help:

sa vai naiva reme | tasmAd ekAkI na ramate | sa dvitIyam aicchat | sa haitAvAn Asa yathA strI-pumAMsau sampariSvaktau | sa imam evAtmAnaM dvidhApatayat | tataH patiz ca patnI cAbhavatAm | tasmAd idaM bRgalam iva sva iti ha smAha yAjJavalkyas tasmAd ayam AkAza striyA pUryata eva tAM samabhavat tato manuSyA ajAyanta |

“He did not enjoy. Therefore one does not enjoy when alone. He desired a second. So He transformed Himself, becoming as a man and woman locked in embrace. He divided the one atma into two parts, becoming husband and wife. From that pair comes all this universe, so says Yajnavalkya. That sky is fulfilled by woman, and by going to her, mankind was born.” (Satapatha-brahmana 14.4.2.4)

Jai Radhe!

Your attempts to pretend that what I wrote was not in line with the topic of that thread is beneath you guys, it was exactly what that thread was about.

What happened to "shivas Funky theology" in that colorful segueway ?

You guys are clearly " the in crowd " here and can get away with anything, anytime, but if someone has a difference of opinion , bang zoom he gets verbally abused and deemed inappropriate.

Fine.


Lets at least not lie to ourselves as to the rules here.

We left the relevant posts in there. They are still in that thread. The other issues have been moved here.

I erased "funky." I thought it was unnecessarily confrontational. Madhava evidently had second thoughts about the title of this thread also. Thank you, Madhava.

So let's cool off. Yes, we are the in-crowd. So remember--when you are in someone else's space, you behave with a little consideration. You are welcome to your opinions, but don't think that you have unlimited freedom.

I have told you quite plainly about how we perceive you, and why. Think about it. You are the cause of our perceptions. It is not just your different opinions. Plenty of people come here with various opinions and most of them get by fine. Yes, it is true that there is a majority opinion on Gaudiya Discussions--that is why we congregate here and not on the "Bombay Gay In-line Country and Western Dancers Forum."

This is our space and this is where we discuss, deepen and defend our vision of devotional and spiritual life. As far as I am concerned, you are welcome here--but if you have a theology that does not agree with ours, what do you expect us to do? We can say, "joto mot toto path" and ignore you. And believe me, we're cool with that. But that would not be really what we are about.

We feel strongly about raganuga bhakti--many of us have sacrificed good positions in Iskcon or elsewhere to pursue it, with little in the way of glory or other reward. So if you come here you can expect us to feel strongly about what we have given our lives to. Does that make sense?

Actually it is a play with words:


Brahma Samhita text 45

ksiram yatha dadhi vikara-visesa-yogat
sanjayate na hi tatah prthag asti hetoh
yah sambhutam api tatha samupaiti karyad
govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami



Just as milk is transformed into curd by the action of acids, but yet the effect curd is neither same as, nor different from, its cause, viz., milk, so I adore the primeval Lord Govinda of whom the state of Sambhu is a transformation for the performance of the work of destruction.

From Bhaktisiddhantas purport

The supremacy of Sambhu is subservient to that of Govinda; hence they are not really different from each other. (just like the Guru represents God and is the subservient potency of God and therefore non different then God ) The nondistinction is established by the fact that just as milk treated with acid turns into curd so Godhead becomes a subservient when He Himself attains a distinct personality by the addition of a particular element of adulteration. This personality has no independent initiative. The sail adulterating principle is constituted of a combination of the stupefying quality of the deluding energy, the quality of nonplenitude of the marginal potency and a slight degree of the ecstatic-cum-cognitive principle of the plenary spiritual potency. ( exactly the same as a jiva )


Brahma Samhita text 46

From Bhaktisiddhantas purport

Hence Vishnu is the full subjective portion and belongs to the category of the superior isvaras. He is the Lord of the deluding potency and not alloyed with her. Vishnu is the agent of Govinda's own subjective nature in the form of the prime cause. All the majestic attributes of Govinda, aggregating sixty in number, are fully present in His majestic manifestation Narayana. Brahma and Shiva are entities adulterated with mundane qualities e.g dirty

So Shiva=dirty hari

Here is something Shiva posted elsewhere.



Just to clarify: I never read this before today.

I went over the thread carefully to see whether there was any justification for accusing me of "ad hominem" attacks. I don't think that this is really the case.

I have stated that I feel some irritation with Shiva's personality and I have pinpointed the exact reasons.. This is not ad hominem, this is up front. Shiva does not wish to address those reasons, thus refusing to defuse that source of difficulties. It is not difficult--he can do so in a personal message if he likes.

The fact is that he shows in so many subtle ways that his interest is not to interact with us on a personal level, but rather to provoke. If this is a mistaken perception, then he is welcome to correct it.

Nevertheless, we have shown our willingness to put those things aside and ask him to stick to the discussion and answer the many substantive points that have been made.

We are sorry if we are not sufficiently humble for you, Shiva. We are the first to admit we are unworthy of Rupa and Raghunath. And I offer you my sincere personal apologies if I have offended you in any way.

Now answer some of our points. And if you really want friendly, act friendly.

Another hint: We have names. Using initials sounds overly familiar and somewhat condescending. These are little, unimportant things, you say? Perception is important. Think about it.

But I should have complimented you for taking a little more care in formatting your posts, as we asked you to do some time ago. That was a positive. And yes, your "Dirty Hari" pun is very clever.

And, by the way, personalities aside, many people here find your philosophy weird. It's yours to defend. But let's forget Rupa and Raghunath. We will stand by Bhaktivedanta Swami on this matter.

So, there are a lot of balls in your court, Shivaji. We look forward to your answers.

Humble request: Let's get the personal stuff out of the way first.

Where has Sheevie written that males other than Krishna can best serve the gopis?

And..........




Where is that forum?! I've been searching for something like that and if finally I find it, my heart will know rest.

Right here.

And there is this HERE:

Ad hominem means a personal attack,,as opposed to a philosophical debate, you and others always (almost) end up attacking me personally, while I attack your philosophy, this is up front.

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the man"), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attempting to discredit the person offering the argument or assertion. A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

1. A makes claim B;
2. there is something objectionable about A,
3. therefore claim B is false.

Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse. As technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite it's lack of subtlety."

{from wikipedia}




Sorry if i'm not a good little stepford wife, nevertheless I have a point of view, if you think that it is wrong, no problemo man, does that mean you guys are going to resort to the ad hominem style in order to defend your point of view ?

If all you want is for people to agree with you why don't you state that on the front page in bold type ?

Besides that lighten up some kids, who's in control ?

Thats right...the same ol thing thats always in control...try to see me as part of that reality and learn to laugh more.

You have also come out against our scriptures.(WHERE DID I DO THAT ? I JUST SAY YOU INTERPRET THEM WRONG) You think that we are a bunch of witless repeaters of empty words (I paraphrase things you have yourself written.) (NEVER SAID THAT)You have somehow gone beyond the scriptures (far beyond) with your own deep practice of spiritual life to realize that you are "bhoktAram yajJa-tapasAm": quite a coup, I agree.( HOW KIND OF YOU TO SAY...AD HOMINEM ATTACK)

We don't understand you Sheevaji. You tell us we are arrogant, but frankly, I find you even more arrogant than Kshamabuddhi. At least he has some devotion to his gurus, some sense of self-reflection, not to speak of being a sincere family man. He is hopelessly confused, but better to be confused than adamant in error.(AD HOMINEM ATTACK)

You think that you are playful; you think that you have a sense of humor; you think that you are a philosopher; you think that you have some deep insight into spiritual life. You are wrong on all counts, at least from my own, admittedly narrow, vantage point.(AD HOMINEM ATTACK)

But, if I reflect, I can pinpoint the moment when I formed my opinion of you, when my feelings of generosity to you were seriously hampered--it was when I asked you to open up a little about yourself. When discussing things with people who hold radically different opinions it is always better to know a little more about that person. It is easy on the Internet to hide behind stupid avatars and signature lines, to invent a persona for public consumption and to not be real. That is not the way I envision these forums here, nor do I think that is the way Madhava sees them. But your response was a facetious bit of feeble-mindedness.(AD HOMINEM ATTACK)

So go be a sakha or whatever your individual viewpoint of bhakti is. You have your own discussion bored I believe, that even less people go to than Kshamabuddhi's. Figure it out, buddy. If you want respect, you'll have to do more than tell us that we don't know anything. (AD HOMINEM ATTACK)


That was just one post, there are many more examples that I wont bring up.

Why the viciousness ?

All I did was give a point of view on an issue, because that point of view posits yours as not necessarily the highest most perfected vision and understanding...I get the above as the result, and not just from you.

And then to top it off you all get on your high horses as if I am the great offender, what was my great crime...I didn't do as you wanted and don't see things like you do, off with 'is head


P.S i dont have a forum, vraja sangha samiti is an open forum that i created, but I dont moderate, if you want to know, it has a huge readership, not just devotees who read but don't post, but the biggest audience is from other non gaudiya forums i participate in and link back to VSS, these sites are huge forums with hundreds of people online at any given time, thousands have visited VSS and do so daily.

It is easier for an arguer to accuse his opponent of ad hominem attack, than to acknowledge the limitations of his own presentation or understanding.

Especially if the arguer is a narcissist, and is unable to see the shortcomings in his argument or presentation, he will often imagine a personal attack where none exists -- especially when his argument relies more on his own personality than he realizes.

AD HOMINEM ATTACK.

AMAZING.

Shiva ji, it is obvious that you have little to contribute that would be of much interest to the main audience of these forums, and likewise the main audience of these forums seems to have little to contribute to you. Please, therefore, do the needful and find a place where your views and presence are warmly welcome, instead of posting your comments here. I am personally growing really tired of these topics where you go on and on with your arguments, and I am seriously beginning to think that even this one single topic may be too much air time here.

If you seriously consider that you can be a constructively contributing member of our online community, then please, by all means, demonstrate how that might be the fact. I think you are quite well aware of the general views and aspirations of the regular participants here, along with the fact that your views are not exactly in sweet harmony with that. I am fond of encouraging people to go to places where they can find like-minded association.

You are somewhat confused about "ad hominem", Shivaji.

Ad hominem is when one says, "Your argument is invalid because you are what you are--a woman, a black, a fool, a wimp," etc.

My post was not an "argumentum ad hominem," but a deliberate criticism of your personality.

This was quite separate from my and others' responses to the theological points that you made, which we have been answering with numerous quotes, logical points and demands for clarification. None of which, I observe, you have responded to. Rather, you have decided to whine about our treatment of you and ask for us to "lighten up."

My response to you is to get serious. As I say in the post that you quoted above, I at least do not find you particularly funny, only childish. And yet you are a man of over 45 years of age, are you not?

I had hoped we could get the personal stuff out of the way. I made it very clear in several places what I expected of you, but it seems that it is too late for that now. Just as I realized in the earlier events I have alluded to several times now, you are not interested in sincere exchanges.

So forget that. You don't want me to change my opinion of you.

So just answer any of the theological points that have been raised in this thread. Stop trying to divert the discussion to our so-called "ad hominem" attacks. Answer the points or go find your amusements elsewhere.

(1) You can start by telling us what the status of your relation to Iskcon and the Gaudiya Math. You seem to have adopted your own original siddhanta, so I would like to know whether you accept any authorities.

(2) Second, you deny above that you ever criticized the shastras or said that the people on this forum are too fixed on books and have no realization (paraphrase). I am sure that I read something you wrote of this sort somewhere, probably on saraswata.net. Perhaps you could clarify what exactly is your relation to the shastra.

I ask these questions so that I can orient my responses to you.

(3) And then please explain how your concept of Radha-tattva relates to the Chaitanya Charitamrita Adi 4, if that book has any meaning for you.

Alam vyartha-kAlAtikSepeNa.

Madhava- I was giving a point of view on a topic, you guys attacked me, then you started this thread and Jagat asked me to to respond.

Where am I at fault ?
What was my crime ?

If you don't want people with a different opinion then yours why not state as much on the opening page in bold print.

SYCOPHANTS ONLY or something like that.

All I have done is present opinions which utilize shastra (go back and check) yet I am repeatedly attacked as if I am commiting a crime for having a different opinion on tattva, is this what your guru marga represents ? Attacking anyone who differs from your own conception ?

A philosophical attack is one thing, but you guys are not satisfied when I don't surrender and then I am treated as the "great offender".

If you feel this is how you want to represent your line, fine, but all I can say is that all of your talk about how other groups are sectarian for not accepting your line of thought, well...now you see why...call it karma if you like.





My authority is with me at all times, with you also.



I have never criticized any authorized shastra, if you cannot show where I have, why say such a thing ? (saying kama sutra has been interpolated does not count).
Nor have I ever said you guys read to much, though I think someone did say that, in any event I did no such things. Making these kinds of attacks are what I speak of, why the animosity ? Because I disagree with your philosophy ? Where is the respect that you demand of others ?



I have allready gone through this at an earlier thread which you gave a link to in this thread.

Is that good ? Have I passed inspection ? Do I need to kneel or sumpin to get my knighthood ?

You guys are being way too hard on Sheevie and taking him way too seriously.

Lighten up.

What Gives..?

Why is Shiva so bothered that there are other practicing Gaudiyas outside GM/Iskcop...?

Dear Shivaji,

I am truly sorry that I got irritated with you so publicly. I really should have sent you a personal message right in the very beginning when I asked you to talk about yourself, rather than putting you on the spot out in the open.

I was also irritated by your avatar, which I felt was mocking this forum and the people on it.

It was not right of me to make this so public and I am truly sorry.

Your servant, Jagat.

Dear Dirty Hari,

Whatever faults this forum may have -- or that I and other participants may have -- I don't think it is quite correct to label it a "SYCOPHANTS ONLY" forum.

There is tremendous diversity of opinion here. For example, I suspect that if they ever had to do a detailed point-by-point comparison of their beliefs and priorities, you would find a far greater difference between Advaitadas and Jagat than between yourself and many of the posters here. Yet they manage to have civil, meaningful and useful communications.

You could find a similarly large divergence of belief and practice between Audarya-lila dasa and Madhava.

Or between Babhru and nabadip.

Or between me and various others.

And yet, for the most part, we figure each other out. Sometimes we cause offense, or are offended, but through careful and respectful communication we usually figure each other out, and learn something in the process.

Dirtyji, I urge you to think about why your situation seems to be different. Others on this forum have shown that they can communicate effectively and meaningfully even though they have substantial differences in belief and perspective. So why have you had a different experience? Is it because you are a misunderstood genius? Is it because everybody is out to persecute you for your wonderful realizations? Or is it simply that there are "community standards" here that just don't fit with your particular mode of presentation?

Different communities can and do have different standards -- and the consequences of violating those standards will differ from community to community. If you visit a nudist colony but keep your clothes on, you may be ridiculed. If you take your clothes off, you will be welcomed. But if you take off your clothes and walk the streets of Chicago, you may be taken into custody by the civil authorities.

Same behavior, different community, different consequences for violating community standards.

Perhaps it is true that you can't expect to conduct yourself on this forum in the same way you find comfortable on other forums. But I don't think it means that you need to be a "SYCOPHANT" to post effectively. I hope you will find a way to continue posting and make yourself better understood and appreciated here.

Thank you, Vamsi.

wonderful praise for what this forum is all about

We CAN be gentlemen to agree to disagree in the realm of spiritual thought and practise here at gd

Shivaji can either bring out the best or worst in us
He is definitely thought-provoking

.

I apologize if I upset some of you, I have my own vision and wish to throw that into the mix now and then, I don't hold any grudges, in fact I expect everyone to hold what they believe as the highest truth as superior to everyone else, this is only natural among spiritualists who believe they have discovered the absolute truth, I expect Sridhara Maharaja's followers to think in that way, Narayana Maharaja followers to be in that mood, or ISKCON or Bhakitvedanta followers as well, or even catholics or jews, or you guys as well, I am no different.

As far as the forum I created I did that because I participate at a lot of non gaudiya forums, I needed a place to send people to now and then as I cultivate various audiences towards Vedic thought, I noticed that there was no Vaisnava forum I felt comfortable sending anyone towards, audharya used to be o.k., but it has turned into a den of fanatics, I can't send people here because these conversations would be confusing for a non gaudiya or non vedic person, So essentially there was nowhere for me to send people for them to get an overview without running into anything unusual or fanatic.

I accept all of you as following what Radha decides for you, I am no different, feel free to contribute at vraja sangha samiti, it really gets alot of traffic from very well educated people, scientists, journalists , occultists , hindus, other religions etc.

good luck.

shiva out

Hi folks, Here is my new website about creating a varnashrama village on Maui.

http://varnashrama-maui.com/

And here is the doctrine I have come up with

fiesta forever

Not bad! Three out of twelve principles are about ganja. That explains a lot.

apAma somam amRtA abhUmAganma jyotir avidAma devAn, "We have drunk soma! We have become immortal! We have gone to the light! We have found the gods!" (Rg-veda 8, 48, 3).

Shiva, one of the points made by you in regards to your vedic-varnashrama vision is that renunciation in vedic society was purely voluntary.

In regards to this concept I call upon Elpis or others who are familiar with vedic texts to give evidence of this in regards to widows.

Many are of the opinion that widows in vedic times were expected and encouraged by society never to remarry but to remain unadorned, eat plain, non-spicy food and not to go out to social functions. If a widow was to do these things and on top of them even marry again, she was shunned by the society.

Is this true?

Tenet number nine of Shiva Varnashrama Vraja Fellowship reads as follows:


Some talk of magic mushrooms, while for example Monier-Williams explains soma as being Sarcostema Viminalis or Asclepias Acida. What's the real thing made of?

Monier-Williams elaborates on Soma:

Ah brain damage .............That explains Shiva's weird theories......

Someone told me they couldn't access the site.

This is what I told them.

Yeah I know, there is nothing wrong, what happened is that I spent the last day building the site, it's a free web hosting company, I was messing around uploading various ideas while I built it, they have a policy of only allowing so much access to the site especially if there is a lot of uploading or downloading like I was doing in a short time frame. So whenever I reached the alloted amount allowed they would close access to the site for an hour.

I'm through messing with it, so there should be no more delays to see it, if it gets a huge amount of traffic it will shut down for an hour, there is nothing wrong with the links or anything else, sorry for the delay.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yes thank you Madhava, I expect my soma theory to be controversial, but I have studied it and here is some info on the matter.



J.P Mallory writes, in the Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture (under 'Sacred Drink', pp. 494-96) :


In ancient India the sacred drink is soma, which according to Vedic texts, was first pressed, then filtered, after which it might be mixed with water, milk, butter or barley. Soma was critical to Vedic sacrifice and after being offered was consumed by the priest. Soma was deified as the 'master of plants' [....] In ancient India, soma was very much distinguished from sura, an intoxicating liquor which might be distilled from a variety of substances.
In ancient Iran the cognate of Soma is the deity Haoma (deified haoma, the drink), which is also pressed and dispels death. Zarathustra attacked its abuse by the clergy who got drunk on it.

Mallory notes there was considerable discussion in the past over exactly what soma/haoma was, but notes these discussions


...have been overtaken by archaeological evidence from Bronze Age Central Asia. Here, in a number of urban complexes of the BMAC (Bactrian-Margiana Archaeological Complex), there have been discovered rooms for religious rites which included traces of ephedra and hemp, both of which have been discovered with paraphenalia for the preparation of a (hallucinating or intoxicating) beverage. Ephedra, which occurs in some forty species across Eurasia, appears as a bush consisting of a series of leafless stems. The stems contain ephedrine (in various amounts, depending on the species) which raise blood pressure, stimulate metabolism and heart muscle contraction, and increase perspiration. Ephedra is often named after some derivation of soma/haoma among the modern Indo-Iranians from north India to Central Asia, e.g., Nepali somalata, Baluchi hum, NPers hom. Some now argue that the ritual consumption of soma/haoma may have originated in these Central Asian towns in the Bronze Age and was then carried further south by the migration of the Indo-Iranians.

Mallory is very careful in his words, and leaves it to the reader to make the obvious conclusion.

(from a post at an indo-european forum)


The "supernatural red wine" of Mother Hera [Hare in sanskrit] which gave the Greek gods immortality. In the Vedas it was soma in Persia haoma, in Egypt sa: was associated with the moon and the maternal "blood of life," or menstrual blood.

[Walker, Barbara G, The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, New York, HarperCollins, 1983, p, 27]


Some archeologists think there is very good evidence to support the theory that soma was made from cannabis or ephedra or both, this is supported by much evidence.

The aryan people in iran called soma hoama, and sacrificial bowls used in hoama ceremonies have been found and they contained resin of cannibis and ephedra.

The use of soma is found quite extensively in the Vedas and supposedly what it was is not known. Why is this ?

The logical explanation is that it simply changed names, possibly due to a shortage of either ephedra or ganja.

For a drink that was so honored and used as soma was it is inconcievable that it could simply dissappear without a trace.

A better explanation is that all of the traditions of bhang being the favorite of shiva and the extensive use of bhang in Indian culture is due to the fact of soma also being Shiva's favorite, and soma consumption continued on as the bhang tradition.

In Tibet where the ancient traditions have changed less then other parts, the word
Somaraja means the lord of cannabis, A name for Shiva, somalata and other soma words are used all over that region for ephedra.

The descriptions of soma vary in the vedas, sometimes it is described as green and juicy, other times as yellowish/greenish leafless sticks.

Ganja is green and juicy,and ephedra is yellowish/greenish leafless sticks.

Other scientists have speculated that soma may be a mushroom, that is not acceptable.

Soma is described as being used regularly, mushrooms are much to unpredictable to be used in a common regular social fashion, they are strong hallucinogens and would not be used due to the many bad side affects, also mushrooms do not conform to the descriptions in the vedas of either the effects of soma or of the way it is described to look like.

So all together it would seem that the tradition of soma died out due to a shortage of ephedra or bhang, the bhang tradition would seem to have taken it's place.

This is an excellent article researching ganja as soma, although the trend today among anthropologists is that ephedra is the most likely candidate, though this seems to be changing quite often and there is no consensus, ephedra alone does not fullfill the descriptions of soma, but mixed with ganja we get the perfect match.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/3155.html

I believe and in fact I am positive it is both Bhang and ephedra combined.

Ephedra's properties are that it gives you great stamina and strength, it makes you alert and increases your ability to stretch ( I know from experimentation), also it opens up the your lungs and and is a powerful decongestant and antihistamine, it makes breathing free and easy.

Ganja increases sensory powers, better seeing, hearing, tasting, feeling, and causes the mind to increase in perception as well, due to this people get "high", their sensory faculty and mind are enhanced and this makes the reality appear different, and also this is why musicians and artists find it so inspiring, their mental faculties are enhanced.

Also ganja is a strong aphrodisiac, this is why the Vedic marriage ceremony was centered around Soma, also ganja has a profound effect on the psyche, it's especially known for it's bliss giving attribute.

"In the Rajvallabha, a seventeenth-century text dealing with drugs used in India, bhang is described as follows:

India's food is acid, produces infatuation, and destroys leprosy. It creates vital energy, increases mental powers and internal heat, corrects irregularities of the phlegmatic humor, and is an elixir vitae. It was originally produced like nectar from the ocean by churning it with Mount Mandara. Inasmuch as it is believed to give victory in the three worlds and to bring delight to the king of the gods (Siva), it was called vijaya (victorious). This desire-filling drug was believed to have been obtained by men on earth for the welfare of all people. To those who use it regularly, it begets joy and diminishes anxiety."

[G.A. Grierson, "On References to the Hemp Plant Occurring in Sanskrit and Hindi Literature", in Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report (Simla, India: 1893-4), 3: 247-8.]

"Cannabis was also an important part of the Tantric religious yoga sex acts consecrated to the goddess Kali. During the ritual, about an hour and a half prior to intercourse the devotee placed a bowl of bhang before him and uttered the mantra: "Om hrim, O ambrosia-formed goddess [Kali] who has arisen from ambrosia, who showers ambrosia, bring me ambrosia again and again, bestow occult power [siddhi] and bring my chosen deity to my power."[43] Then, after uttering several other mantras, he drank the potion. The delay between drinking the bhang and the sex act was to allow the drug time to act so that it would heighten the senses and thereby increase the feeling of oneness with the goddess.

[Bharati, The Tantric Tradition, p. 251]


"To the Hindu the hemp plant is holy. A guardian lives in the bhang leaf... To see in a dream the leaves, plant, or water of bhang is lucky... No good thing can come to the man who treads underfoot the holy bhang leaf. A longing for bhang foretells happiness.

...Besides as a cure for fever, bhang has many medicinal virtues... It cures dysentry and sunstroke, clears phlegm, quickens digestion, sharpens appetite, makes the tongue of the lisper plain, freshens the intellect, and gives alertness to the body and gaiety to the mind. Such are the useful and needful ends for which in his goodness the Almighty made bhang... It is inevitable that temperaments should be found to whom the quickening spirit of bhang is the spirit of freedom and knowledge. In the ecstasy of bhang the spark of the Eternal in man turns into light the murkiness of matter... Bhang is the Joygiver, the Skyflier, the Heavenly-guide, the Poor Man's Heaven, the Soother of Grief... No god or man is as good as the religious drinker of bhang... The supporting power of bhang has brought many a Hindu family safe through the miseries of famine. To forbid or even seriously to restrict the use of so holy and gracious an herb as the hemp would cause widespread suffering and annoyance and to large bands of worshipped ascetics, deep-seated anger. It would rob the people of a solace in discomfort, of a cure in sickness, of a guardian whose gracious protection saves them from the attacks of evil influences... So grand a result, so tiny a sin!"

[J.M. Campbell, "On the Religion of Hemp," in Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report (Simla, India: 1893-4), 3: 250-2.]



Here are four installments from a series of articles on the history of cannabis by Chris Bennet, which appeared in Cannabis Culture, a Canadian magazine:

1. When Smoke Gets in my I http://cannabisculture.com/backissues/apr9...ke_in_my_i.html

2. The Scythians - High Plains Drifters http://cannabisculture.com/backissues/cc02/scythians.html

3. Kaneh Bosm, The Hidden Story of Cannabis in the Old Testament http://cannabisculture.com/backissues/mayj.../kanehbosm.html

4. Cannabis and the Christ: Jesus used Marijuana http://cannabisculture.com/backissues/cc11/christ.html

Now one quote from the Gosvamis books please. This site is after all called Gaudiya Discussions.

This site is called Gaudiya discussions not because it exclusively presents the Gaudiya siddhanta, though anyone wishing to establish that is welcome. It is Gaudiya discussions because it is open to anyone interested in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Therefore, practically anything that is of interest to such people, including ganja and sex, are open for discussion, as long as it is done with taste and decorum.

We accept pratyaksa, anumana, aitihya and sabda as pramana.

Remember this one, Shiva?

"Therefore, whenever there is general disregard of regulative principles, the Lord Himself descends and corrects the society. We should, however, note carefully that although we have to follow in the footsteps of the Lord, we still have to remember that we cannot imitate Him. Following and imitating are not on the same level. We cannot imitate the Lord by lifting Govardhana Hill, as the Lord did in His childhood. It is impossible for any human being. We have to follow His instructions, but we may not imitate Him at any time. The Srimad-Bhagavatam (10.33.30–31) affirms:

naitat samacarej jatu
manasapi hy anisvarah
vinasyaty acaran maudhyad
yatha ’rudro ’bdhi-jam visam
isvaranam vacah satyam
tathaivacaritam kvacit
tesam yat sva-vaco-yuktam
buddhimams tat samacaret

“One should simply follow the instructions of the Lord and His empowered servants. Their instructions are all good for us, and any intelligent person will perform them as instructed. However, one should guard against trying to imitate their actions. One should not try to drink the ocean of poison in imitation of Lord Siva.”
We should always consider the position of the isvaras, or those who can actually control the movements of the sun and moon, as superior. Without such power, one cannot imitate the isvaras, who are superpowerful. Lord Siva drank poison to the extent of swallowing an ocean, but if any common man tries to drink even a fragment of such poison, he will be killed. There are many pseudo devotees of Lord Siva who want to indulge in smoking ganja (marijuana) and similar intoxicating drugs, forgetting that by so imitating the acts of Lord Siva they are calling death very near."

Bhagavad Gita as it is 3.24 purport - ACBS

And me all the time thinking I was the only pseudo devotee in Prabhupada's world of values.......

At least ONE quote then?......Please?

Advaitaji, where does it say that bhang is completely forbidden?

Did your guru never use it, by the way?

Well, did the Gosvamis use it or prescribe it? vrajalokanusaratah in sadhaka deha means following Rupa and Sanatana, isnt it?

Prabhupada in my view was trying to establish a cadre of renunciates in the west, ganja is a strong aphrodisiac and it is this that I think He was commenting on with his Shiva comparison, Prabhupada of course knew that ganja is taken by followers of all vedic traditions including vaisnavas, my feeling is that He came into a very sexual drug oriented milieu and He wanted to scare them away from ganja which makes you sexually charged.

I don't think he has anything against ganja, I think He was being pragmatic at a time when He felt He needed to make a strong statement to His followers who were almost all hippies who could have easily become enamored of spending their time enjoying if He didn't make a strong statement.

My view is that He had two phases of his preaching, at first He was very into preaching renunciation of all things other then his preaching movement, once that was set up He changed His style and was advocating the traditional Vedic society as the next phase for His movement, I feel He was pragmatic at first and then changed once everything was set in motion.

As Far as Soma or Ganja goes I want to present the Vedic tradition as it is, when people hear from Iskcon or other types of the same ideology for the most part they usually think that they are victorian and beneath them, the no sex thing especially is unattractive.

Soma and Ganja is what I would like to see Vaisnavas champion in the public forum as being our religious right, as well as giving up the teaching of prohibition of all sex outside of procreation as being an absolute necessity for consideration for being a true spiritualist.

The championing of Soma/Ganja can attract a very large audience to the Vaisnava Dharma, of course the sexual taboo has to be released otherwise you might as well put on floppy shoes and a rubber red nose because most people who are progressive thinkers will not give that kind of rhetoric a second thought as being true spirituality and true bliss.

Why want to see it in future? The whole society is filled up with drugs and sex. So what you dream of being "paradise" is already there, just open your window and look outside. Question: what is your understanding of anartha-nivritti?

He actually quoted once!


So bhang is mentioned! Also in Bhag. 7.15.67. Bhakti Bhang for the people!

etair anyaiz ca vedoktair vartamAnaH sva-karmabhiH
gRhe ’py asya gatiM yAyAd rAjaMs tad-bhakti-bhAG naraH

"O King, in this way, or in any other way, the Vedas declare that a man should devotionally take bhang, abiding to this as his prescribed duty even at home, in order to reach high dimensions."

And yes it's a Gaudiya thing too, Gaudiya means from Bhang-La-Desh, the land in which Bhang is taken!

Jah lives! Jay Haribol!

EJVS Vol. 9, Issue 1 (May 2003) deals extensively with the problem of soma and haoma. Of particular interest in connection with Dirty Hari's ideas is perhaps George Thompson's contribution, here.

If you lived your whole life with your wife and you surely know her spiritual status.
Lets say you notice your wife is spiritually very advanced when leaving her body. Why not follow her? Why stay here in this world of birth, old age, disease and death and look for "interesting" material comforts?

I find it inconceivable that anyone could possible defend suttee. This has to be one of the most egregious examples of conflicted sexuality in the history of mankind. No amount of rationalization can erase the stigma of what was de facto a system of legalized murder, by which the extended family was conveniently rid of a foreign element that made demands and possible claims on resources.

Something that is idealized as noble quickly degenerates in real terms when other, especially economic, factors are added. Whatever happens in the next world, we are not to choose death. If Mahaprabhu says that we don't attain Krishna through suicide, but through bhajan, then how can it be said that a woman should commit suicide on the funeral pyre of her husband?

Human life is always sacred, and women's lives are 100% equal in value those of men. Women are not tacked-on appendages to men, but free and whole spiritual beings with independence and personal spiritual responsability that is in no way less than that of men.

I can't believe that such things even need to be said any more.

It might be a think beyond your capacity to understand due to being in a man's body. Deep inside, some woman might feel they rather die than live without the company of their beloved. However painful that death may be.

Perversion of this ideal is probably equally painful to even entertain, what to speak of practicing.

It must be your photo, with that danda-like thing cutting through that solemn, cherub face. It looks too sincere for humor.

Thats well observed. The danda-like thing is a broomstick. I was told that time to clean up for Harikesas arrival.

I've changed my Maui Varnashrama website, added a page and a blog, and changed a few pages.

here's the blog
http://vedic-varnashrama-blog.blogspot.com/

Hi everyone, I moved my site off of the free web hosting.

Here is the new URL

http://varnashrama-maui.com/

Varnashram Rasta/Sex on Maui

Can you give the translation, please?

Are there any comments of the acharyas to this verse?

I think they were too busy laughing to be able to comment. Now, exactly why they were laughing is a matter of great debate. Some suspect the laughter was the result of external stimuli. Still others believe that their lack of commentary on this key point was due to paranoia.

I believe this thread should provide you with all the answers you need:

http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/showflat...collapsed/5/o/1

That is a fun way to translate, dandavats.

Although what if :

"O King, in this way, or in any other way, the Vedas declare that a man should devotionally take Soma, abiding to this as his prescribed duty even at home, in order to reach high dimensions"

I am sure this kind of verse can be found throughout the vedas.

When I was in India, I remember coming across a mantra that was to be chanted before taking bhang. Do you know any such mantra, Shivaji?

I've never investigated mantras for gajna, although I have heard some people say simple mantras, whether or not they were bona fide mantras from a vedic source of some type I don't know.

But it is my belief that Soma minus ephedra became bhang, so I would imagine whatever mantra is found concerning Soma would be applicable.

I think the mantra I saw specifically used the word "siddhi" and used it to mean both marijuana and spiritual perfection.

Here is the ganja mantra I came across years ago.

It is to Shiva the ganja is offered ....

"lena Shankar, lena Babulnath"

"be pleased to take Shankar, take it Babunath"

On how you honor the prasad....

Well...

There are some eager forum members who have been waiting for something like this to comment on..I'm sure!

Jijaji, I thought that mantras were in Sanskrit? lena is Hindi, and what means Babunath or Babulnath (you quoted two different words here)? I never heard this word before, especially not as a name of Shiva....
Any source you have of this 'mantra' ?

Strange. Monier-Williams and Capeller do not give any meaning for the words babul, bAbul, babula or bAbula.
I do have one Gurubhai named BAbul, though. I wonder if it is an Arabic word, later ascribed to a Hindu God......

So the tree in one of its multitude of names is probably connected with Shiva in some way.

Come to think of it, someone once brought a tube of Babool tooth paste to me, so I guess it is a bitter leaf like the Neem. Wonder what the Sanskrit name of that tree is. Babul is obviously Arab.

Both Neem and Babul belong to the Acacia family.

Some varieties of acacia contain DMT, which is a strong hallucinogenic substance. Many varieties of acacia have also been sacred trees in different cultures.

Dandavats madhava,

I was thinking too about DMT in Acacia and I searched in the book "Plants of the Gods" (a classical compedium in psychoative substances) about it, but there isn´t this acacia. The Acacia with DMT are: Acacia maidenii, Acacia phirbophylla and Acacia simplicifolia.

Anyway, to become DMT active you need to join it with a MAO inibinator (i-mao).