In response to the thread Shaivate Sadhus and Ganja - Is this civil enough?

Response to the thread Shaivite Sadhus and Ganja (which seems to have vanished in my absence )

The whole issue centres around this post by Jagadananda on gaudiya discussions:
My response, named after me, is from June 10th.

Posted by: Jagat Jun 7 2004, 07:58 PM
I am afraid that I am in agreement with Dirty Hari here. We should be able
to defend our ideas with conviction without resorting to insults.

Advaitadas: The term ‘loser’ I used was meant to shake Shiva out of his slumber of self deception and not to insult him.

Jagadananda Das: “We have to permit free speech. There are many people who feel that ganja smoking is beneficial in one way or another.”

Advaitadas: The Forum Rules clearly state that
1. Philosophical and theological matters shall be ultimately resolved by
referring to the foundational writings of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition.
The forum’s own moderators are breaking the primal rule of the very forum they are moderating, for:
In Haribhakti Vilasa, ch. 2, the use of mAdakausadha, intoxicating herbs, is forbidden. It was Jagadananda himself who quoted this. Within an hour he contradicted himself. Why does Jagat disobey the Shastras? If drugs were beneficial, then why did not a single foundational acarya, Rupa Sanatana Das Gosvami etc, either use it or recommend it? There is no evidence of them using this or recommending it, to my knowledge, but Shiva and Jagat are invited by me to provide it. So far they have come up with no evidence, hence the following tactic of Jagadananda das:

Jagadananda Das: “It is not an adequate response to quote scripture and bash people over the head with dogma.”

Advaitadas: This is the worst part of the post. This of course leads to no end of heresy, speculation and apostasy. The word ‘dogma’ is of course an invention of modern liberal intellectuals and is nowhere to be found in the Gosvamis books, in its Sanskrit equivalent. If my Bengali dictionary is anything to go by, the word means dharma-mata, religious opinion and baddha mula dharana – a way of thinking with fixed roots. What is wrong with that? Sounds perfect to me. Even the newest Gaudiya Vaishnava knows and accepts the ultimate authority of shastra - tasmacchastram pramanam te (Gita 16.24) and reversely,

yah sastra vidhim utsrijya vartate kama karatah
na sa siddhim avapnoti na sukham na param gatim

“Those who give up the rules of shastra and act according to their own desire, will not attain perfection, happiness or the supreme abode.” Furthermore critique of shastra is the 4th offence to the chanting of the holy name. In any case, neither the Shastras nor the Gosvamis have recommended, endorsed or apologised the use of drugs. That may be the reason why Jagadananda, who himself studied shastra for 34 years, finds it convenient to reject shastra here. If shastra is not the ultimate arbiter, then what or who is?

Jagadananda Das: Nor should anyone be condemned for failing to live up or disagreeing with their own gurus.

Advaita Das: This is another apostasy. First of all it is an offence to the chanting of the holy name, guror avajna, disrespect to the Guru. Secondly - yasyAprasAdAn na gatih kuto'pi (Visvanatha's Gurvastakam) "Without the grace of the Guru you are not going anywhere."
Caitanya Caritamrita describes the dismal fate of Ramacandra Puri as a result of his disagreeing with his Guru. With due respect, we might like to study the moderator’s own personal history as parallel evidence of that.

Jagdananda das: “If you like you can point it out, but most of us have come to disagree with our teachers in some way or another. We must have tolerance for disagreement.”

Advaitadas: There may be minor external disagreements about eating and sleeping habits, due to cultural differences between Guru and sisya, which should still never be openly expressed in my humble opinion, but in the case of Shiva, he has taken a public vow to his Guru to abstain from drugs, and he is now openly flouting this vow both in theory and in practise. This is much more than a minor disagreement but is clear and deliberate disobedience.

Jagadananda das: “Advaitaji, like it or not, you are identified as a representative of the "raganuga" or "traditional" camp.

Advaita das: “Jagadananda ji, you too are identified as such, and you will get us all a bad reputation by defending the use of drugs, and as you have done earlier on this forum, in the dharmAviruddha bhUtesu thread, illicit sex. You are a person of authority on this forum, being its moderator.

Conclusion by Advaita das: My humble opinion (don’t see it as a dogma, though I would beg to refer to the Gita 16.23 verse quoted above) is that Jagadananda das is flouting the 1st rule of the forum and should therefore not be allowed to continue as a moderator, since that is a responsible and powerful position for a site which calls itself Gaudiya Discussions. I express the hope that the webmaster may find moderators that have moral integrity and that respect the consitution of the Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya, namely Guru and Shastra.

The thread is here, under Misc. Discussions. But good, let's have it here out in the open in a brand new fresh thread. Pardon me Advaita, I added colours to highlight Jagat's statements and your responses to make it easier to follow.

http://istagosthi.org/archive/open-forum/000550-4.htm


Jagats view is somewhat like "live and let live". But where is his limit?
Is for him G.W. Bush on the right track to attain the mercy of the Lord?



[ Mod. note: Jatayu, in the future misleading quotes like this will be removed. - Madhava ]

"Ultimately resolved" does not preclude others discussing their own views. If there are only ultimate resolutions, there isn't even going to be much in the way of discussion--we can just paste quotes from sastra and skip the rest. Indeed, this is the crux of the problem as I see it: somewhere sastra "hits the earth," makes an impact, good or bad in the real lives of thinking, feeling (fallible) people. For prehaps the first time in history, it is now doing so in the midst of moderners and Westerners in a significant way.

This forum rule was also likely framed in reference to other topics--e.g. posts quoting AC Bhaktivedanta Swami or whoever as authorities beyond the past acaryas.

I have to also say that I find it a little strange that you'd be willing to take the high road in terms of sastra but then post something that contains references such as:

- your massive brain damage
- a loser
- [not}] a heroic preacher who saves the conditioned souls, or alternatively a qualified brahmin [thus, a dig not only at him but at his guru]
- just an old American hippy who wants to enjoy material life in the form of sex, drugs and rock n roll

Are expressions like that likely to entice someone to accept sastra? If not, aren't you both preaching to the faithless and disturbing someone's mind? How can they do anything other than disturb readers? You've defended this by saying that it was meant to help Shiva, but unless or until he has the requisite faith in you and in the sastras you quote, how is that going to work? And if we were to reverse the situation and start making frequent jibes at you in order to "help" you, would you be able to take it?

I also do not see a contradiction in Jagat's posting a quote from sastra and then objecting to "bashing people over the head with sastra". Quoting and bashing are different. Very different. And listening to the views of others is also not tantamount to accepting those views--it's just plain old good manners, good communication.

Personally, I relish your frequent posts full of sastric reference and respect the degree of faith you have, however the ad hominens, intolerance, etc., are also quite noticeable and detract from that.

That's all from this corner of the peanut gallery.
Jaya Radhe!

Before getting to other things, this quote is entirely misleading. Please verify your attributions. The first of the above was NOT posted by me. This is so clearly [removed mistaken attribution] language; it must have been embedded in one of my responses. The second was obviously a bemused response to one of Darwin's more outlandish propositions.

For this reason, I make it a policy to not simply click on the response button where quotes are automatically included. Kindly be careful about this kind of thing, as false attributions tend to unnecessarily inflame discussions.

Thank you, Advaitaji, for starting this thread. I think it is important to clarify these matters.

First of all, this was not the first time that anyone had complained about your harsh and intolerant-sounding attitude. It was rather the drop of water that made the cup overflow.

You may well be the kindest and most sympathetic person in the world, but you often come across as heavy, narrow and intolerant in your posts. I have no objection to your arguing from scripture, but I do think that every person merits more respect than you seem willing to give them.

Clearly, you are unable to see that. That's fine if you want to remain in your own isolation. But here you are in a [virtual] community where tolerance for others has to be a primary concern.

I have much more to say, but I am going to have to stagger my responses, as I have other obligations.

The "disagreeing with their own gurus" is from this post of yours, Jagat. The Istagosthi quotes may be a different thing altogether. I take it that you referred only to the quotes posted by Jatayu when you asked to verify the attributions. Just wanted to clarify this for everyone before someone rushes to comment on that.

As I prepare a response, I realize just how far back to basics I have to go, so this is going to take longer than I thought.

Dear Advaita, I am very sorry. I clicked on the wrong button and instead of quoting, I edited your post. My moderator privileges inadvertently abused! I hope you kept a copy or can repost. Please forgive me.

- - -

At least this was in the post:


If someone has the rest, please PM it to me and I'll add it back in. - Madhava

Braja, thank you for your post. I agree with everything you say in it, but just consider one thing please: Isn't quoting shastra experienced as bashing by, er well, weak devotees (don't want to say 'losers' again), as it hits their guilty conscience like a meteorite (or a divine Cakra )?

I am paraphrasing from what I wrote in a letter to you on this same point:

Arjava certainly is avakratA (straightforwardness) and all of that, but there are plenty of other daivi-sampat (divine qualities) that should supplement Arjava in forming a balanced approach. There are qualities such as akrodhata (lack of anger), kSamA (patience), ahiMsa (not distressing others), zAnti (peacefulness), mArdava (gentleness) and so forth. mArdavaM mRdutvam akrUratA - mArdava (gentleness, kindness, leniency) means tenderness (softness, mildness) and non-harshness.

If the abovementioned qualities do not accompany your quality of straight-forwardness, you will very likely be turning off many sincere individuals who come to seek the path we represent. Many of us have grown tired of a constant striving to defeat the opposition, cutting to pieces false arguments and establishing the only truth loud and clear. There is a certain blessed movement of siMha-gurus and fierce preachers (rUpAnuga-viruddhApasiddhAnta-dhvAnta-harine) and, ironically, though you find its tenets most objectionable, you share so much of its essential mood.

I have posted some thoughts on this in the Treating scripture as evidence - The fundamental dynamics of evincing thread.

As we explore the world of scriptures, we inevitably face new evidence. If our faith in the scriptures is to flourish, we must understand the scripture in addition to mere acceptance. Demanding acceptance without appropriate, thorough explanations of the intent and underlying reasons of the scriptural statement in question will not serve this purpose. In general, acceptance should not be demanded, but rather it should be naturally commanded through the awakening of new insight.

An intelligent person will not find demands for acceptance prior to examination appealing; particularly not, if the demands are made in the forms of intimidation, judgement and so forth. Fear of God and scriptural commandment is not the path we walk; ours is a path of positive insights and attractions.

I must object to this. I have nowhere endorsed the use of drugs. My position is that devotion is stronger than sin.

My point is this: Respect for others means that we accept that their beliefs and personality, their very being, are the result of both rational and irrational elements, things that are both within and without their control. Nevertheless, everyone is equipped with an ego, which makes them think that their understanding is peculiarly ingenious. In other words, everybody thinks that their own way of thinking is justified.

Not only that, but it is justified. Even if they are wrong, they are, in some way, right. We don’t help other people without first understanding sympathetically where they are at present.

Though this is pragmatism, it is not just pragmatism. It is fundamental to the cultivation of character.

*******

The fundamental problem here is our differing understanding of authority. I have discussed the questions of reason and authority on my website, From the Garuda Archives. I was going to quote myself, but it is not sufficiently tailored to this specific context, so I'll have to revise.

I would rather spare myself from digging through the entire history of the forums, but statements such as the ones quoted above, in addition to many others along the same lines, are simply unacceptable due to the harshness of the presentation. For example:


There are many statements like that from you. Additionally, in numerous threads you have run into a quarrel with people who have found your comments either sarcastic or condescending. I'm sure most of us will have no problems remembering threads where you had a quarrel with someone. Why always you? Would that suggest that you might need to reconsider your approach?

guror avajna

I wrote that we should not be too quick to condemn people for not following their spiritual masters. You treat this as "apostasy." On the contrary, this is about compassion. "Let those without sin cast the first stone."

For instance, we have often seen your critical comments about Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and Bhaktivedanta Swami. Yesterday I was asked to comment, yet again, about my relation to those acharyas, and I simply said, "Tell them whenever I chant the Holy Name, I remember where it came from."

Do you? yataH khyAtiM gataM katham u sahate tad-vigarhAm.

Is this not a bigger truth than all the rest--guru-parampara, manjari-bhava, and the other details of shastra? Where would all those things be without the Holy Name?

This is how you have become so totally blinded to the distinction between essentials and minutiae that your heart is full of bitterness toward Bhaktivedanta Swami. But the fact of the matter is that Mahaprabhu's name came to the West by the grace of Bhaktivedanta Swami; everything after that is a footnote.


If you have at all times been completely faithful to your spiritual master in every respect from the very beginning to this very moment, if there is no vow you have ever broken, then by all means accuse others of faithlessness, apostasy and weakness.

As for me, I won't make any such claim, nor will I condemn another for being human and weak. Forgive me, but Christian language seems to be coming to me, "We have all fallen short of the Kingdom of God."

The only real sin is hypocrisy--pretending to be something we are not. This great barrier of dogma and vidhi is just another layer of concrete on our hearts, meant to buttress our quaking egos and our feeble hearts. The real shelter is Govindera charan.


And what is the meaning of petty and vindictive statements like, "With due respect, we might like to study the moderator’s own personal history as parallel evidence of that"?

What exactly is it in my personal history that you find comparable to Ramachandra Puri, pray tell.

I am at peace with most of the decisions I have made. For those that I still regret, I prostrate myself before Guru and Giridhari for forgiveness, and am ready to accept as inevitable any punishment that Fate dispenses.

So, though you may find horrendous sins in my personal life, I don't feel particularly threatened for some reason.

Statements such as this beauty above demonstrate that despite the glaring evidence you provide for being deemed traditional, authentic, dogmatic, fanactic, whatever - you are aware of the effect of your style of argument, yet feel all the more justified in dishing out harsh critique and un-reasoned response. I say un-reasoned because it appears that it ends at the sastra for you. I came to this place because I have liked a lot of how I see people interpret the sastra. I don't find you interpreting for people, helping them apply the scripture from where they're at. Instead you just quote and call the people who don't cut it - WEAK. With sarcasm and a smirk you seem to do it! I wanted to stay out of debate with you the first time I saw your comments on a thread because I knew it would degenerate into this. Believe me, I've had a temple president or GBC or plenty of others on the same authoritarian streak and it is no fun.

A good friend of mine often makes the point that despite leaving an institution like ISKCON, we may have ISKCON on the inside. Changing our guru, alliance, religion etc. will not change anything about us if we have not purged the bad dynamics from our minds that we learned while in ISKCON.

Well said. And you are exactly right: we who are moderating Gaudiya Discussion want precisely this: a new way of doing things, a new way of community.

And we want the basis of this to be Gauranga Mahaprabhu, the combined form of Radha and Krishna, the inexhaustible fount of compassion, understanding, and synthesis.

'Iskcon on the inside' indeed. Very much on the outside too.

As far as I can see, what began here (on Raganuga.com 3 years ago) as a diverse group of people exploring the fascinating and mysterious (because little understood) Gaudiya Vaishnav tradition is becoming yet another 'reform Iskcon' forum.

Aren't there enough of these sites on the 'net? And haven't we seen them all go the same way in the last 6 years of www discussion groups?

What is the point of assembling yet another group of ex-Iskcon malcontents and inviting them to explore their dissatisfaction, without a renewed commitment, a new conversion to true Gaudiyaism?

Why should anyone care about the views of such confused people?

The world is full of confusion. Gaudiyaism, true Gaudiyaism, is a refuge from that confusion. Why drag all the world's confusion in? Why inflict the confused ravings of these jar-lickers on the sacred tradition?

In my opinion, Jagat, you are either naive or are perpetrating what is looking more like a travesty as your intentions here are more revealed.

What I thought was just a difference of opinion between us, appears more to be a total rift.

There must be standards and it is the duty of those versed in the tradition to articulate those standards as Advaitadas is doing. You may disagree with him on minor points, but your approach seems instead to be some sort of populist anarchy.

Are you just an anarchist? Is that where you are heading? If you respond that you abide by the standards of the age, which Advaita and I regard as mere political correctness, with all the irrationality implied by adherence to changing popular taste, then that will not be enough in my eyes to redeem you from a charge of anarchism.

Surely a Gaudiya is never a follower of the lowest common denominator of popular fashion. A Gaudiya's moral behaviour should always be far above that of his/her contemporaries. Gaudiya leaders are obliged to point to and exemplify this ideal standard of behaviour, even while having compassion for those who cannot reach it, understanding, as Advaita has made quite explicit, that these are ideals and that those who fall are not rejected.

In contrast, you seem to want to lead us into chaos.

In fact, it is worse than that. Propagating Radha-Krishna worship without proper moral standards is the worst kind of exploitation of Hinduism. Right up there with sex-gurus and 'bhogi-yogis'.

Jagat, please tell me that you are not turning into yet another 'bhogi-yogi'. I mean there are so many groups who cater to this type of commodification of Hinduism. Why start another?

If you want to propagate the idea that Radha-Krishna are some sort of cure for middle-age sexual boredom (ie recent Hollywood movie, 'The Guru'), then how is this different from selling toilet seats with pictures of Hindu gods on them?

Pray tell, what exactly are you addressing as being what Jagat presents, Adiyenji? Please first state what in your assessment Jagat is presenting, and then respond to that. As it stands, from your response it is very hard to deduct what all you might be thinking Jagat is proposing.

In the past, I remember you used to be very fond of Jagadananda's writings. Has a radical change of sorts in your mind taken place, or do you perceive that his views have somehow radically changed over the past year or so?

I am addressing his direction here in recent weeks, especially on issues like sex and drug taking, where he wants to put it up for public discussion.

Of course I have been his biggest fan for 6 years. So I am indicating a deep rift here.

Actually I want him to come clean, to explicitly abandon political correctness and set some standards, in which case I will support him, or embrace it, in which case I will say farwell.

Yes! Thus the whole point of objecting to rudeness.

Adiyen-ji, in previous discussions you defended abortion as a personal matter. Was that "mere political correctness" or was it your firm belief? If the latter, can you explain that view in light of your present assertions?

You have also labelled the Mahabharata a fabrication. Can you please explain that in light of your spirited defence of "true Gaudiyaism"?

I don't think you are the defender of standards and "true Gaudiyaism" that you are painting yourself to be. In fact, I'd say that we are all very similar, all trying to come to terms with an ancient tradition in a modern setting, whether we admit it or not.

I do not see that Jagat is assembling malcontents nor promoting anarchy. He is simply defending the right of a person to speak without becoming the subject of abusive language or brow beating. It is a very simple point.

Personally, I came here because I recognized in his writings elsewhere that he was a wise and cultured person, a balanced and reasonable voice. The times I have come close to leaving have always been due to coming across narrow, abusive, righteous voices. Perhaps I'm one of the youngsters, liberals or malcontents who have changed the mood here--for that I apologize to grumpy old men everywhere*--but I'll always be glad to visit a place where nectar is offered side-by-side with advice, protection and nourishment. I'll step in to a church every now and then but of my own volition, please.


* joke defuses tension

Sorry Jagat,

Thats not me...I don't take 'piss-tests' and I find you suggesting that it IS me to be somewhat demeaning and condescending on your part, anything to cover your tracks hey?

....

yea you offended me!

C-ya

Does this site primarily assemble ex-ISKCON malcontents who primarily explore their dissatisfaction? Ex-ISKCON malcontents certainly, this is what I am, what you are, and indeed what a significant percentage here are. As far as primarily exploring their dissatisfaction is concerned, indeed it was to a great part due to the dedicated endeavors of a few of the most committed orthodox-traditionalist Gaudiyas here that we had to create a separate ISKCON/Gaudiya Matha subforum where all that ranting and raving could take place.

I cordially invite you to start topics that explore topics of interest within the realm of traditional siddhanta and practice. I cannot find all that many of them in your resume as I look at your log of posts assembled over the past couple of months. Walk the talk, my friend, and shape the society into one you are willing to participate in. There will be no society tailor-made for you without your interaction to guide it into the desired shape.



Pardon me for saying this, as I know that you are an accomplished historian and all of that, but if you believe the true Gaudiyaism, if you mean the tradition out there outside the modern movements, is free of confusion, then you are one confused person there who should read his history books one more time over inasmuch as our own tradition is concerned.



If articulating standards means citing Hari-bhakti-vilasa and following it to the letter, then sadly neither you or Advaita, nor indeed any of our gurus for that matter, abide by the tradition. Eating and serving out eggplant, a Bengali yummie, in direct violation of Hari-bhakti-vilasa, is not a populist compromise, but an accommodation we may discuss in the Western context evidently is. Now what kind of double standard is this?

And returning briefly to the issue of confusion, and without elaborating on the issue, there are points that are not at all very minor on which for example your guru-varga, Adiyenji, and Advaitadas and his gurus differ, and that rift of upasana is far greater than a bit of intellectual exercise. Yet this traditional Gaudiyaism is the cure for all confusion? The very reason why the tradition is even just very little bit unified as a tradition is its ability to accommodate and/or tolerate diverse views and practices. Was there a mandate put forth that this was to stop 200 years ago or so? And yes, as to whether it contradicts the verdicts of the shastra, people always find their ways around explaining things.

So let's not have double standards. If we go down the narrow road and start bashing every little thing that is not in harmony with what we have learned, we are soon left with hardly anything at all.



This is absurd. Are you deliberately misattributing concepts, or did you actually read him say this somewhere? If then, please quote.

And I too feel great affection for Adiyenji, his sharp mind, and also what seems to be an increasing commitment to the devotional path.

I feel perfectly happy to have you express your views, and indeed I was looking forward to them, for this means that diverse views will continue to be aired here. I was beginning to fear that no one would come forth and act as Advaita's ally.

Nevertheless, the problem as we have stated it here is not that Advaita is wrong to present his views, and strongly if he so wishes, but merely that he is not compassionate (though you seem to find that quality shining through).

I am not trying to create an Iskcon reform group, but I am realistic about how the Holy Name came to the West. When I chant the Holy Name, it is by the grace of Bhaktivedanta Swami. However, my heart has moved on. I know of his many shortcomings, but I am also aware of his many qualities. But at this point, the only thing that matters is that he brought the Holy Name, which continues to be the main staple of my spiritual life. I think that this is a purely honest admission, and one that is essential for spiritual progress. You give recognition where it is due.

zloka-pAdasya vaktApi
yaH pUjyaH sa sadaiva hi
kiM punar bhagavad-viSNoH
svarUpaM vitanoti yaH

I am not trying to curry favor with Iskcon or the Gaudiya Math when I say this. I am just stating an unavoidable historical truth. If you want to keep on seeking Radha's dasya, then get over your negative attitude to Iskcon.

Madhava is somewhat right, in that you don't seem to be quite sure what exactly I am standing for, while Advaita is much clearer in his position. This is certainly a great advantage for him. Am I an Iskcon reformer, an anarchist, a bhogi-yogi, or trying to be all things to all people?

No. But I am a pluralist. I believe, as I have already stated, and as the Gita and Bhagavata state, that God appears differently to each individual, that each individual finds God differently, even within a tradition like Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Within such traditions, we must find association that is svajAtIya, i.e., of the same genus, or genius, i.e. spirit. This means that splintering into manageable, intimately sized groups is not only inevitable, but desirable.

Because of this, I am far from being in favor of big organizations like Iskcon, even though I am not as negatively disposed as some others are, for the very reasons just stated. However, I do think that there has to be some kind of wider Vaishnava world in which we can move, as individuals and members of Vaishnava clusters, where we can participate, share, and grow through our common heritage.

This is part of what Gaudiya Discussion represents to me: exactly as you stated it, a diverse group exploring this fascinating subject of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and I think we have hit on an important subject for exploration.

But now I think it is time for me to do a little of that chanting I have been talking about.

Jai Radhe!

My deepest apologies to you, Bangli. Surely you have said things like this in the past? Anyway, it was wrong for me to mention your name. I am sorry.

Jagat

On sex: The scriptures have been cited, their conclusion is rather unambiquous. I did not find either Jagat or anyone else objecting to that as the desired standard. Both Jagat and Advaitadas agree that such a standard may not be a realistic one as far as its practical implementation among the broader audience of devotees is concerned.

If the practicalities of this statement are discussed, where is the problem? Anyone who goes to Bengal can go around and interview what the Gosains instruct to their shishyas who inquire on such matters. Do tell me they all just quote a couple of shlokas and say that's the standard and that's it.


On cannabis -The original objectionable statement:


As far as I can read, he does not say, "Hear ye all, smoke pot all day long." There are medicinal applications for ganja, and among various Hindu traditions ganja is thought of as favorable, or at least neutral in terms of their chosen sadhana. All in all as we look at its historical context, it does not seem to have been a very big deal in the society. The fact that we need to turn Hari-bhakti-vilasa in and out to find a single injunction that can be interpreted as relevant, in contrast to several eggplant warnings, tells something of how grand an issue it is. If it is a big deal, then why is it not presented as a big deal in the writings of the Gosvamis? If it is, quote, and show the context and measure the weight of the statement by comparing how much attention has been paid to warning on other matters. This I am yet to see, things put in a context.

And just in case it is unclear to anyone: I do not smoke pot, I do not recommend pot smoking as a sadhana.

I just tried to post a long brilliant answer which was somehow lost in the ether (probably a good thing). Simple answer: Advaita is no more rude than most Dutch I know, in fact much less! And he is the only person here defending conservativism, which fact disturbs me.

How do I reconcile apparent contradictions? See my signature, sva-dharma, sva-bhava, true Hinduism. Neo-hinduism, with all its 'scientific' claims, I reject.

eg: If your Dharmic community practices abortion, then it has a whole moral framework to put this act in context. In another tread I posted similar stuff about 'taboo'. Without Dharma, traditional moral context, all is lost!

I'm a conservative. I abhor anarchy, chaos, ill-considered reform, and 'progress'.

I can't abide people making fast and loose with authentic tradition.

Sure I've changed over the past 3 years. Probably more in how I articulate my views. Many of my views have not changed since I was at University 10 years ago, and I've tried to post links to discussions of my major influences like Richard Rorty and Alasdair MacIntyre on other threads. If you understand MacIntyre then you'll see where I'm coming from. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9608/oakes.html I keep posting this link, perhaps 4 times now. Perhaps people find it obscure. It isn't -it's about all of us right now right here. And it's the same as I understand the Gita verse below: without an established moral context, all is lost!

Guys, all this Gaudiya reform is not for me. I particularly object to Jagat's emerging style of moderating discussion. I like his academic writings, but not this free-for-all here. I could just quietly retire to do my bhajan and leave you in the dark, but I'm trying instead to explain.

Madhava, I need to simplify, try this analogy:

Catholicism is full of faults and confusion right?

Not to its conservative followers and advocates like MacIntyre above. To them, it is eternally pure, the fault is in the eye of the beholder. It is a living spiritual current, and one needs only to find a live connection. Read the webmagazine First Things which represents this view. Reformist Catholic groups abound in rich western countries (nowhere else!) but the liberal reformists and those who believe in the integrity of the tradition find no common ground.

Advaita's view of Gaudiyaism, and mine, is very similar to that of the conservative Catholics.

If people would digest the views of Alasdair MacIntyre in that link above, then we could discuss it further. Perhaps I could write a summary, but I find the above essay difficult to beat for simplicity and directness.

***
Thing is too, that adoption of the common sva-dharma idea eliminates all the problems which liberals claim we have to address. Everyone from any community simply needs to follow the dharma of their own birth family and community until they are ready to live a renounced life and adopt the highest Vaishnav renounced life. That may never come in this life. No matter, just chant and do your best. It is completely individual.

No need for general discussion. Certainly no need to critique Gaudiya teachings. Indeed this will only lead to nihilism.

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

I am happy to say that I am not an “ISKCON malcontent”; I simply found that I don't fit there. My respect, awe, personal gratitude and support will always be there for those devotees that I love and who have supported me through my life. I will always feel a tremendous amount of love, respect, admiration and gratitude towards Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, the devotees I have met and the ISKCON institution. I have just realized that I, as an individual, don’t fit the mold either emotionally, intellectually or spiritually to continue to grow spiritually within those walls. Most importantly I fear that be forcing myself to remain within those walls will erode my respect, admiration and love for Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's ISKCON movement. I have had the pleasure of reading many of Srila Sridhar deva Goswami’s works and associating with his followers as well as the works of Srila Puri Maharaja. I pray that these devotees will always allow me their kind association and that they pray for my spiritual well being and advancement. Like I said I will always feel a tremendous amount of love, respect, admiration and gratitude for these devotees even if I may have found myself to be more drawn to, and inspired, outside of their conventions. I don’t want to be one of those devotees that is driven to find fault with them and shout it as loudly as possible; I refuse to be one of them.

In some respects I am amused by those that seem so determined to show the faults of ISKCON, the Gaudiya Matha and it’s devotees. They shout as loudly as possible that they have left those pastures for “real” spiritual life. It reminds me of the analogy of the two Buddhist monks which encountered a woman that struggles to cross a river. One of the monks helped this woman cross the river by carrying her. Once they arrived on the other side of the river he let her down and the two monks continued on their way. Later that evening the Monk which witnessed his companion help this woman voiced his concern that a Monk would do something as seemingly unconventional as carry a woman. The other Monk remarked that although he had carried the woman across the river his companion has been carrying her all day within his disturbed mind.

Personally I wonder if many of the individuals here have really left ISKCON as they simply talk about and meditate on ISKCON more than most ISKCON devotees I know.

If you find yourself more motivated to find reason to argue with aspiring sadhikas than to discuss what we hold as common especially in regards to the past times and service of Sri Radhika than I think it is best to spend less time on the internet and more time on ones sadhana.

Lastly remember that every word you speak, and more importantly tone you project, is a direct reflection on your Guru and Guardians. Remember that regardless of ones affiliation and/or experience we are all seeking the same thing: The divine service of Sri Radhika and her dear Gopicandra. So when topics and their various issues arise let’s discuss with respect, affection and understanding.

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

Yes, if you just quietly adhere to the particular form you have been given and avoid comparisons.

Counter-question, do you want scientific truth or spiritual truth? Spiritual truth is found in tradition and consists of consolation in another world beyond this one.

But scientifically speaking, friends, we are all completely wasting our time here - forget the pseudo-science, this earth really is just a meaningless speck, humans are just DNA replicating machines, life is a pointless cycle in which all beings compete for finite resources, our inner selves emerge from lizard-reflexes, and return to them when senility sets in - go to an old-age home and tell me where is the 'soul' of an old man who has been turned back into a naughty little boy who plays with his faeces, spend a day with a severe Autistic and tell me in what way they are more human than a dog...

Searching for the objective truth leads to such nihilism. Accepting Tradition brings peace and solace. Your choice, friends!

Always appreciate your association, Rasaraj-ji, but I think you missed my point, just as so many miss Advaita's point.


What really scares me is that people are being encouraged to abandon their own Dharmas with some claim that the grass is greener elsewhere.

Be true to your Dharma, and respect the fact that Gaudiyas are, by their own standards, true to theirs. Don't give up your own Dharma without thinking about it very very seriously, and then go back to your own Dharma if the experiment with someone else's doesn't work out. That's what I'm saying.

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

Actually my post had little to do with yours. Just a general comment on the state of affairs.

When you stated “Be true to your Dharma, and respect the fact that Gaudiyas are, by their own standards, true to theirs. Don't give up your own Dharma without thinking about it very very seriously, and then go back to your own Dharma if the experiment with someone else's doesn't work out. That's what I'm saying.” I was a bit perplexed. What exactly is "my dharma"…

If you mean ISKCON... I believe my intentions and thought process is rather stable, time tested and well reasoned. I don’t act hastily and my personal evolution isn’t based on disappointment with ISKCON rather a natural development to my life and spiritual aspirations.

Lastly, a genera comment... In my eyes it is a bit sad that topics which are based on arguements with one another are of more interest than those on what brings us together.

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

Jagatji, there are liberal pluralists and conservative pluralists, especially in Hinduism. You are the first, I think I am the second.

What is the difference? You look to new forms of community, new combinations forming, which you hope to be the catalyst of. I see this as Jacobinism or Bolshevism and you are simply dreaming of Soviet Man, a discredited exercise. And nothing more than anarchism as far as I am concerned, with exploitation a possibility for those who master the chaos.

I say respect the pluralism which already exists, and the limited ability to understand across cultural boundaries. Discrete traditions, defined by differences with few if any similarities and therefore few chances of comprehendable cross-cultural transmission, so rather dire consequences for disputes. Peace is possible by agreeing to disagree and accepting traditional norms.

If all Dutchmen need to use expressions such as "something my ass", calling people mentally deranged and so forth, then perhaps I need to set up a national IP filter make all Dutchmen moderated members from day one onwards. I do not care whether conservative or liberal, but people should not speak harshly to each other or engage in persistent satirical nagging of those disagreeing with one's own position. This is at the root of the issue and the original objection of Jagadananda.

I suggest we take the conservative vs. liberal strand of thought to an already existing thread and leave this one for sorting out the issues that started it. Would you, Adiyen, like to prepare two-paragraph introductions summarizing the positions of both the liberals and conservatives as you see them, and post in your vies on the pros and cons of both approaches? This is a subject matter that needs to be discussed separately from this thread. Feel free to duplicate any content you see fit from this thread there.



It is certainly free-for-all within the parameters of the forum rules. No moderator is allowed to moderate content based on whether it agrees or disagrees with their subjective views. The task of a moderator is essentially to prevent members from quarreling with each other, quarrel defined as the use of harsh language and personal criticism. If you find that a moderator is acting in violation of this policy, please report it to the other moderators so that appropriate action may be taken.

The fifth governing rule of the forums reads as follows:


Clearly Advaitadas has not abided by this guideline. Does anyone disagree on this?

We need law and order here, we need common parameters within which we function as a whole, regardless of whether we are conservative or liberal pluralists. Lack of order is anarchy, just as free-for-all without restraint or moderation is nothing short of anarchy. Free-for-all within certain parameters, on the other hand, approaches democracy, while hammering things through is closer to a despotic rule. Now, that would certainly be Vedic, but is it desirable?

If you find the constitution of the forums disagreeable, please cast your vote in the thread dedicated to discussing that and leave in your valuable comments. I trust the concept of having laws in a society is not alien to our conservative party.

Yet conservative Catholicism is a tradition very different from ours, in that it has a single ecclesiastical governing body and a leader.

In an environment where we have widely differing and indeed conflicting views, even merely within strictly doctrinal parameters, we must learn to tolerate each other and coexist in a spirit of peaceful dialogue; and perhaps even appericate each other?

More thoughts in the Conservative vs. Liberal -thread, please post there if your thoughts concern this division.

Well then, aren't all endeavors for reaching out to others outside your own group basically a waste of time and in fact contrary to all good sense, if indeed the imperative duty for us all is to seek a confusion-free existence in the way you propound?

To illustrate:

• There is a grand rift between babajis and some orthodox gosvamis on the matter of guru-hood, since the rigid conservative interpretation demands that only a householder who is born a brahmin be a guru.
  
  
  
  
• There is a rift between those who worship Gaura and chant his mantra, and those who are against this; indeed, this rift grew very wide at one point in time in our tradition.
  
  
  
  
• There is a rift between those who favor svakiya-bhava and regard parakiya-bhava as inferior, a mood merely for the prakata-lila.
  
  
  

I recall once in an earlier topic I posted a list of ten such issues in response to someone who spoke of the grand unified Gaudiya tradition. If memory serves, we later on removed that since we felt it was too grand a can of worms at that point in time.

The point being that if truly you wish to avoid confusion by your standards, then indeed the only viable option is solitude, since practically every Gaudiya from another branch will have some differences of opinion with you, whether small or great.

All in all, I do not view the ostrich approach a very viable one for a world in which global communication and review is increasingly prevailing.



I do not believe in the dilemma you present.

I find this incredibly naive and contradictory with some of your earlier objections. You have argued for for a simplistic world of two idealized states: sva dharmic and "the highest Vaishnav renounced life," neither of which are real states.

The sva dharmic state of a Westerner, if such a thing even exists, could easily involve acceptance of sexual freedom, intoxication, meat eating, etc., and yet you decry the apparent lowering of standards--or even the discussion of such things. Somehow it seems you think a person can leap from a degraded life to an exalted life with no intermediate steps, all to protect some idea of traditional purity. It's like those ladies who lock up a China set in the cupboard for their whole life in fear that someone may chip their precious tea cup if the set was put into use.

Strangely, you have also objected to the dharma-viruddha thread in which people discussed their supposed sva dharmic approach to sex alongside discussion of dharma sastra, thus shorting anyone's attempt to find or develop their sva dharma in the absence of such a defined state for a Westerner. Perhaps you can inform us where to look for this dharma of our own birth community and for that matter why such dharma supersedes the instructions of the Gaudiya acaryas for intermediary sadhakas?

And as far as referring to Gaudiya acaryas in general, why so much Rorty and so little Rupa? Why MacIntyre over Madhurya Kadambini? In you wish to decry tampering with tradition, I believe you need to also be true to that tradition. Otherwise it seems you are just playing games, allowing yourself intellectual infidelity but condemning others for any kind of practical or social infidelity. This smacks of a certain kind of elitism. I think we all appreciate Advaita's consistency in turning always to the texts of Gaudiyaism but there is something out of place in claiming allegiance to the same view but favoring an entirely different language and set of references.

I agree with Braja that there is a certain contradiction here, but I defend Braja Mohan's right to do so. See my post in the current Guru tattva thread. Particularly

I have to agree with Advaita. While his form has to become more soft; I going to stick with his subject matter. I interpreted his position as a desperately attempt to change the course that this forum is pursuing. Which is a populist approach to devotional practices; where illicit sex, intoxication and mundane topics among others things are endorsed in the name of ‘understanding’ ‘changing of times’, “adapting to new realities”. It looks like Madhava’s unborn brainchild Gaudiya Times website is merging with the Gaudiya Discussions forum.

In the other hand, perhaps a forum at Advaita website is something should be considered, the more the better in this case.

Whatever...

Of course, each person can take his ball and go home sort of thing. If Advaitadasji feels that we cramp his style and would like to start his own discussion forum, he could do like Kshamabuddhi and start something. There he can speak his mind unfettered by considerations of decorum and etiquette. I would not like to lose him, as he has long experience in devotional life, has received many blessings, and has much to contribute. I value his point of view and actually feel that he could contribute a lot more. After all, someone who has translated so many of Ananta Das Pandit's books must have received a great deal of mercy from him, as well as from his own diksha line (to whom it must be said, there is a connection, for Ananta Dasji learned a great deal from Ananda Gopal Goswami, Advaita Dasji's spiritual uncle).

But as I have been saying, I see the great Gaudiya Vaishnava community as one possessing a great deal of internal variety. Please read Institutionalizing Prema Bhakti and you may get an idea of how I see things developing. I think this model is particularly appropriate in the modern society, though big "hard" institutions are always lurking to gobble up the less powerful.

Gaudiya Discussions forum might be considered a "medium" institution, which serves a linking function between various disparate Vaishnava groups or individuals belonging to often our own small "medium" institutions, i.e., guru paramparas, but we do not have a rigid framework with centralized authority, etc., like an Iskcon or Catholic Church. We owe allegiance to the "soft" institutions like shastra, but there is a wide tolerance (or should be) for interpretive and ritualistic differences.

Therefore, our primary guiding principle has to be voluntary good behavior as shown in the tRNAd api verse. We can all learn from each other, and none of us should think that any of us can control the rest by establishing a single orthodoxy of all.

RasaMrita, can you show where these endorsements have taken place? I certainly am unaware of anyone having rushed out to buy tickets to Maui or taken to smoking pot because the moderators have sought to prevent Shivaji from being abused for his unique views.

There is a big difference between defending someone's right to speak and agreeing with them. If a particular person's speech is routinely disturbing and counter to ones own views--and if you do not wish to debate those views in a civilized manner--then where is the harm in simply moving to another thread? Why the overpowering urge to enforce standards upon someone else in the name of defending purity? I have argued against Shiva's view on Radha Krishna tattva and simply moved on as there was no point discussing the matter further. I don't think that allowing him to express those views does any harm. There should be enough power in the logic and sastric presentation of this group of Vaisnavas to prevent most people from accepting his views on those topics as siddhanta.

Apart from simple doctrinal issues like that, topics such as sexuality and the like are more hairy, literally. Parabdha karma and samskaras are the dense matter of our very existence and we all take different approaches to dealing with that, some conservative, some liberal. It is like the analogy of the sprouting of the bhaktilata--the leaves unfurl at different rates for different folks, the leaves have a shiny side and a furry side, etc. We're on the same path but sometimes seem to be facing entirely different challenges, using different languages even.

In these arguments from the "conservative wing" I see this resorting to straw man arguments and can only suggest that you and others are bringing in wider issues under the guise of this particular thread. There is nothing wrong with discussing the wider issue but please be clear on exactly what you are arguing and who the charges are against.

A blanket condemnation of "mundane topics" might simply mean that you a) don't need to read threads that don't interest you, b) are on the wrong forum, or c) that your personality type and faith are different from some of us.

And as Gandhi said, Be The Change. If you object strongly to an issue, respond with dignity, logic and conviction. If the spiritual aspect is missing, introduce it.

Do you guys work or just hang out on forums all day..and get stoned?

Thank you Jagat for your comments. I see kindness as part of your character.
Much better than the contempt, "Whatever" above.

Anyhow, I see it from a different point of view. Because, when I scale something I always choose essence above form. However, what is this form? It is a symptom of the degree of realization of the essence. Therefore, an integral part of the effectiveness which a problem could be resolve or communicate it. Sure, under the mantel of time, place and circunstances, where the absolute becomes relative.

Again, I like to say that caution is necessary. Being inclusive should not mean loosing our own identity. Perhaps Advaita point.

Braja, let consciousness be your guide. Is useless for me to start given details of this and that. My position is not fault finding. I said what I feel. I put it on the table. Accept or reject is your free will. I do not need to convince you or nobody else. I have no motivation.

About your liberal conservative approach doesn't exist. Sastra is either one. I heard another expression, some are following and others not. I am in the latter.
Therefore I prefer to hear, see and read about those who are following. That so.

Thank you for all your advise. As a matter of fact that is what I do. However, It was a time, that all topics were a delight. I accepted. I have no problem. Krishna is the controller. I have learnt so much from this forum. Thank you, for that.

Caution!

Some of us are trying to prevent the stonings.

In any case, many are today observing the official day of mourning for Sripad Ronald Reagan and with not much to say in the way of eulogy, have more time on our hands.

All in all, I'm glad all of this is coming out. Tensions like this need to be openly discussed to overcome them. As we are still in the early stages of the Gaudiya tradition gaining foothold in the West, it is imperative that issues be dealt with right away; if we were to not clarify such matters at this point, we would be in for a terrible clash in a decade or two as the associations grow.

Here's one of my favorite un-referenced un dIacriTIciZed quotes from Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja - "Don't run from controversy for it strengthens the mind!" Maybe one of the learned wise folk here will supply the real verse.

Just a short point. I find something very amusing about the stance of conservative, traditional, authentic, preaching when coming from white skinned, extremely computer literate "Gaudiya's" who live all over the globe. Sense any irony? Is this not an obvious testament to the ever changing, "liberal" history of Gaudiya teachers?


Don't tell me we aren't a product of our times....

I accept...

jijaji

I, for one, would find such a list very helpful.

I hope and expect that it could be compiled in a respectful way, outlining the controversies and giving the basic scriptural/historical support for the different sides of each disagreement.

After all, if we are really all going to get along as fellow Caitanyaites, in spite of our divergent lineages, won't we all need to reach the point at which we can comfortably say, "I have considered and rejected the other position, yet I neither fear it nor wish to abuse its adherents"?

Mahaprabhu didn't attack Murari Gupta for having the "wrong" approach. Perhaps this can be one of the models that we each individually follow when dealing with others. Rather than demand that another devotee see things my way, I should honor his devotion. If through my example and/or through discussion I can convince him that my approach is correct, then that's wonderful. But if he remains steadfast in his divergent position, I should be mature enough to say, "I think he is wrong, and I know I could not accept his viewpoint, but I must honor his devotion."

One way of developing that respect -- and also a way of ensuring that people don't rush blindly into sectarian commitments that they will later on regret as they discover the controversies too late -- would be to compile the list you described.

Do you think it is a project you could revive? I think such a list could be very useful -- particularly for devotees just starting to learn about the Gaudiya Vaishnava lineages outside ISKCON/GM.

Yes, I can certainly revive the project. I'll need to dig my archives to see what I can come up with. However, my research on the issues is a far cry from being complete or even comprehensive, so take it for what it's worth - a preliminary outline.

I agree that people need to be aware of such issues before committing themselves to any particular lineage. It is, after all, a source of great discomfort if one were to fall into a dilemma over a fundamental issue which would lead him to disagree with the guru from whom dIkSA has been accepted.

If someone comes up with points that should be included, please feel free to PM me. I believe the three I mentioned in my previous post are among the more prominent points of contention, though there are certainly other, minor issues, both philosophical and historical.

I for one would like to see it too. Sounds a bit weird to me....



I dont think computer literacy has anything to do with natural facts like the fertility of sperm or the moral issue of the harm of using drugs. mp3 is modern, LP is obsolete, but fertile sperm and harmful drugs are timeless truths. Water is still wet, after all these yugas.....

Hanging out on the dole..... and staying clean...

It's in the context of varying perceptions of the various forms of Bhagavan.

It's not really a "fight like hell" as much as it is encouragement to delve deep into intricate philosophical issues and examine them from various angles.

[snipping duplicate - old quickdraw beat me to it.]

The verse speaks of siddhanta not controversy but I've seen it used quite often in contemporary circles as a justification for any kind of argument. The verse comes after an explanation of Krsna-tattva (brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan, Narayana/Krsna).

Indeed, the word 'controversy' has been added by ACBS in his translation, but is not included in the original Bengali verse.........

Mud, correct me if I am wrong, I get the impression that you have no experience with any other Vaishnava group than Iskcon. If that is so, then let me assure you that authority will be there, whomever you may turn to in the future. It is inevitable, even in the most loose Baul or Sahajiya groups. Freedom is an illusion.



I am willing to retract and express regret over extreme, derogatory language I used about devotees smoking pot as being deranged etc. But really Mud, are you not pushing it a bit too far now? They are also not weak? The Guru explains that pot is not good for KC and one takes a vow not to do it anymore and then one fails to keep that vow......now you want to call that STRONG or so?
And 'just quote'? It is quite the opposite. I asked the defenders of pot bhakti to quote evidence, that the Gosvamis, or even modern acaryas like BSS or ACBS, have either used it or promoted it. Until now I have not received any reply, and I wonder if I ever will.........

Isn't that what we are doing here, examining philisophical issues from different angles of vision? I'm not suggesting fight like hell, just that I believe in working out the issues, even when it gets rough. Some conflict is a good thing as it leads to fine tuning our understanding.

[Mud, correct me if I am wrong, I get the impression that you have no experience with any other Vaishnava group than Iskcon.]

No, I've never been IN any other Vaishnava group, though I have experience of other Vaishnavas. I don't really give a hoot what group someone is in, just whether or not they make some decent sense to me.

[If that is so, then let me assure you that authority will be there]

I don't have a problem with authority. There is a difference though between authoritative and authoritarian. I can appreciate your use of authority, sastra, reference, personal realization, etc. as long as you don't do it in an authoritarian way. Being learned in the authority, acting under authority is desirable. When acting authoritarian people are less inclined to accept what might be real authority. That leads us to the next point...

[They are also not weak? The Guru explains that pot is not good for KC and one takes a vow not to do it anymore and then one fails to keep that vow......now you want to call that STRONG or so?]

Not at all, I just say it's not your position to call them weak. Quote the sastra, present the authority, but if they don't accept you as their guide and teacher, what business do you have calling them or implying they are weak? It will only alienate people from the authority you represent, and I think we have seen that case in point. I would argue that if we really cherish the legacy of the teachings of Caitanya Mahaprabhu we would do everything in our power not to push people away from accepting them. Isn't scripture full of stories of fallen people becoming pure because of the mercy of the sadhus upon them? Take for example the Mrgrari story: If you were Narada Muni and Shiva (or whoever it was) was Mrgrari, you would have just blasted him for hunting, quoted sastra and told him he's hellbound for being engaged in such a hellish activity as hunting. What did Narada really do? He gave Mrgrari steps, mercy, by relating to him where he was at as a hunter, asking just to kill the animals fully instead of half way. Mrgrari subsequently realized his sinful activity on his own and accepts Narada's authority.

Weakness has nothing to do with it, I have a belief that I am correct, it has nothing to do with my belief that there is a higher position and I am not able to lead my life on that level.

If you think I am wrong in my belief I have no problem with that at all, I don't expect people who see sastra as the "absolute and only way" to understand that someone could accept those same sastras, as well as having a position that is different then what the sastra presents.

It is my opinion that sastra has a purpose, that purpose is not to make people devotees of sastra, it is meant to elevate the person to the realm where sastra is irrelevant.

So in the end it is not sastra that is the ultimate authority, the sastra has as it's purpose to connect you directly to the source and so you can get guidance for your particular time and place in terms of serving the mission of Mahaprabhu.




This is the problem with preachers everywhere, they see their position as upholders of the "way", we see that kind of preaching in all religions, we need to realize the effect of this kind of rhetoric, it will not have the desired result.




You can also give full blown details of your position, but when dealing with vaisnavas we should realize that the "biblethumpin" technique has it's limitations, while it is accepted that you can quote sastra to back up your points, there is a point where you give up in frustation and resort to trying to deride your opposition so that your preaching failure will not be seen as your fault, it is the fault of the person who disagrees because he is brain damaged.

After all is said and done it is our humility in understanding our true position in relation to the absolute truth that is important while dealing with vaisnavas, until we are directly dealing with the supreme we shouldn't take an absolute alamo like stand with a vow to fight till death over our philosophical stance, after all if we were perfect in knowledge Sri Paramatma would be speaking to us at all times.

Mud, thank you for your response.
1. About being authoritarian: I can not force my authority on Shiva, nor do I want to do that. I am not his Guru or his father. One's conscience and one's sincerity is the only authority that will really work, not any shastra or Guru. My words are not even really directed towards Shiva personally. My main aim is preventing this site to become a place like istagosthi, where devotees drag each other down instead of up. Hence my frustration at Jagat's inclusive approach. I have warned him privately against this danger, but he chooses to ignore it, perhaps thinking we dont have enough participants.
2. About Mrgari, the comparison does not really work: He was not killing animals in knowledge. Sinning in knowledge or in ignorance does matter. Shiva is under a vow and is deliberately breaking it and defending it with his own constructed philosophy, complete with website....

One of our moderators' mother is 100 % Dutch. No more Dutch surname than Jan....

Quite true, my mother's maiden name is van Goudoever. She's from Utrecht. I still have an uncle in Utrecht, and cousins elsewhere in Holland.

Unfortunately I can't code anything to detect that.

I live just 11 km from Utrecht, in Zeist. Anyway, believe me, Holland is the most eclectic, politically correct, sterile, and rationalistic country you could wish. (That's why I never go out of the door ! It is just me, only me, who is such a rascal!

PS You got the phone nr. of your uncle? It's a bike's drive's distance. He must be really old, if you are 54.....