Direction of Our Sanga - Cast in the vote and make yourself heard

Granted, ShorelessEclecticArmchairBlabla-dot-Com was intentionally a bit offbeat and meant to loosen up the audience a bit.

Nonetheless we cannot escape from the fact that these very issues we are faced with -- orthodox/conservative vs. liberal, as some would put it -- are the issues that pull religions apart into factions in the modern age. Recently there have been alarming signs that despite the infantile stage of our tradition in the West the danger of even our little cyber-sanga being torn in two is rather evident. In fact, there are already several individuals who have limited their participation due to this.

I am not willing to sacrifice one for the other, but would rather see us come along within the framework of our common denominators.

Please post in your thoughts and cast the vote. If you don't find the option of your choice, please PM me and have it added so you can vote for it.

I think we are already part of the secularisation of our particular traditions. The mere fact that a Westerner is present in an indigenous setting gives it a different shift. We never get to see what it would be like without us being there. The more modern means of communication and interaction are used, the more the processes involved are getting objecitfied and alienated. I am an alien in my parivar, and will always be an alien, but I have to cope with what is involved. Just by participating I am modernizing my tradition, forcing it to adjust to (my) alien ways. Reflection on the issues involved is in place. I am for openness in reflection, and a liberal approach, but do think that arguing does not really lead anywhere, except into self-definition, self-clarification and, here in public, to self-demonstration.

I'm a Marxist at heart and support all revolutions....so long as no one gets hurt. All power to those who like it with a twist of lime and to those who like it with a spoon of sugar.

The forum was just about right IMO and the valid response to any lopsided "liberal" content is to post more "conservative" content. I'd love to see a lot more content in Pearls of Wisdom, Philosophy & Theology, References, Biographies, etc., from those who don't want to get sidetracked into modernism and miscellany. This would be the Win-Win solution. If someone is thoroughly content and driven by their experience and knowledge of traditional Gaudiyaism, then they should share that--in anecdotes, in references, in editorials, etc. No one should hold back from posting their views nor introducing topics that are of interest to them, especially when they are privy to something that many of us may not know.

I do have an opinion on this but it is not given me as a choice which is why I am not voting here. I think tradition is what it is, a process of being handed down. There is implicit change. No way that anyone does anything the way it was originally done. This is a non-existant phantasy of perfection, an ideal. I am sure the real world was different also for the Goswamis who received a tradition, e.g. Sri Gauranga's instruction.

To be short, I think tradition requires respect, conservation, since the tendency is towards change inherently. Where change is imported consciously, it should be done carefully, keeping the good of the whole in view, in other words: watch the principles, the values set by an example. But we do live change, especially since we live in changing worlds, in multiple complex parallel worlds, not in just one world (or two worlds if the internal one is counted as different) as renunciants lived in their place of retirement.

For the rest I agree with braja here.

If you have an option you'd like to have included to vote on, post it in.

I'd vote for this version:

In my opinion, discussing our tradition in relation to modern values is important, but we should not strive to change the tradition to make it relevant in the modern age.

Do you refer to changes in practical life or in theology? If you refer to the former, then that is common sense, but the latter is a slippery slope then....

That's in now. If you already gave a null vote, PM me and I'll reset your vote.

The PM was sent to the 50 most active members of the forums with an encouragement to participate both in this poll and the one on the board rules. Let's see if we can get our voting percentage above 50%.

The slippery slope is a reality: when previously unknown traditions are being discovered, and they are brought into the public light, their dissolution starts no matter how hard you try to preserve them. Theology is just book-knowledge. Life is much more. But the Theology is worth being preserved, and as far as possible lived.

Bhaktas like you - great! Only there won't be many like you. Maybe at one time you will get a prize as the distinguished bhakta, and they will put you behind glass to conserve you better, or worse submerge you in alcohol

Joking aside: I think your voice is important, although you will be a Rufer in der Wüste (shouter in the desert?) sometimes, and sometimes you are heard, and sometimes you are followed.

OK, I'll bite. I've been meaning to start that topic for a while but did not get around to it. I will flesh out some of the arguments with more direct references later.

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

My vote was for "In my opinion, discussing our tradition in relation to modern values is important, but we should not strive to change the tradition to make it relevant in the modern age." I tend to agree with Nabadip and Advaita in viewpoint.

There is an obvious difference in the type of lives afforded to us in he year 2004 verse what was afforded in 1904, 1804, etc. Evolution is a must in all respects when it comes to adapting a tradition into our lives. The environments and settings in which we live our lives is radically different than those of our Gaurdians from hundreds of years ago and even from one another today. Evolution is only practical as we can't simply live as if nothing has changed.

Where we have to be careful is to ensure we aren't changing theology. There is an essence in which we must always honor and strive to follow. How that essence is congested into our lives is the hardest part as the spirit must remain even if the practice has to be slightly altered due to circumstance. This, to me, is where sanga is important. We can't simply live on an island; we need one another.

This is what I value most from this board. Through the quality of texts and posts I have been able to determine what Vaisnavas I can seek answers to in regards to both philosophy and, most importantly, practical application. Sri Guru gives us the theology, lifeline, practices, spiritual guidance and connection. However many times they are ill equipped to give practical instruction on how to live ones life. Asking one's Baba, who has never left the shores of India and has no understanding of life and the environment in Western countries or possibly has never been married or is far removed from such circumstances, how, what, when, where and why one should use the bathroom, what profession they should hold, how many hours a day should they work, when should they eat, etc. is just impractical. The first reason being is that I doubt many of our Gaurdians want to focus on or specialize in such things. Secondly how do they actually do that for each disciple? Lastly why would we expect them to able to give us the perfect answer without any frame of reference? They connect us, train us and engage us in the service of Gauranga, Sri Radhika and the Vaisnavas; they aren’t a career/guidance counselor.

All of this considered we are left with the obvious that change, in practical application, is needed. It simply evolves due to external circumstances but we must do everything in our power to understand the essence and bring ourselves to executing on that essence in our daily lives. It is the Vaisnavas peers that can help keep a healthy perspective on not allowing such challenges lead one to changing what isn’t meant to be changed.

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

Mine would be along these lines:

- I would love to see more traditional and siddhantic topics but I also respect the wide variety of interests and personality types within the greater Gaudiya world. So long as they are polite and reasonable, let em stay. "Let's build a house in which the whole world can live." ©

Ah come on, I'm just a bum. Submerge in alcohol? Just as I wanted to tighten up the board rules!

That's option nr. 1....

Not only impractical but also irrelevant. tasmat gurum prapadyeta jijnasu sreyah uttamam - "One should approach the Guru by asking him for the highest benefit." That is what a Guru is for....

And for a job? Well, there is not that much difference between India and the west. I think it is obvious one should not work in a brothel, a bar or a slaughterhouse f.i. Most of that is common sense. And the toilet? Well out on the job anything goes but at home one can change garments, shower etc. It is altogether not that difficult to figure out. Purity is the force, and everything hinges on sincerity.....

Another option that would have my vote would be teaching the tradition within the traditional vedic milieu, i.e the ideal of society being the vedic age where Dharma is the framework that we teach gaudiya esotericism as the pinnacle of philosophy.

Teaching the social and moral superiority of the Dharma that is seen in the traditional Vedic setting of Sri Krishna's time.

It's close but too detached. I am actively interested in liberal/modern topics. Basically I want more of everything--I'm greedy!--but I believe traditional topics are under-represented.

I personally feel blessed to have contact with so many people who are able to make intelligent comments on these matters. Nabadip's remark that we are by our very existence already changing things is a most cogent one.

We are what we are "Westerners who have been altered by Gaudiya Vaishnavism." Our existence means that Gaudiya Vaishnavism is in the process of being changed by Westerners. This will, of course, be most evident in the West.

So my position is not that we have to be deliberate bulls in a china shop, changing this and that for the sake of "preaching" or whatever. But I do think that we are to make use of our particular individual natures, experience and learning, to understand the nature and meaning of our chosen spiritual path. To be able to contextualize it for the world we live in. This is the only way we will make it meaningful for ourselves or anyone else.

I thus think that if we can find enlightenment in other sources then we should do so, but ultimately we must keep coming back to the ultimate source of our spiritual nourishment, which is: Gaurasundar, the Divine Couple and Harinam.

Those who do not wish to discuss such topics are free to avoid them. I think that creating a separate forum was a good idea, but making it hidden was not. But I have to say honestly that I'll bet that a survey of all the posts from the beginning of this list, with the exception of Madhava, I have probably furnished the largest number of quotes, references to shastra, rasika materials for meditation, etc., etc.

Some of those who are most conservative provide rules and regulations, but not so much rasa. Which of the two is most important?

I do this along with posting other kinds of materials. I don't see why anyone has to feel threatened by an attempt to understand spirituality in a universal, dispassionate way. A kanishtha adhikari (one of our psychologically loaded terms, but I am going to use it anyway) sees his own religious experience as unique and is unable to see how it compares in the experiences of other people or traditions. It is like thinking (in Shakespeare's plays) that when a Jew is pricked he does not bleed.

The Gita says--Atmaupamyena sarvatra samaM pazyati yo’rjuna--we should be able to empathize with other traditions and see how we are similar and different from them. In many ways, Gaudiya Vaishnavism is just another religion, going through the same things, undergoing the same tensions and pressures that every other religion in the world is going through. The Gaudiya Math is the result of certain historical forces acting on Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavism has itself undergone change over the course of time. And all these things will continue to undergo change with the continuing pressures of time.

We must preserve the essential core, but most of the rest is negotiable.

So which answer should I give?

Actually, looks like I am pretty close to Braja, with his objections.

I guess I would say something like:

Jagat's option added to the poll.

Well, let them be disturbed, they need that to feel proper, in place, in need, required. They are the conscience of the board, while you are the rule-breaker (sometimes)

It needs all the colors to the full spectrum of light.

Exactly. I mean nothing kills a discussion board more quickly than suppression of dissenting opinions. Every discussion board I have been on has some kind of agenda. I even got censored on Istagosthi.

The variety of opinion, viewpoints, traditional, modern, orthodox, reformist, are all allowed expression here. Let everyone defend their own position without trying to drive the others away.

And, as Madhava has said numerous times, if you want to guide the spirit of the board, then step forward. Make original, well-thought out posts arguing your point of view, or sharing nectar from the Goswami literature and making it meaningful for people.

My strongest point is this: Gaudiya Vaishnavism has to be meaningful for people. If it's not, all the scripture in the world won't save it, nor all the credos or vows of faith and orthodoxy. At least Adiyen was trying to articulate that point. If you want to defend a position, do it with conviction and integrity. But don't say, "Throw out the heathens." That is a losers' game.

Anyway, if the boards get any busier, I am going to have to restrict my participation to one or two threads or subforums.

Ha!

We are probably at the all-time peak as we speak. I'd expect it to calm down in a matter of a couple of days.

One thing we have to realize is that if there is no controversy, there is not going to be any traffic here on these forums. Controversy is that which elicits self-definition, taking a stand. And not many are going to show any interest in dry factual conversations.

Last weekend elections for the parliament of the European Union took place (my country is not part of it). No one is interested in that thing, so hardly anyone went voting. Europeans hardly know it exists. The reason cited by experts is: There is no or little controversy going on in that parliament. No one knows who stands for what. They are all experts and doing a good job, but have no profile towards an audience. Same thing here. If a bunch of experts discuss some dry topic, you get very limited attention. If that is what you want, fine, "go create" as the Sony slogan says. But what for and whom for are you creating?

Sure, controversy has a tendency to get out of hand. All in all I think our co-participants are thoughtful and considerate, accessible to reasoning, as this development shows. Reason to be content. This website continues to be a source of inspiration to the small number of participants. And it is managed well by you moderators (except I am sometimes a bit unhappy by the increasing Americanization of topics and view-points... reason for me to define myself, something I'd rather not have to do always for myself. But there are enough participants from European countries, to still make me feel at home.)

Oh, fascinating. My conservative views were nurtured by my Marxist Professors in my Pol Sci degree. Especially those Marxists who studied India emerged as - I guess you would call them - Neocons (and especially after studying the Indian Left!). I love the Old Left, but am alienated from the New.

Read Norman Geras daily blog. A wonderful old Marxist with many highly regarded books on the subject to his credit
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/ .
This will give you an idea of where the Old Left stands these days.

'Religion...it is the opiate of the people...it is the heart of a heartless world...'

From Critique of Hegel, slightly rearranged.

http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/texts/...Contr_Crit.html

I was majoring in Political Studies...but Bakunin saved me.

I was even taking Russian till I realized that it required homework and that everyone else in the class was either raised with the language or had taken it in high school.

Oh Bakunin? I'll have to look him up. I think Geras wrote a definitive book on Rosa Luxembourg (sp?).

I specialised in China and India. I learnt Chinese, enough to translate a few brief Classical texts. So I studied Maoism, and its roots in Classical Chinese thought. This led me more firmly to the belief in cultural pluralism, or in cultures as more homogenous and enduring entities than social classes.

My Phil teacher was a follower of Jon Elster, 'Methodological Individualism' using Game Theory. But then, I thought, why not Thatcherism (!).

Looks to me that every time I read these options something else is added. Good, it is getting more and more refined.

That was my option:

“I am a liberal at heart and think it necessary to understand our tradition fully in the modern context. Though I understand the concern of those more conservative at heart, I don't see why they should be disturbed by such discussions.”

Regarding to topics to be discussed in a gaudiya community; it’s already stated by the term gaudiya. Nothing will be accomplished in terms of self-realization with topics that is not leading to reflections about the ultimate benefit; love of God. That sounds too conservative? Well, but I’m not. Being part (even if not full time) those words is just a natural expression of the necessity of anyone who has selected as a source of spiritual inspirations a website that has a Raganuga slogan.

Modernization of Tradition, that calls for purity before any attempt to adapt it to what actually would be the pressures that a group or individual might be undergoing. In other others, it has to have that divine touching in it, otherwise, it will be just another individual or collective political strategic movement, disguised as spiritual revolution. However, the merits and values of the attempts to modernize the tradition can also be found at the core of one’s sincerity and realization of the process.

I personally feel very fortunate to have discovered a vaishnava assembly that resembles (even if perverted reflected) the best of our society.

Just a short comment: Modernization or adaptation is an organic process. Normally what happens is something like what is already happening: People convert to a particular tradition, but find themselves in a social setting that presents challenges to that pure original tradition. They have to choose, What can they do? What practices can they maintain? What beliefs are essential to them? Where can they compromise so that they are not entirely ostracized, etc., from their home culture. Naturally, the more fragmented they are, the more they will look for leadership. If Mahaprabhu is merciful, such leadership will come forth.

A site like this brings such issues to the fore. Like it or not, there is no evading them, because we have to live with them, day in, day out. There is a reality out there that imposes itself on us and our fine philosophical constructions and spiritual ideals.

As the questions themselves become clear, the answers will also. Those who can clarify them in the most cogent and meaningful fashion will rejuvenate many a stagnating spiritual life.

In other words, we seek a synthesis of our tradition with the world we live in. It is too be expected that those who have practiced and meditated on these things for an entire lifetime will have some thoughts on the matter. It remains to be seen where the syntheses lie.

I think Jagat's coming close to how I view this topic. I don't see any of it related to modernisation, I don't quite understand what is meant by renewal in this context either. Isn't it just a fact that we are westerners and our mindset and social setting bring special challenges to us. Just what part of my sadhana is there to modernise? Once we start tinkering and renewing, how can we say that we are part of a tradition?
I'm not a conservative, discussing sex and drugs isn't a problem for me, but wading through seven pages of some guys soap box propagandist drivel, is!

Gaudiya Discussions seems to have an issue with quantity verses quality, I believe that there used to be more quality discussions going on in the past. The more popular you make the forums the more tedious arguments we encounter. As the forums have expanded it seems that the result is just more political argument. Originally we where dealing with raganuga bhakti, then it became widened to Gaudiya Discussions, then extended forums for political issues, what next? Everyone begins talking about Marx, Darwin and Freud and there is a small corner for the conservatives who wish to discuss raganuga bhakti!

I invite everyone to start topics on the theological nuances of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. I'll start a topic or two myself now and then, but it is rather tedious having a monologue, so please mold the community by actively contributing topics that are of interest to you.

"Renewal", the way I intended it anyway, means adjusting to the climate of the times in the West, not tinkering with the fundamentals of bhakti-sAdhana. This is why I started another topic on distinguishing the eternal from the temporary, recognizing that which is prone to change as the world changes in contrast to that which may not change no matter what. Sadly, I do not see much participation there.

I just read Pinned: Improving the Quality of Discussions. I guess I should have read this before I posted.

I still think there is a lot of quality discussion. I'd like to see more raganuga stuff, too. As I said, I have posted a fair share of material, and usually when I am working on something, I try to post parts of it on the forums. There are others who translate rasika material all day and night but rarely share any of it. And then they complain that everyone is talking about other topics.

Bhaktivedanta Swami used to say that the bhakti process was like pouring water continuously into a glass of milk. Eventually all the milk is displaced and you are left with nothing but water in the glass. This is a good description of raganuga bhakti: Pour the water of Harikatha continuously and the milk of material consciousness will eventually be completely displaced.

Strange that those who consider tarka and vitanda to be a waste of time are unable to steer minds and hearts to topics of Hari! Rather than use the carrot of lobha, they wield the stick of vidhi!

Those of you who have voted for:


Please see this thread:

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?showtopic=1791