Secular Vaishnavas, Sacral Mentalities - Split from the Panda-topic

Ladies and gentlemen, last year in June Prof. Brzezinski introduced us to the new concepts of 'right wing' 'literalist' and 'dogmatic' Vaishnavas, now here is the latest - the SECULAR VAISHNAVA! Just in time, for the Madan Gopal Watchtower has learned that Professor Brzezinski is climbing out of his comfy armchair and is going to - gulp - India, that backward country, no doubt to enlighten the natives of Radhakund in Democracy and Human Rights. An electoral committee will be formed to keep regular polls and referenda on which Bhagavata Shloka is to be accepted and which one not ("Where to draw a line") and there will be regular distribution of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal to the natives to accelerate their enlightenment. The Madan Gopal Watchtower is very curious which dress Jagadananda Das Babaji Maharaja will don at Radhakund - will he take his old paramahamsa vesh out of the closet or will Mrs. Paramahamsa knit a warm woollen sweater for him with matching woollen socks? Send pictures, Jan, but only digital ones because old fashioned photos are not spiritual enough. Anyway its never too late for the natives to get some lessons in civilisation!

PS Yes Jan the Guru is really a big "problem" for you but dont forget those nasty Shastras as well !

Ladies and gentlemen, some devotees said after the big debate (orthodoxy vs. liberalism) that they will ask Ananta Baba about questions like flat Earth theory, millions of bodyguards, briefly speaking whether Vaisnavas are supposed to believe everything what the shastras say or not. Some of you are in India now, some have just returned. I wonder if you had the chance to ask Ananta Baba. I am sure many are eagerly waiting to hear his comments on the issue.

If this is the best you can do, hearing that Jagat is going to Vraja after all these years, then that is really very sad.

Jagat has written a letter explaining the issue in brief, and Babaji Maharaj is waiting for his arrival to discuss the matter in person. I am certain that is the best solution, given that the subject matter is fairly extensive and complex.

However, unfortunately a certain person has already gone to Babaji Maharaja, misrepresenting Jagadananda's views beyond recognition. Fortunately, saintly persons have the vision to see where the shoe rubs, as often philosophical issues become mere vessels of some more deep-rooted conflicts.

Dear Advaitadas Prabhu, your latest post is full of implied ad hominems. A smilie in the end doesn't help. Gulp.

-- Dhyana (not a Vaishnava really, but believes in the spiritual merits of "above the belt" debates)

While they are at at they might ask him where in the Gosvamis books are concepts of daksina paksa (right wing) aksarika vadi (literalist) and mata vadi (dogmatist) Vaishnavas. Must be somewhere in Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu....
And if his commentary on 'gaurangera sangi gane nitya siddha kori mane' was not wrong because Prof Brzezinski said one of them, namely Rupa Gosvami, was just a shitting and pissing human being on June 19, 2004 with enthusiastic support of Madhava, despite Ananta Das ji writing in his comment that he is a saccidananda vigraha........
And if Visvanatha Cakravarti was wrong in his comment on the bodyguard verse? He wrote : 10.90.42 – The plural number ayutanam (tens of thousands) indicates that Ugrasena had specifically thirty trillion attendants, rather than an indefinite number of tens of trillions. This can be understood by applying the kapinjaladhikarana, the logic of referring to pigeons. Somewhere in the Vedas is the injunction that ‘ one should sacrifice some pigeons’ . This plural number doesnt mean an indefinite number of pigeons but precisely three, since the Vedas never leave any matter vague. This ayutanam ayuta laksena, ‘ with a lakh of ayutas of ayutas’ means 3 sankhyas or thirty trillion. It is in present tense to express Shukadeva’s realisation of the eternal nature of Krsna’s pastimes."

We take into account that Visvanatha had no PhD......

Dear Dhyana I see you joined on July 4, 2004. Look back just 2 weeks before you joined in the archives to a thread called 'Treating Scripture as Evidence' for under the belt treatment of Guru Shastra and Sadhu........

I told Babaji Maharaja literally this - o shastra ke mane na, o rupa gosvami pad ke sadharana manush ke mane, o shastra ke atirikta mane. I dont think that this is beyond recognition. Stronger, I forgot to tell him that he says that it is OK to disagree with the Guru and that dope is quite allright for enlightenment, just one hour after quoting Haribhakti Vilasa that it is forbidden for a Gaudiya Vaishnava sadhaka. And I am truly happy that Jagat is going to Vraja, if it were to listen and get all this mundane crap out of his head and submit to higher authorities instead. Not if it is for the abovementioned reasons, which it most certainly is, since he still has not changed his tune. I do wish him well. He needs all the kripa he can get.

Now you are recycling the old points that have been hashed over a dozen times, the commentary of Visvanath Cakravartipad and what not.

Are you even slightly interested in trying to understand the points that have been made and brought under scrutiny, or are you entirely preoccupied with attempts to discredit Jagadananda?

Yes, and now I am certainly contradicting my guru here, of course I also think that Rupa Goswami is an ordinary human being, and in that I am enthusiastically supporting Jagadananda (your Jan), as he certainly spends his days working with texts written by ordinary human beings on the basis of a bunch of old books.

I am not quite sure what to say to you, Advaita. First of all, you seem to have a lot of personal animosity toward me. Second, you speak not to me, but to the gallery of ladies and gentlemen, like a demagogue. This means that you are not so much arguing a point, but a person. And this means that there is little point in me saying much of anything.

But I would like to say that in terms of etiquette, you make a mockery of your own traditional values. You speak of Brajavasis and Brahmins, of whom you speak in the strongest terms. Yet towards me, you allow yourself to stretch polite behavior by using such epithets as "Prof. Brzezinski" which are meant to prove what--that I am not a Vaishnava? Is that what you wish to point out to everyone? And the various other insinuations? Gee whiz, Advaita, don't you think it's time you grew up?

I never used the term "secular Vaishnava," but merely pointed out that devotees from the West will likely never be able to see the rapacious Pandas in Indian holy places strictly according to the standards of the Puranas or Prabodhananda Saraswati. Why? Because, like it or not, we have been brought up in a culture where birth stands for little, and we expect some value for our money. These are secular considerations, but they color our perceptions.

Furthermore, I may add that these are not necessarily bad. You yourself admit that you benefit from your home country's generous socialism, which does not discriminate against you because you happen to have strange beliefs. This means you are a beneficiary of secularism.

Madhava, I have no personal conflict with Jagat at all, certainly not from the 80s as you seem to think. My grievances are entirely philosophical and neither of you were able to solve them. Instead you both continue to sidetrack to the personal level without giving sensible answers. We can solve this very easily by you and Jagat just coming down from your high intellectual horses and just begging forgiveness to the Shastras and the Acaryas for your speculations, and promising never to discredit the acaryas and the shastras again. Could you both do that or not? Then this is out of the way once and for all.

Okay, thank you for the info, Madhava.

The problem with you and many others is that the servant does not tell the master how to behave but vice versa, or: the guest doesnt dictate the host but vice versa.
Dear Jagat, I did not mean to insinuate that you are not a Vaishnava, you certainly are but I personally consider you contaminated badly by the sanga of mundane intellectuals. I hope that the mentality you display doesnt come from your own inspiration. Correct me if I'm wrong.



Come on Jagat, to each his brand of humor OK? I could call you a baby too for discrediting and disbelieving shastras and acaryas.



This is a completely different point, we are speaking about Vaishnava maryada as was tought by Mahaprabhu to Sanatan Gosvami - maryada palan hoy sadhur bhusan. Bas. You must accept the maryada. Sanatan Gosvami did not want the pandas of Puri to touch him, out of humility. Why is that so difficult (that is also a question to Madhava by the way)?

This is indeed all it comes down to. Certainly so.

And as far as sidetracking to the personal level goes... Oh please!

Who is bringing this debate onto a personal level? Have I ever addressed you as Mr. van Dijk in public? Have I ever, anywhere, spoken to you in the manner that you have cosistently addressed me, not only here, but elsewhere?

A Vaishnava and the secularist in fact share certain principles--as Dhyana alluded. We expect that debate should be about the issues and not sidetracked by personal animosities, as far as possible. There is a certain level of common interest, even between us, is there not? So why do we not try to accept the basic common ground that binds us, instead of blowing apparent disagreements out of proportion? Like Vaishnavas, humanists or secularists accept the principle that every human life is to be respected.

What I find particularly backward-looking about your understanding of Vaishnavism is that there can be no progress in spiritual understanding. Through practice and the exercise of reason, I believe that it is not only possible but necessary for us to engage Vaishnava concepts in the modern world. The world today is not the same place it was in the time of Rupa and Jiva. This is something that a thinking man will take into consideration.

That was the apology?



Well here you go again.......

We have discussed this ad nauseum, Jagat. I told you so many times before I dont expect you to offer sesame to the brahmins in Quebec, but you are undermining the very principle of eternal Krishna Lila and the status of the Gosvamis etc. This has nothing to do with modern versus ancient, in the practical sense.



I was trying to be funny about your status of big scholar in mundane circles; as you know I dont have a PhD and I am not famous in the Universities of N. America, therefore to call me by my surname (it is Van Dijk by the way) will not have the same effect.

Don't try to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. You said nothing funny. I didn't hear anyone laughing.

That makes me worry if they want to secularise, doubt, play down, democratise or should I just say rationalise the whole thing, like you. Mind you Jagat you are not the only one who does this, it is a western disease. Remember we are just guests to what is essentially an Indian religion. We should come in on your knees, especially in our fallen condition, and not come in as guests and dictate the host around.

You demand an apology for acharyas and shastras as the befitting atonement, having judged us as offenders, heretics and so forth, standing atop the Madan Gopal Watchtower. Throughout the trial, the main piece of evidence and the leading argument has been your judgement.

[attachmentid=1197]

That is blatantly untrue and another sidetrack to the personal level. My posts on the threads of last June, plus the Sarva Samvadini post on my website are packed with scriptural evidence.

First of all, sorry about misspelling your name. I have gone back and corrected it. You may be quite inflating my reputation as a "big scholar in mundane circles." I really don't think anyone knows I am alive. Maybe that's why I don't find it funny.

But I don't think it was meant to be funny, when you say it any more than when Narasingha Maharaj does the same thing. It's your way of saying, "All you ladies and gentlemen out there. Don't be fooled by that fellow calling himself Jagat. He is not really one of us, he's an outsider trying to mislead you." It would be more honorable to just come out and say it.

I get this "mundane scholar" accusation a lot. I don't mind.

At any rate, the protocol and the etiquette on this website is to use people's user names or their devotional names if they give permission. I expect you to follow that etiquette here. After all, we wouldn't want a guest telling the host what to do.

===================

On the subject at hand, what I am basically saying is this: The Holy Dham is not just the property of a small group of self-proclaimed Brijbasis. Everyone who loves Radha and Krishna has some investment in the Dham.

This means that we want to see the Dham "happy" in every way. Serving the Brijbasis might even involve educating them. If some people think that the best way to make a living is to abuse and rob pilgrims, this is clearly bad for everyone and bad for the Dham itself.

Devotees are interested in "selling" the Dham as much as the Brijbasis are. It's a question, in part, of selling a vision of the Dham to them. If it can be shown that they could profit from different kinds of behaviors, then they might change.

The question of respect and honor is something that takes place on a different plane. One can honor and even love someone on one plane and yet act in ways that do not necessarily immediately please that same person. One would need to have a good plan and should probably be spiritually quite strong before attempting such a thing, but if they are engaged in behaviors that hurt the Dham, we should not condone them in the name of showing respect. You can say, "Ap Brijbasi hain. Main to ApkA bandA hUM, leking maiN Apko ek bhI pAysA nahIN dUMgA."

The secular way of looking at this matter is to be pragmatic.

So speaking of guests and hosts, masters and servants. A true host does not attempt to exploit his guest, but tries to find ways that they can mutually benefit each other.

===================

With regards to the benefits we have gotten from the historical rise of secularization: I don't think any of us can deny it. It is one of the sources of the West's prosperity. Many of its concepts are thoroughly bred in our bone. I would even say that the lack of gratitude to our own Western roots can be attributed to our secularism.

I am not, as you may or may not be able to recognize, saying that we should all become Godless atheists. What I am saying is that service to God means the application of intelligence just as much as it means getting a good education in shastra under the guidance of a spiritual master.

I am not saying to desacralize our lives entirely, as a matter of fact, I rather say the opposite--to see God in everything. But I think that God is quite a big concept and not "contained" by any sampradaya, not even our own. So we should keep our ears and eyes open, while remaining devoted to our ishta.

I'll try to write a more elaborate editorial on the subject in the next couple of days.

I find you, Advaitadas, to be very creepy. Why dont you just leave the mods alone and spew your ill will elseware so we dont have to see it?

I`m willing to bet others feel the same way, wishing you were not here.

Yes, and all of which is laced with (1) an intense condemnation of our positions, and (2) frequent misrepresentations of our positions and proposals. The references supplied have been mere instruments of your judgement.

Dear Brajamani,

There are in fact a number of people who have expressed the wish to have Advaita Das share his point of view on this site. There are many reasons why we have remained open to his continued contribution here, despite his lack of social graces.

His point of view does represent a conservative position that others may well share. Even though Madhava and I (probably more than even Madhava) take liberal positions relative to his, we do not wish to suppress his ability to express them. This site is called "Gaudiya Discussions", not "Jagat Discussions" or "Madhava Discussions."

Without wanting to sound condescending, you joined this board just 1 month ago. Have you read its archives? Do you know any of its participants at all? I think you should study the orgy of aparadha and apostasy that took place here last June before accusing me of spewing ill. Is it so ill to defend the dignity of shastra and acarya? This is creepy? What manners are those to call someone who defends the dignity of Mahaprabhu's religion 'creepy'? Do you know the background of this discussion? You wish I was not here so you can live blissfully in ignorance and let everyone be misled by Jagat and Madhava? Should someone not stand up for the Sampradaya? What do you want?

That is ridiculous. 'My' judgement is based on the references, not the other way around. That Vyasa, Shuka, Jiva and Visvanatha condemn your renegade independent intellectualism is not my fault, is it? Nor is it theirs. It is yours. And where have I misrepresented 'your' (who are you anyway) 'proposals'? What you mean with proposals? The Guru and shastra propose and you just surrender, simple. 'Propose' means 'speculate' perhaps? Did you ever challenge your Guru on 10.90.42 and his 'errand' statement on Rupa Gosvami being nitya siddha? Did you challenge Narottam on this nitya siddha kori mane, and jay sanatan rup prema bhakti rasa kup?

Jagat, thank you for defending me vis-a-vis Brajamani, who obviously has some lessons in 'social graces' as you call it, to learn as well. As far as your preceding post is concerned, that is quite allright with me, but don't you think the west lost, along with many superstitions, its soul through secularisation, and isnt this the reason why so many westerners go to 'backward' and 'superstitious' India - because there is still some wonder left there?

Advaitadas,

I joined the board 17 days after you did, so I need to be open to the possibility that in those additional 17 days, you have gained a far deeper understanding of this board and its moods than I have. Nevertheless, as I have been around this board for a while, I hope you will consider my points carefully.

Your participation in these forums can add much of great value. I hope it continues.

However, I think you are at your best when you positively portray the teachings of Mahaprabhu and the sampradaya, not when you try to insult the opinions and presentations -- and indeed the characters -- of Jagat and Madhava.

Why? I am not saying that they are right and you are wrong. I am saying that you often seem not to comprehend what they are presenting. I know it will take great humility for you to consider this possibility, but I urge you to consider it carefully.

You have decided that you understand Jagat and Madhava, and you have judged them as "misleaders" or worse. But I perceive that your background and training has left you incapable of understanding much of what Jagat and Madhava are saying. Perhaps you are incapable because of a language barrier, or perhaps it is because your frame of reference is so radically different from theirs. Whatever the reason, your objections often appear foolish, silly and motivated by personal animus, rather than by what Jagat and Madhava are actually saying.

Let me try an analogy. Imagine that your guru learned Chinese, and went to preach in Beijing. Imagine, then, that a Brijabasi heard your guru preaching in Chinese. If that Brijabasi said, "He is saying things I have never heard a Vaishnava say before, and I find his words incomprehensible and unhelpful," he would be correct.

But if that Brijabasi said, "I have never heard a Vaishnava saying those things before, so I must conclude he is misleading people," then his criticism would be unfair and inappropriate.

I realize that it will take great humility for you to acknowledge that Jagat and Madhava are simply operating "over your head" or "in a language you don't understand" regarding some of the matters that so upset you. That doesn't make them better or worse than you. It doesn't make them saints or offenders. It just means that they are trying to present the same message of the sampradaya, but in a manner that is beyond your understanding.

Are they doing it perfectly? Surely not! But neither are you. If you could rediscover the humility that would let you acknowledge, "Jagat and Madhava are not misleading people; they are sincere and dedicated Vaishnavas who are presenting raganuga-bhakti in a language that I find incomprehensible," then perhaps the shameful personal attacks could stop.

I hope you will consider the above carefully. You have much to contribute, but you are on much more solid ground when you share what you do understand, not when you try to condemn what you clearly do not understand.

Vamsidas, I speak English since 1962, its not Chinese what Jagat and Madhava speak. Its not a language barrier. Jagat and Madhava are blatantly disbelieving the Bhagawat, Rupa, Jiva, Visvanath and Narottam and even Ananta Dasji, the evidence is there in English, black-on-white, in the threads of May-June 2004. It is not at all incomprehensible to me, nor to all those who have expressed their support to me. Nor am I incapable of admitting I'm wrong when I'm wrong, you must know that because you have been on this board as long as I have. The personal attacks are meant to show that particularly Jagat, who swapped 2 sannyasa-vows for a PhD, a non-devotee wife and cannot even name his child after Krishna (even Ajamila managed that!), really is the last one to establish a new Sampradaya, as he calls the foundational Acaryas 'backwards'. Its not personal. I know Jagat for 23 years, apart from his intellectual arrogance, his ambitions to be a Jagad-guru and his diplomacy he's a groovy guy. Hate the apostasy, not the apostate.

When Vamsidas spoke of language, it was but a metaphor to convey an idea. Advaitadas ignores the idea and focuses on language.

What Advaitadas gets out of Vamsidas' message is VERY different from what I do. Seeing this, I begin to understand what he is getting out of the acharyas' message, and why it is so different from what Jagat does.

In which case both you and Vamsidas are cordially invited by yours truly to explain to me the deep purport of Jagat's and Madhava's abhinava siddhanta....

I am sorry I can't. I have worked as an interpreter for a while but I have no language for this task. Words won't make it. Maybe it's only the emotions -- of exasperation? outrage? hurt? -- that we have in common in this discussion.

Then we must conclude that the 'language' J and M use is so high that nobody understands it. Then what's the use of their preaching? Perhaps then its better they are backwards like me and just obey Guru, Sastra and Acarya....

I was not referring to the highness of Jagat's and Madhava's "language," rather to the difficulty of mediating in communication between Jagat/Madhava and you. It's not a question of too high, it's about being different.

I liked it that you used the word "perhaps".

As always, strong opinions stimulate wider participation. So I thank Advaita for that.

Advaitaji, you ask everyone to read the archives to find proof of my terrible apostasies. Indeed, I would ask people to read the archives and my home website at www.jagat.wisewisdoms.com to get a wider ranging idea of the way my thought has developed.

Of course you don't really need my ruminations because the kinds of questions that I ask myself don't arise in your brain.

As I briefly alluded above, there is reason and faith in everyone's belief system. Or, to put it another way, God's presence is there. I call this the Avantipur Brahmin approach. It is easy to say, "I learn from the bird or the tree," but it is not as easy for a Vaishnava to say, "I learn from the Buddha, Tillich or Sartre."

And if a Vaishnava says, "I don't need these people. I imbibe from the Bhagavata and Rupa Goswami alone," then my only answer can be "Blessed Be!" But I find that these thinkers are in the warp and the woof of the civilization from which we come, a civlization that has, for good reasons, over time turned to secularism and in some cases outright hostility to religion.

You are right to say that this left Western society with certain lacunae. The pendulum swung a little too far, and so many of us sought God, who seemed to have gone missing in action. And indeed that is why we came to Braj, and that is why people like myself remain (just as so many people convert to Christianity or Buddhism), despite the conflicting Zeitgeist.

But the trouble with those such as yourself who take such rigid positions is that you don't see that there is a constant dialectic going on between ideas and concepts. Secularization, as pointed out above, has brought us many goods. It purports to protect us from Christian and Islamic fundamentalisms, which are as dangerous in their way as Communism or Naziism. As thus it gives us the liberty to seek mystical meanings in weird religions like Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Of course, all societies impose a kind of world view to which everyone is expected to conform, and the struggle for self means fighting against such impositions, but secular society makes that battle a psychological one or a philosophical one, not a physical one, where jail or death are current dangers.

India is struggling with secularism. Gandhi and Nehru tried to impose an Indian secularism, but they were defeated in the first instance by Muslim refusal to accept the premise. Thus Pakistan was born. In the second instance, militant Hindutva was born, which I suppose is a natural and necessary development in India's struggle for a modern identity, but nevertheless a rather dangerous entity on the whole.

The thing is that a civil society needs to have many things, and one of them is the separation of church and state. For an ekanta bhakta like yourself, these things are not an issue and are rather a distraction from smarana and kirtana. We like to indulge ourselves in considering such matters because we find reflecting on our becoming devotees (Why? How? Who? What? When? Where?) almost as interesting and necessary as understanding the tradition itself.

Well, we (myself, Jagat and some others) have proposed alternative ways of looking at some scriptural statements, offering interpretations that attempt to explain the said statements in a logically coherent manner. And now, please don't jump on that and say that we are saying that the acharyas are incoherent. (That would be a typical response.)



Thank you for saving me the trouble and answering your own question. You have misrepresented "our" proposals for example just there, in claiming that we say that Rupa Goswamipad is not a nitya-siddha. You may or may not be aware of the fact that both of us are daily engaged in yogapitha-upasana as a part of our daily sadhana, and I trust you know that the said practice involves meditation on the nitya-svarupas of these parshadas of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

Hence, the claim that we are thinking of Sri Rupa and others as "common men" as you put it, or as anything less than nitya-siddhas, is ludicrous. One would expect that that would have sunk in, if not anything else, in the course of the said practice. I am at loss over your premises in reaching your conclusion. At the same time, while living among us, yes, they do behave like "ordinary men", as they walk, they talk, they eat and pass stool, and so forth. Nobody said anything of attributing mundane characteristics to their activities that are in form similar to anyone's. Or are you saying that Rupa Goswami never passed stool?

With regards to 10.90.42, I offered you a chain of scriptural reasoning demonstrating why on the basis of shastras, it is plausible to conclude that we are indeed dealing with tRtIya-atizayoktyalaGkAra. This did not seem to weigh much in the discussion, I don't think you even addressed it at all in all of your haste to blast Jagadananda.

A very nice read, thank you all. If we didn't have a stick going the opposite direction, we wouldn't be able to make some fire to lighten our world.

Sheer poetry Bansidas! Unfortunately, dear friend, such poetry is irrelevant in a world where Jagat does not name his child after one of Krishna's names!

...not worth it... All glories to the assembled devotees

After the drive home, I felt kinda bad about what I posted here.. granted, I was just teasing, but electronic communication does not lend itself well to this kind of thing... Advaitadasji, I apologise, and it was said in jest...

Advaitadasji: How about some links to the threads in question? I actually have read the threads (well, those I can remember), but I have been lurking here since about Jan '04 The newcomers could use some guidance tho... there's alot in them thar archives!

So many of the insightful things I have learnt at Gaudiya Discussions have been in posts by Jagat and Madhava.

Dear Advaitadasji, long time no speak, I have to say that I think you need a big hug.

I kind of like the liberal mood because it makes it easier to relate to people. If I were not liberal I don't even think I'd be able to relate to myself. I also like the way devotees can find different interpretations from sastra. Such a flexible approach means Gaudiya Vaisnavism fits me like a glove. You know wrapped up all snuggly.

Well, I feel that Jagat's and Madhava's posts make a much more enlightening impression of Gaudiya Vaishnavism than your posts - with all my less-than-one-month of official participating here (although I have been reading this site since early 2003, so don't let that disturb you in your casteish practice of estimating "how long time you have been around").

So it seems that I understand their "language" better than yours, which is very similar to that of this site. You just use shastras and authorities to -- as Iskconites used to do -- strike those who have different realizations of your perceived trust, or otherwise cross your way. For now, you use shastras and acharyas to do so, for you have no other weapons.

You are indeed "creepy," maybe because I'm just another non-Vaishnava, godless demon going straight to hell for not obeying his Lord's commands.

Please give your blessing to me, a sinner, for I need a real Vaishnava's blessing to be again one of them - so give your mercy, if you have...

(bhaktashab)

We have a thread to nominate best posts of the month. How about a thread to post Golden Thoughts? Those delightful nuggets of wisdom that pop up in texts we see? So that they don't disappear from our minds before we even read to the end of the text.

I nominate this one as the Golden Thought of the Month... or Week... of Whatever.

I hear you loud and clear. Thanks and have a nice day :)

Before things get too heavy here, I just want to say a few words in praise of Advaitadasji. These type of disagreements pop up around here every month to month and a half... after the last one between Nitai, Rasaraja, Jagat, Madhava et all, I've learned to just chuckle at them.

Advaitadasji has done some excellent work bringing rare texts to a wider audience, and I know I would be much the poorer without his work. I really treasure my copies of books he has translated, and I actively seek out books of his that I do not have. Advaitadasji, I really appreciate and am thankful for the work you have done.

So, before everyone hops all over him, calling him 'creepy', etc, reflect for a minute on the work he has done...

(And yes, if you were calling Jagat names, I would say the same things about him... I grab his books whenever I can )

There is a tempest in every teapot now and then. Let us not let petty disagreements cloud our minds from bhajan, our prime concern.

Hmmm. You know he still can be a creep even though he can translate. I thought your post was most befitting. I only changed my last post because hes not worth it to me to even think about it. Bhaktipad wrote some insightfull books at the time, is he not creepy?

I personally know of people that will not come in here because of this person, this has been told to me a number of times. Anyway I dont want to play anymore. If I offended, sorry.

haribolo!

All good points. I believe when you say "X is creepy" you mean something like "X gives me the creeps" -- is it so?

It's unproductive and can be hurtful to take the feeling we have about a person, make it into an adjective, and hang that on the person as a label, saying that s/he *is* that.

If I know the person well, I may have a solid ground to stand on when I say they *are* like this or like that. But in discussion forums like this one, when all we have about one another is texts, I strongly feel it is a safer, fairer strategy to stay with how *we* feel about the person, when giving negative feedback.

Right, good point.

I value my friendship with Advaitaji, and am disgusted by the comments made by some who are not even dikshit Vaisnavas. What the hell?

Advaita has made so many valuable contributions to the Vaisnava community. I feel fortunate to have his translations and his friendly glance upon me.

Differences of opinion will not cease to be.

I bow to all the Vaisnavas.

Oh I see, so you want to be even more secular? More exclusive here do you?

Could we please stop the sniping? I think that these comments are declining in value, and threaten to decline even further. Anything more in this vein will be deleted without warning or explanation.

I must say that I hold Advaita responsible for this deterioration in tone. I am not averse to his expressing his opinion, but it is clear that when we tolerate insulting language, even when directed against ourselves, a bad precedent is set.

So, Advaitaji, if you want to discuss issues with me or Madhava, be forewarned that all your posts will be censored to remove references that are meant to denigrate us or others. This is unacceptable behavior on a Vaishnava forum and sets a standard that simply makes the moderators' job harder.

This is nothing personal, but I want neither my defenders nor yours wasting time and space on this board engaging in the kind of firefight that is developing here and of which we have kept Gaudiya Discussions pretty much free.

So, if you want to address Madhava's or my apostasy, you are free to do so, but only in manner that is judged civil. From now on you will be subject to the same kinds of sanctions that we would levy against any other member of this board who crossed the lines of acceptable expression.

You have gotten this far on your seniority, but you have reached the limits of that blessing as far as the moderators of this board are concerned.

Thanks Jagat.

Good idea. Enough is enough.

Sundari Rai Ki Jaya!

I'm sorry.

And here we run into the problem of someone screaming out how we are moderating partially. And even if we get a third or fourth (Braja or Malati) moderator to take action instead, they will be labeled as partial to us, should they interfere in discussions where someone gets on my or Jagat's case.

The interesting fact is that most of the time we get accused of being partial to Advaita and other heavy-handed preachers who take the on-your-face approach, receiving complaints about not moderating uniformly as we allow them to keep going.

Well, several people complained immediately when Advaita started in this time. I think the criteria were fairly objective.

To be honest with you, I have been on these internet forums for a while and I see the way things operate. Advaita only hurts his own case by trying to make me look worse in everyone's eyes. He may not himself be able to perceive the way he looks to others, but I know that every time he goes off on an irrational tangent about me being fallen, not being as good as Ajamila, my desire for honor and prestige, or whatever, he is flailing helplessly and only losing his own argument.

His supporters and admirers feel shame and pity. They will defend him, and rightly so, for the good he has done, but they will worry that his good deeds have not saved him from a kind of loss of control--let us not analyze too much what it is, but it is scarcely edifying.

In the meantime, he gives me a golden opportunity to act magnanimous so everyone will say, "Look how Jagat tolerates insults. Who is the greater Vaishnava here?" etc.

I am laying this out for everyone to see--but believe me, it's not entirely a PR game. I am not the one making Advaita look bad; he is doing it to himself. I say all this to show why censoring him is not really in my interest. But in the interests of the board itself, it is clear that once we let this kind of wanton hurling of insults begin, it sets a tone and then spreads. Madhava and I are justifiably proud that an increasing number of people with differing backgrounds are able to come together and enjoy a kind of community here. We will do what is necessary to defend this atmosphere.

And what I said about seniority above is sincere. Both Madhava and I have known Advaita for a long time, and like Sakhicharan above, we appreciate his service and his nishta. And we believe that Sakhicharan is right--this forum should also show a certain amount of respect to those who are senior. We are fortunate to have a number of senior Vaishnavas--Subala, Keshava, Babhru, Advaita, to name a few--who bless us with their presence, knowledge and wisdom. We also believe in maryAdA rakSaNa. But we have to use our judgment in the interest of the greater good, even if this means apparent partiality or disrespect.

Moderating is often a thankless task. So...thank you. Re-directing a debate back to a civil and fact based approach produces a high quality debate and atmosphere, and protects us from becoming offensive. It is a tough job to be evenhanded and moderate even those you like and respect.

Blessed Be

I saw an article written yesterday by Niscala dasi that I think has some interesting insight on online discussions called Discussing discussion, a Vaishnava approach to rhetoric .

I agree with this. I spent about 20 years out of of my socially and vocationally active life as a Chairman in various extra-vocational and non-profit organisations as well as in my occupation. I always found it best to abstain from any debate while chairing a meeting. This is not a rock written rule but it is helpful and makes facilitating discussions easier and obtains a greater perception of fairness about the chairmanship. If there was any debate I wished to participate in I would simply step down from the chair for the duration of the debate.

This forum has the luxury of several moderators and it could be quite a reasonable proposition for one who is not participating in a particular topic to moderate it as needed.

Nothing in this post is meant to imply that Jagat is moderating badly. It is really a question about perception (apparency) potentials and releiving people of several hats. Wearing too many hats simultaneously can make one's head heavy.

But it doesn't have to be that way. I'm a moderator on a web forum and we practice what we call Preventative Moderating. For instance, it seems like some posters have a "bad day" of the week and where they seem to have a consistent history of making outrageous posts on that day. What we do then is just ban them for that one day of the week so they don't spend the rest of the week spinning out control from that one bad day. Maybe Advaitaji was just having a bad day and if we can determine what his bad time of the week or month is, just ban him for those days so he doesn't have to spend time away from that day or days trying to compensate for his poor judgement.

Some other things we do as Preventative Moderators is sometimes there is a new member and one notices "inauspicious signs" when reading their posts such as a dark cloud covers the sun as one reads their post for the first time and even though there is nothing offensive about the post, we just ban them on the spot to prevent future offensive posts. And too, there are those posters who are always happy but sometimes they are over happy which throws off the equilibrium of the forum on those days which wreaks its own type of havoc and so we ban that poster during that period when they are unusually happy. Also happening on the forum at this time of the year, lots of posters seem to be making New Year's resolutions to quit smoking and due to the tension and radical behavior one experiences when trying to quit smoking, they are banned for six weaks until they get over the hump of this crazy period when they are prone to irrational outbursts.

Hopefully Gaudiya Discussions will consider some of these tips of Preventive Moderating and the forum will find a more harmonious flow.

Jagat, as always I think you are awash with discredited assumptions.

"Gandhi and Nehru tried to impose an Indian secularism, but they were defeated in the first instance by Muslim refusal to accept the premise. Thus Pakistan was born."

And why was that Jagatji?

Because Gandhi's 'Indian secularism' was inescapably Hindu!

Despite succeeding Congress generation's attempts to flog the dead horse, secularism was, from that moment forward, effectively dead.

Reason, a 17th-19th century concept was/is dead (killed by Nietzsche I suspect, with his 'genealogy' of knowledge). Talk about backward, haven't you heard of postmodernism? Did you think it was just a fad? Postmodernism is grounded on solid reasoning. I have previously invited you to read the works of Alasdair MacIntyre and confirm this for yourself.

Advaita, insisting on doctrinal delineation, is actually the 'progressive' postmodernist here, while all the resident modernists are wallowing in the 19th century trying to re-invent the wheel.

Good luck!

PS: Voltaire's Bastards : The Dictatorship
of Reason in the West by JOHN RALSTON SAUL, 'Canada's greatest living philosopher' (according to some). Jagat, are you missing something? (I don't think Saul makes his case, but MacIntyre certainly does).

As I told your good wife (I hope she relayed my message to you) a friend in need is a friend indeed!

Welcome back, Adiyen. Long time no see.

It is true that we are still trying to come to term with the 19th century, which is really where Bhaktivinoda Thakur left us.So I don't think it is a great shame. We are slowly playing catchup with the rest of the world.

I personally know that I am left with an education that dates me considerably, and I find it more fruitful to look back at the stuff I am supposed to know rather than attempt to swallow too much of the new. So I will readily admit to never having crossed the portals of Wittgenstein or Derrida in their own words, what to speak of other, less well-known philosophers of this happy age. My philosophical education is hopelessly elementary.

So, I would happily invite you to give us a "Post-Modernism 101" course (on a new thread) if you feel that it is something that we need to know about, either for its challenges to our religious life, or for its possible contributions to it. We are most eager for persons like yourself, whose experiences and learning are different from our own, to contribute to our understanding of what we are doing.

======

I am not making the argument FOR secularism as such. I am simply saying that we are beneficiaries of some of what secularism has wrought. I reread Cox's "The Secular City" over the past week or so, and it is certainly dated, as a quick Google showed me. But even so, it is not without some interesting ideas, which show why it was such an influential book in its time.

Cox bases his thinking on the tripartite view of history, which he calls tribal, town and technopolis. He sees the concept of God changing with these different historical developments and asks the question, "What is God in the technopolis, or the modern age?" His answer is based on the Christian revelation, which he sees as leading to man's "coming of age." He thus stands in a direct line from Bonhoeffer.

The coming of age or maturity of humankind means to take responsibility for the world and transform it into a place of freedom and justice. In other words, God is revealed in history, i.e., through political action. Mysticism, suppllicatory worship of the gods, etc., are all considered phases of man's spiritual immaturity, hearkening back to tribal or "town" mentalities. They are thus traps to fulfilling the true meaning of the Gospel.

There were numerous problems that I found evident in his presentation. For one, it has the classical apologist's flaw of trying to read back the present as a fulfilment of the past--akin to Hindus who say "Atomic weapons are described in the Mahabharata," or "Communism is foretold in the Upanishads."

I also found the strict division of human history into three parts as something prescriptive rather than descriptive somewhat superficial. Just because something new comes along does not mean that everything that went before is bad and must be rejected. The yearning for God cannot be entirely replaced by political action. One is one, the other the other. Computers have not replace the book, nor the book the spoken word. Ultimately, the core of human aspiration, and the problems of human life are the same. Therefore ancient wisdom often speaks to us as profoundly today as it did when it was first spoken.

Hence my original comment about secularism making it possible for us to compartmentalize our lives in such a way that we don't need our religion to answer ALL questions about life, science, creation, politics, etc,, nor even for it to be relevant to all people in our society (ideological imperialim), but can allow it to work in the spheres where it has the most applicability--those of personal meaning, the creation of community, etc.

Of course, I don't exclude political action from the world of religious meaning also, if circumstances call for it. I believe in a multiplicity of meanings, as I have been saying over the last few days. God is not uniquely one thing. The God of worldly action, who calls man to bring justice to this world, is a God who may call on any of us to act at any time. Then, like Arjuna, we may even be forced to reject a life of contemplation in favor of war.

There is a nobility to this calling also.

==========

Next, I think that your analysis of Gandhi is more superficial than mine. Gandhi bent over backwards to accomodate Muslim fears of living in a democratic country where they would be in a minority. The adamant refusal of Muslims to accede to this very basic proposition of democracy resulted in Gandhi's assassination and the steady rise of Hindu nationalism. Gandhi most definitely was not trying to impose Hindu majority rule, nor was his secularism "Hndu."

The difficulties that Islam has in adapting to the modern world come in great part from its inability to accept the basic premise that state and "mosque" should be kept separate. I recently read some work by Wilfred Cantwell Smith and Charles Adams, two Islamists who studied Pakistan in the 50's (I am indeed stuck in a time warp), and their analysis seems remarkably prescient (somewhat more than Cox) about Islam and the modern world. Both express grave doubts about the very possiblity of an "Islamic state" based on purely Islamic sources, or even what is meant by an Islamic state without recourse to modern thought on the subject. The most vocal secular Muslim in India, Ali Asghar Engineer, seems to agree with this analysis.

As to my "second failure" of Indian secularism: Nehru's secularism did not treat everyone equally. It assumed that Hindus were naturally secular and that everyone else needed to be accomodated. Nehru did not really appreciate the importance of Hinduism as an aspect of national identity in India. And the most secular Indians still don't.

The trouble for Hindus in India was that their Islamic brethren set a tone for political debate that challenged secularism itself. This made many Hindus feel as though they should respond in kind--if they have a Muslim state, then we should have a Hindu one. But, as many Hindu nationalists argue, if the state is to be secular, then at least it should treat everyone equally and not have different laws for people of different religions. Such matters have been used to foster resentments with the resulting consequences.

==========

I have indeed read John Ralston Saul, though mostly heard him speak, and I admire him, though I hardly think he is considered by anyone except his publisher to be the "greatest living Canadian philosopher." He is the "consort" of our Governor-General (the official Canadian head of state), Adrienne Clarkson.

===========

A lot of different things in here, which means that this thread will soon be split. If anyone wants to take up any of these matters, please treat them separately and start a new thread for them. Please quote the relevant section of this and/or previous posts and include the URL of this thread to refer back to it when you do so. Thank you.