Temple of the Sacred Bower updates -

Please accept my dandavat pranams. I hope you will forgive the likely impertinence of some comments by a longtime "lurker" at this wonderful site. I do not mean to make these comments in a "dogmatic" way; I may be wrong, or be speaking from my own ignorance, or lack of the broader perspective that the senior devotees on this board are bringing to the discussion. So please correct me if necessary.

When I see devotees look toward "institution-building" I am reminded of another institution with which I was once affiliated. That institution spent so much of its members time and energy on grandiose projects that it lost sight of the most fundamental project -- the actual spiritual development of its members. Members of that institution would even show charts showing that if every devotee "made" another devotee in a certain period of time, the whole world would be devotees in just a few short years. Meanwhile, they (we) lacked even the most basic understanding of trnad api sunicena that might actually attract new devotees.

Those of us with any grasp of statistics, not to mention any grasp of human nature, recoiled at the naivete of such grandiose plans, especially in the hands of such neophytes as ourselves.

So I suspect that many of us here carry a bit of a bias--even an unfair bias--against even the best-intentioned "institution-building."

How might that bias be overcome? First, by looking to precedents in the immediate history of Mahaprabhu and His associates. Did they form "businesses" to carry out their propagation of the faith? To what extent were there financial relationships between devotees other than in guru-disciple relationships? Did disciples give daksina just to their gurus, or just to their gurus' temples, or to a wider Vaishnava community?

Was there an institutional model in place back then, perhaps centered on temples? Or was the predominant mode more of a "family" organization, in which devotees didn't fund institutions, but rather funded their extended families (including guru and guru-brothers, as well as physical family) to support everyone as fully as possible with their sadhana and their preaching?

Appealing to successful precedents as set by Mahaprabhu and His associates would thus seem to be a vital component in helping the Caitanya tradition take root in the West. Yes, those precedents might be applied quite differently today in some important particulars thanks to differences in technology, culture and samskaras, but in order to overcome the likely anti-institutional bias of those most likely to become supporters, I believe that an appeal to these precedents is vital -- and I suspect that these precedents may make it difficult for any one particular corporation to earn widespread credibility and support as a "unifying force" among Western Caitanyaites until quite some time has elapsed and a "track record" has been established.

However, to the extent that recognized Indian sadhus lend their support, this might go a long way toward overcoming "gun shy" Western bhaktas. If Ananta Das Babaji were to say "I wish that my Western disciples cooperate as fully as possible with such-and-such an institution so long as it upholds the ideals of this parivara" then such an institution might have some hope of success. Ideally, if three or four of the seniormost sadhus from different parivaras were to join in supporting one Western institution, this might be the "glue" needed to hold such an institution together, and inspire the disciples to persevere in making it work.

I wonder -- is there any sort of "corporate entity" managing affairs at Radha Kunda among the differing parivaras? That might provide a useful organizational model for the kind of institution that might work among Western Vaishnavas, enabling the differing particulars of their various parivaras while providing an underlying widespread base of support.

Ultimately, though, I suspect that there is no "short-cut" to successfully building an "infrastructure" for Caitanya Vaishnavism in the West. Deeply realized sadhus visiting from India would be a great start and could give the process a huge boost. Self-sufficient businessmen or professionals who can preach while maintaining their families' livelihood (and thus not having to beg overly much for financial support) will be another major boost.

But what will ultimately "institutionalize" Caitanya Vaishnavism in the West, I suspect, is the regular presence of a few siddha-purusas and other deeply realized, humble, learned devotees who are less interested in "making devotees" than in "making themselves into devotees." Of course, part of "making oneself into a devotee" is congregational chanting and public outreach, but unless the preacher is actually increasing his own bhakti, so that he can give it to others, preaching for its own sake can quickly degenerate into a "Ponzi scheme" that needs to recruit new men and money to keep the buildings funded, and risks losing sight of the ideals of raganuga bhakti.

I hope that with the above I have stimulated some thought that may lead to further helpful discussion. I hope I have not offended any of you readers with my thoughts, and I look forward to learning where my ideas may be mistaken and in need of further clarification or revision. Thank you for persevering through this long post!

QUOTE(Ananga @ Jul 23 2003, 08:33 PM)

From a practical standpoint, the strength of the Vaishnava community, which is the concrete manifestation of the abstract ideal of such a cosmic tree, is vital to the success of any projects undertaken by persons with a connection to the tree in question. I am sure anyone here can quote some zlokas about sAdhu-saGga on that topic.

One might argue from an opposing ideology that holds that a person that has received initiation through an unbroken paramparA is automatically empowered to do great things, and that is the main thrust of Nitai's argument. The question is: What level of dependency on others does such a person automatically have? Does that vary from one person to the next, or is there some inherent dependency that must be present?

Well, what level of dependency does anyone have, regardless of their position? Let's see. At least God to begin with. Scripture is a good one. Sadhu and shastra are two more healthy dependencies for any Vaishnava no matter how big or small.

kRSNa-bhakti-janma-mUla hoy sADhu-saGga |
kRSNa-prema janme teGho punaH mukhya-aGga || CC 2.22.83 ||

Does this refer to sadhus of the past or sadhus physically present? The surrounding 10 or so verses to both directions around this one repeat the point over and over again, serve the Bhagavat-bhaktas, associate with the Vaishnavas, and so forth.

Of course, the fact being that there is much corruption and degradation in the bhakta-samaj regardless of movement, it is natural that a desire for being a stand-alone spiritual leader may arise. However, there is no point in dumping the kid out with the bath water. There are certainly people worth associating with out there, certainly there are people from whom we may learn. If we encounter problems in the course of our daily smaran, if we come to a stand-still and find ourselves clueless about the course of a certain service to be rendered in siddha-avesh, or about the details of a certain scenario in a trysting grove we are to render service in, what shall we do?

I am personally quite selective in my association, but I could not think of discarding it altogether and becoming a stand-alone superstar. Of course it is a fact that association with either materialistic bhaktas or bhaktas who are otherwise narrow-minded, seriously conditioned with their respective cultural setup (which is mistaken as a prerequisite for bhakti), does not really nourish or inspire you all that much. However, there certainly are others who are like-minded, affectionate, and more advanced than we are, and who thus deserve to have our holy attention, no matter how advanced we are ourselves.

Oh, and one point on modernizing the tradition. It is certainly to be expected that not everyone in the bhakta samaj will agree on every amendment one may come up with, and that in itself does not in my opinion merit too much concern. However, if one finds that his innovations find no sympathy from practically anyone in the samaj, that I would call concerning. That would be a point to stop at and dig up the map and the compass from that old dusty drawer and check the course one is heading at once again.

Vamsidas, welcome onboard and thank you for your well thought-out post. I think we've all once been in an institution, if not several, where the goal became obfuscated by institutionalism and the quest for promotion on the social and managerial ladder.

QUOTE

How might that bias be overcome? First, by looking to precedents in the immediate history of Mahaprabhu and His associates. Did they form "businesses" to carry out their propagation of the faith? To what extent were there financial relationships between devotees other than in guru-disciple relationships? Did disciples give daksina just to their gurus, or just to their gurus' temples, or to a wider Vaishnava community?

Though on a face value it is a good point, if we wanted to get to the bottom of the matter, we would need to do some serious reflection on the sociological and political state of late medieval India. Perhaps the way they did it just reflected the need of the times? I'm relatively certain we all agree that the introduction of printing press and the production of literature on a larger scale has made a considerable impact on the movement, yet this was unheard of at the time of Mahaprabhu, at least on the scale we see it done nowadays.

As for the financial relationships, I don't think there is much precedent for giving monetary support to a wider Vaishnava community in general, people support particular temples or projects, likely the ones connected with their guru and/or other senior Vaishnavas they are fond of. I can't see the exact point you are making here. Would you mind to illustrate the idea further?

QUOTE

Was there an institutional model in place back then, perhaps centered on temples? Or was the predominant mode more of a "family" organization, in which devotees didn't fund institutions, but rather funded their extended families (including guru and guru-brothers, as well as physical family) to support everyone as fully as possible with their sadhana and their preaching?

Well, what is an institution? The common establishment for the growth of the tradition, dating back to the days of Advaita and Nityananda, is an institution in which the descendants of the associates of Mahaprabhu, such as Nityananda -> Virabhadra / Ramacandra, Advaita -> Krishna Mishra, and descendants of Vaishnavas appointed by His associates, such as Gopala Bhatta Gosvami -> Gopinatha Pujari / Damodara Das, initiate people in their locales generation after generation. I would say that some of those vamsas are indeed rather grand institutions. At one point in history it was very common that one ought to receive initiation from such a Gosvami, and they practically had a monopoly on initiations. There used to be a system where a Gosvami, who could not travel to more distant places to initiate, would appoint an Adhikarin who initiated people into the sampradaya, but stayed under the command of the Gosvami and the gurupat (guru-house). This system is practically defunct these days, but serves to demonstrate that there was indeed an institution there.

If we look at the immediate contemporaries of Mahaprabhu, it may be hard to preceive an institution on account of the fact that we are looking at the roots of the tradition. The tradition, freshly established, had not yet come to the point of the institution settling down. We might call it living in the immediate presence of the revelation. The need for institution, clearly defined doctrines and so forth began to after the disappearance of Mahaprabhu. The famous festival of Kheturi was one attempt to bring together the spread-out tradition under a common flag.

I cannot see anything fundamentally wrong in institutions. It is a matter of how they are used. Agreed, institutions tend to gather power-hungry people who aspire to get to the top of the corporate ladder. There is a danger there. On the other hand, there is an equal danger in cults which center around an individual leader. The institution shares both the responsibility and the rights which would otherwise rest on the shoulders of a single person.

QUOTE

I wonder -- is there any sort of "corporate entity" managing affairs at Radha Kunda among the differing parivaras? That might provide a useful organizational model for the kind of institution that might work among Western Vaishnavas, enabling the differing particulars of their various parivaras while providing an underlying widespread base of support.

There is, but it won't provide us with a useful organizational model. It might give us a good potential for a grand disaster. Apparently it worked quite all right for a couple of hundred years. I personally couldn't support the panchat in the condition it is nowadays in.

However, the idea of an inter-branch council is not a bad one. Whenever the time for it comes, I'd personally suggest that instead of studying the old models adapted in India, we did a serious study of modern Western organizational models and parallel studies of corruption in organizations, to come up with something we wouldn't have to curse afterwards.

QUOTE

Deeply realized sadhus visiting from India would be a great start and could give the process a huge boost. Self-sufficient businessmen or professionals who can preach while maintaining their families' livelihood (and thus not having to beg overly much for financial support) will be another major boost.

Oh yes. And I wouldn't mind having deeply realized Western sadhus traveling around either, if we located some. Excessive financial dependence on others is something we certainly must learn to stay afar from. It is the destroyer of all good ideals in an idealistic movement.

Those are some very insightful comments and very good food for thought. I have been grappling with those institutional issues for quite some time now. Certainly we have some excellent role models when it comes to pure management of power and resources. Our own guru, 108 Tinkudi Baba, used financial resources in an exemplary manner: He never handled money with his own hands, and funds were primarly channeled into the various festivals, such as the frequent Bhagavata saptahas he sponsored, which were always followed by huge feasts and kirtons. As far as I know, the few small temples we have at Radha Kund, Govardhan, Vrindavan and Nabadwip were built by some well wishers and not from the pool of donations that came in over the years. Some of the babas use funds to publish books, but not to construct palatial temples in the mood of aisvarya.

I think looking at Western organizational models is a splendid idea. We really need to have some good controls in place to prevent the misuse of funds and hopefully to circumvent any attempts at potential bureaucrats setting up their own pyramid hierarchy within the organization. Granted the politicians in America are hardly free of corruption, yet the balance of power between the three branches, the executive, legislative and judicial arms, of the federal government makes it extremely difficult for a despotic regime to sieze power and declare martial law. In short, the system works well.

Nitai has spoken of a simple plan to eventually have a few simple bhajan kutirs around a nice lake, where people can come and spend some time doing their sAdhana in an idyllic setting. A project like that does not really appeal to people with a power-mongering mentality, whereas some wealthy institution with huge bank accounts and millions of dollars worth of real estate is very appealing to such folks indeed.

An interesting discussion, and I too welcome Vamsidasji, whose comments show a great deal of perceptiveness. (Forgive me this somewhat confused article, which I worked on too long not to post.)

I too have been thinking long and occasionally hard on the question of modernizing Vaishnavism. In a way, it seems somewhat contradictory and even a bit of paradox that we should be discussing such an issue on the Raganuga forums, where adherence to the “true” and “pure” tradition (parampara) is a major concern. The co-incidence is not altogether coincidence, however, for--as Vamsidasji astutely pointed out--those who came to this corner of the world view for the most part abandoned institution-dominated Vaishnavism, perhaps without realizing that it is the nature of the world and humanity to always form institutions of some kind or another. In other words, jumped from the frying pan into the fire. [Some people even seem to be caught in a kind of endless frying pan to frying pan scenario.]

Most of the Vaishnava institutions we are familiar with are based on a single individual's preaching efforts, or at least they are formed around single individual or guru who is promoted as a divine figure and center of realization. A living human guru is thus the usual focal point of charisma and energy.

The death or departure of such a guru necessitates some transformation in institutional structure due to the absence of the original charisma.

There were two traditional Gaudiya models, as far as I can see, for institutionalizing charisma. The “vamsa” model institutionalized charisma in the blood line. In other words, it was accepted that anyone taking birth in such a family was extraordinarily blessed and thus a legitimate conduit for the spiritual powers (blessings) of the founder. As long as the culture and education of the offspring continued to hold fast to the ideals of the founder, this was a viable process, especially where karma and birthright are part of the general world view. It also had other considerable cultural advantages, and in the static world of agrarian society, made a great deal sense.

The second Gaudiya model, let's call it the "vairagi" model, which was adopted by the Gaudiya Math, emphasizes individual charisma (finding a self-realized guru) above all, and socially the need for constant renewal, somewhat analogous to Mao's cultural revolution. Though this model has always existed in one form or another, it is a decidedly modern (being individualistic) approach.

It results (perhaps intentionally) in a kind of radical decentralization where it is difficult for any institution to maintain strength because such individualism tends to promote vertical (authoritarian or paternalistic) relationships and subverts horizontal social (friendly) relations.

Thus the Gaudiya Math is tending to numerous guru-centered institutions of varying sizes, with more splintering with each new generation. The attempt of the World Vaishnava Association to create institutional cooperation amongst different GM branches has so far had limited success, in great part because of the above dynamic. The family relationship means a certain degree of good will (as well as peer pressure in matters of orthodoxy, orthopraxy and morality) remains, but direct institutional ties are loose.

Iskcon has in fact shown a certain success in its solution of the institutional problem. Though committed to the heritage of its founder, it has found a middle institutional course that allows it to better combine the concept of individual charisma with institutional needs. In other words, gurus are able to project charisma within the institution without undermining their collegial relationships with other gurus. Nevertheless, the institutional, hereditary, bureaucratic and legalistic types of charisma still dominate over the personal in Iskcon: no matter how powerful an individual becomes, he is still subject to institutional discipline. The Harikeshas know that if they deviate too far from the company line, they will have to extricate themselves from the body and strike out on their own.

Institutions tend to be conservative, and each of the above systems achieves, with a certain amount of success, the preservation of the original charism—i.e., the original revelation as it was received. The individual charisma (or “prophetic”) model has the most potential for dynamism, because it apotheosizes individual spiritual achievement against the inherent entropy and limiting weight of society in general. In particular, it is the model that appeals to mystics, and even more significantly, it is the model of Bhagavad-gita 18.66 and the gopis, for whom all dharmas, i.e., the imposed duties that emphasize one’s relationship with society, i.e., where one’s personal identity is defined primarily in relationship to society, are to be abandoned for personal salvation, personal religious experience, and personal relationship with God. This is the God of Jung (the archetype of the individual self) opposed to the God of Durkheim (who sees [usually] Him as the embodiment of society as a whole).

The individualistic model falls down drastically when things become so splintered that no one instititution has a sufficient critical mass of human resources to produce any energy. In other words, a Vaishnava society needs to have people who are learned in speaking on philosophy, others who are knowledgeable about ritual, others who are culturally competent—singers, musicians, artists, etc. It needs to have competent managers, etc., all of whom make it possible to create a viable congregational base. If everyone who knows a little shastra sets up his own institution with himself at the center, the chances of this happening are reduced.

Now what Ramdas and Nitai appear to be debating is the creation of an entirely new Vaishnava institution from scratch, but without (at least I suspect) anyone claiming direct charismatic empowerment. It may yet happen, and one of them may suddenly have a burst of divine inspiration that reveals to him or her the light that puts everything into the impeccable order of Truth, but at the moment, no one here as far as I can see, has taken up the role of guru, neither as expression of ambition, nor as a result of divine inspiration, nor under the pressure of popular acclaim. They are no doubt sanguine about this, as are the other readers on this forum.

Here, of course, a potential division in the “Raganuga” community becomes somewhat apparent. I think that the fundamental difference here may be those with a guru who is present and those with gurus who have departed (This may well be a figurative departure). At any rate, some, I dare say like Madhava himself, who find themselves more closely involved with their own guru, and consider themselves if anything to be a representative of that guru. I would class them as more conservative as a result, even though, in general, because of the considerations given at the very beginning of this article and as expressed by Vamsidas, they are far more open-minded and liberal than what would generally be classified as a religious conservative.

Even so, it is far more likely that Madhavaji would be comfortable with a preaching mission than I (for instance), precisely because he does not have to say, “I am personally the locus of charisma,” but can point to his guru in the reasonable assuredness that he is indeed truly representing him.

On the other hand, those of us who have gone through the academic mill are likely to be more critical in spirit, less inclined to ritual and sadhana, less sure of charismatic authority in general (especially our own), and will be somewhat more tentative in our direction, etc. I personally will not honestly be able to say, "I represent Lalita Prasad Thakur's opinions wholesale." I know I don't.

This is I suppose why intellectuals are often suspect in both revolutionary and religious circles and are rarely leaders. As Wiccan Starhawk says, “Scholars are not the ones who create religion anyway.” Leadership has to narrow the band of grey, to reduce complex situations to simple choices. Intellectuals are notorious in delaying the process of decision making.

On the other hand, nothing happens in human society without leadership. Unless someone is willing to take first steps, to show commitment to a cause, to articulate a clear vision that others can identify with, there is little possibility that any venture can succeed. Anyone who has those qualifications to some extent embodies charisma. This is individuation as opposed to cheap individualism.

So, as far as I can see, Ramdasji, you are expressing a need for some kind of charismatic Vaishnava leadership that will be able to find the recipe that combines the best of Vaishnavism with the best of what Western culture, in all its complexity, has to offer. Such charisma won’t come cheap. Such a melding might be possible, but it will require a certain amount of radical breaking away from what are traditional norms, and this means even more controversy than you have already encountered. If you are going to take strong positions on certain issues—sex, feminism, social organization, truth claims in theology, the nature of revelation, even the body-soul dichotomy, etc.—expect to lose some of your friends. This would especially be true as you picked out fundamental issues to be stressed. But strong, meaningful positions coming out of a conviction that is the fruit of long, hard thought, meditation and heartfelt inspiration are what has the most chance of succeeding. You have to be able to claim both loyalty to the tradition and the results of that loyalty, i.e., personal realization.

Thus the first requirement would still have to be that one’s spiritual credentials would have to be beyond reproach. Though I don’t think that scholars are precluded, a purely academic approach, i.e. intellectual arguments, would be inadequate for this purpose. However, those who are intellectuals would have to be able to have found satisfactory answers to the questions that have been bothering them and be able to express their solutions in convincing ways that are comprehensible to a wider audience, as well as making reasoned choices about global issues.

So at some point, I think that all the intellectuals will need to do some bhajan until their heads become really clear about core issues of faith and belief. Only then will they be able to provide leadership and create some kind of meaningful religious institution, either in cooperation with others or under their personal guidance and assisted by their own admirers.

If we can't achieve this, then we must eat humble pie and become true followers, repeating what we have heard as gospel truth and abandoning the hubris of our own ideas.

I always viewed the charismatic person at the center of the Rupanuga tradition as Sri Caitanya Himself. All others must be relegated to the status of minor flames in the presence of a brilliant sun, with the exception of course of Bhagavat-tattva associates of Mahaprabhu like Nityananda and Advaitacarya. That makes Him the trunk of the tree we are using as our analogy.

What Nitai has been emphasizing all along is that the first qualification to give diksa is having received it from a branch connected to the Tree. So, we could say that there are two ends of the spectrum when it comes to the issue of propagation of the paramparA. At one end there is the single empowered jagat guru as the one acharya at any historical juncture to spread the misssion. That would appear to be the basic mood of both Bhaktisiddhanta and his disciple Srila Prabhupada, as they viewed themselves as carrying on the preaching mission singlehandedly while all the other Gaudiya leaders sat on their respective laurels. At the other end there would be the greatest number of initiates moving in short order into the role of initiator, which is more or less that old chain letter approach of getting three of your friends to send in their five bucks and each of them recruiting three other people in turn, ad inifinitum. So, if each person that gets initiated does some intense sAdhana for x number of years, then makes x number of disciples, that makes for an algorithm that geometrically expands the number of people connected to the paramparA into the hundreds of millions after just a few generations. Could that have been part of the intent of Rupa in admonishing the followers of Caitanya not to make many disciples? Correct me if I am wrong, but it would appear that the typical guru in our tradition tends to make hundreds, if not thousands, of disciples rather than restricting the number to a mere handful.

As far as the modernization process, I really think that it has already been occuring in various forms for many decades now. Once upon a time a Hindu of the brahmin caste would not cross the ocean because of technically losing caste status. Vivekananda and Premananda Bharati broke that mold when they travelled to the West. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada went so far as to invest many thousands of Americans and Europeans with the sacred thread and then flaunted them in the face of many shocked conservatives in India. I even personally raised the ire of some Orissan brahmins, along with our American guru-bhai Jagadish Das, when we stayed at the Tota Gopinath temple in Puri while Baba was in charge of it. So, perhaps what we are really talking about here is accelerating that process in order to keep the tradition from falling too far behind the times and ending up getting abandoned completely. If we view a religious community as similar to a living organism, then it is always going to do what is necessary to survive, if it is at all adaptive. The Shaker community in New England is now apparently down to a mere eight extremely elderly persons today, which does not bode well at all for its survival.

I think that if it becomes more an issue of modernizing just to keep from perishing, as opposed to one of modernizing to enhance the rate of propagation - then people are going to get that much more motivated along those lines. Taking the living organism analogy one step further - those individual organisms from any one species of plant or animal that have proven to be the most adaptive are also those that manage to spread their genes to future generations. The norms of the most adaptive group (their genes, if your will) are by dint of that simple fact going to be inherited from one generation to the next while the norms of groups that are not so adaptive will not be so inherited.

QUOTE(Jagat @ ,)

Now what Ramdas and Nitai appear to be debating is the creation of an entirely new Vaishnava institution from scratch, but without (at least I suspect) anyone claiming direct charismatic empowerment. It may yet happen, and one of them may suddenly have a burst of divine inspiration that reveals to him or her the light that puts everything into the impeccable order of Truth, but at the moment, no one here as far as I can see, has taken up the role of guru, neither as expression of ambition, nor as a result of divine inspiration, nor under the pressure of popular acclaim. They are no doubt sanguine about this, as are the other readers on this forum.

Now, have you read the TSB page of Nitai's bhajankutir?

"The Temple of the Sacred Bower is registered as a non-profit religious organization in the state of Illinois. Donations to the Temple, therefore, are tax-deductible. The directors of the Temple are two disciples of Baba Kisorikisorananda. Minaketan Ram Das Thakur will act as the initiating guide for the organization and Nitai Das as the instructing guide. Membership in the temple community is open to all." ( http://bhajankutir.net/TSB.html )

QUOTE(Madhava @ Jul 26 2003, 09:27 AM)

Please accept my dandavat pranams.

Thank you for the link to the page describing the Temple of the Sacred Bower.

Much of the presentation looks very attractive, and its goals seem laudable and well worth attaining. I see just one detail that would cause me to RUN QUICKLY AWAY from this effort. The page offers the following fund-raising inducements:

QUOTE

For donations of $100 or over, the honorary title of Bhaktivedanta will be bestowed.
For donations of $1000 or over, the honorary title of Bhaktisiddhanta will be bestowed.
For donations of $10000 or over, the honorary title of Bhaktivinoda will be bestowed.
For donations of $100000 or over, the honorary title of Bhaktivaridhi will be bestowed.

Press the donation button if you wish to donate by credit card:

For me, the above very effectively "spoils the mood" of the whole effort. It suggests to me something about the reactive nature of the project, and the likely animus of members who would not be turned off by the promise of becoming (another) Bhaktivedanta for just $100, or who envision an organization where even the most marginally-committed supporters, rather than the seniormost members, are "Bhaktivedantas" (a title that other raganuga bhaktas have criticized as not being especially rasika -- so why go to the trouble of bestowing it so freely to supporters of a raganuga bhakti sangha?).

Then, to make matters worse, the next-higher level of fund-raising is "Bhaktisiddhanta." This plainly reveals the reactive mindset of the TSB leadership, and I find it toxic for reasons that should be obvious to any reader of this forum.

If, instead, there were several levels of fund-raising each named after one of the asta-sakhis, this might (to me, anyway) convey a more harmonious, positive, non-reactive and non-confrontational mood. But that is apparently not what the Temple of the Sacred Bower is about. It is still very much about reacting to its leaders' previous affiliation.

I'm sorry, but while I wish the TSB every success, it is clearly not something I would be comfortable being a part of.

If I have misunderstood Nitaiji's intentions, or have "read too much" into his fund-raising approach, I am sorry. Please forgive me. But I suspect that if I am feeling this way here, among friends, the reaction in the broader community of potential TSB members might be far stronger and unhelpful to the success of the new institution.

It certainly looks like a "begging the controversy" approach.

I am not so sure I would like to have one of those titles even if they paid me the amount they expect to get as a donation for the same. I might consider Bhaktivaridhi for $100000 though.

Afraid I have to agree with Vamsidas and Madhava here. I would seriously consider revising those donor titles.

I have more thoughts on modernizing, but I will switch threads to the earlier one on the issue, after reading through what you posted there more carefully.

He sent me a first draft of that page on his site, and I just though he was being satirical with those titles. I am not sure at this point if he is just joking or is actually serious. If he is serious, it makes no sense to me either. Also, I have told him that I do not agree with stating anywhere in writing about policies involving initiations, as that is really a private matter between prospective guru and sisya. The discussions we had about any one of us Western disciples of Baba, which at this point has dwindled to a mere three in number (since the others no longer follow the path of rAgAnugA sAdhana), giving diksa were merely hypothetical. The main idea was to at least have diksa available to persons that for one reason or another are unable or unwilling to travel to Radha Kund or some other place in India to take initiation. Given that situation, it is then going to have to depend entirely upon some confidence of the prospective candidate in the prospective guru and vice versa. Charismatic leadership qualities in a guru was never really a consideration. It is more a question of rising to the occasion and a motivation of mercy and non-miserliness on the part of anyone that has received proper diksa themselves being approached by a prospective sisya. It told Nitai that this was definitely something that needs to be considered, but also that I personally would cross that bridge when I come to it, if ever. One difference of opinion in our ongoing debates about ideology is that of the role of gurus in our poribar that are already fulfulling that role over in India. I personally would very much like to make it possible for them to travel to the West to give diksa to people (and not just those directly in our own line, but persons such as Pandit Ananta Das Babaji, who is one of my own siksa gurus and whom I have a direct personal relationship with from my visits with him at Radha Kund), and hopefully there would be no need whatsoever for me personally to have to fill that role. Nitai, on the other hand, seems to have no use for that approach and is gung ho to have us 'step up to bat' as he puts it.

In any case, all plans are just at the drawing board stage at this point. The first order of business is projects that are already underway, which are the grantha mandir site and publication of various texts by Nitai. I don't see fund raising via the internet being a channel that is going to work to any significant level. I would be surprised if even a single sizable donation were collected that way. This is not the same situation as an ISKCON temple in Albania putting up a website asking for donations and Henry Ford's multi millionaire grandson, who is a disciple of Prabhupada, surfing by it and immediately sending in ten thousand dollars for the temple construction fund.

QUOTE(Ananga @ Jul 26 2003, 03:26 PM)

He sent me some first draft of the page on his site, and I just though he was being satirical with those titles. I am not sure at this point if he is just joking or is actually serious. If he is serious, it makes no sense to me either.

Anangaji,

Please accept my dandavat pranams. If Nitaiji is not serious about those titles, then your organization may nevertheless still have a serious problem with which to contend. The TSB page has already been indexed and cached by www.google.com -- so it is part of the online "permanent record" of your new institution. See for yourself at:

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:zWAYz...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Nitaiji is sending a clear and public message about the "mood" of your new institution, and even if he changes the titles, they are "on the record" permanently (or nearly so), just like his recent "rogue's gallery" of individuals from his former lineage, which he replaced with more neutral/favorable text but which still exists in the old version in various online archives.

If you really view your site(s) as a "work in progress" where you are placing material that you may someday wish to deny or disclaim, I suggest that you crack open your HTML textbook and learn about the "ROBOTS" metatag and the use of the "robots.txt" file -- both of which can be used to discourage search engines from indexing your web pages.

Regarding your comment that you disagree with Nitaiji about sadhus visiting from India. I suspect that you and Nitai are BOTH right, in an important sense.

The Caitanya tradition will be a fragile foreign import, without firm cultural roots in the West, until a reasonable number (let's say an "extended family size number") of siddha-mahatmas or deeply realized souls are present in the West, and are known and somewhat accessible to sadhakas. So Nitai is right to encourage the development of Western conduits for the mercy of Mahaprabhu. Without them, Caitanya Vaishnavism in the West will come to nothing.

On the other hand, Caitanya Vaishnavism has a rich genuine history and tradition that has sometimes been misrepresented or neglected by those who are in a hurry either to gain followers or to make it "relevant" to their particular sense of the "Western experience." So having regular association with Indian sadhus will always serve as both an inspiration to sadhakas and as a "reference point" by which to measure that the Western sadhus are actually reinterpreting their tradition in an authentic manner for the Western context, and not simply becoming another apasampradaya.

The day that I cannot as a Westerner appreciate and wish to associate with Ananta das Babaji or Srivatsa Goswami or your Baba Kisorikisorananda is the day that I have cut myself off from the source of the mercy that I seek as a Caitanya Vaishnava. So I would be suspicious of any tradition or organization that sought to deemphasize these roots; after all, every valid initiation will connect the sadhaka with individuals who DO come in a particular cultural context that must be respected, however different from one's own.

On the other hand, I can readily imagine a "new standard" for devotional externals in the West, in which dhotis become a puja-specific item, just like other items that one never uses in "Western daily life" outside the context of arcana. I can readily imagine a few English-language songs entering the Vaishnava song canon, just as Hindi and Bengali songs have done -- never REPLACING Sanskrit, but supplementing it.

Who knows? Perhaps we will develop new Caturmasya austerities relevant to modern Western practice? Maybe a householder with a 9-to-5 job can't abandon his hair care for 4 months... but maybe he can steal a page from medieval Christian monks and wear burlap underwear? OK, perhaps that's a silly example, but I hope it illustrates my point. Five hundred years ago, India had to decide how to classify in its dietary laws the Western vegetables that it had not previously encountered. Today, more decisions are needed as Western culture encounters Indian norms. I think we're likely a couple hundred years away from being able to credibly write a "Westernized-Hari-bhakti-vilas" that settles all matters authoritatively once and for all, so I hope we will proceed slowly and responsibly and forgivingly as we learn what works--and expect a few mistakes along the way.

If the Western Caitanyaites adopt an "embrace and extend" approach to the devotional externals, I see great hope for implanting the tradition in the West. But if we adopt an attitude of "revise and reject" that too quickly sets aside 500-year-old traditions as "alien to us Westerners," we might run the risk of becoming alien not only to BOTH the Indian and Western cultures, but to the core values that we would hope to see rooted and flourishing in both East and West.

Does that make sense to you? I'll look forward to your comments, if any.

Sorry for forgetting my manners, Vamsidas Ji. Welcome to these forums and dandavats. It is our great pleasure to have your company.

I fully agree with your comments about Nitai's various web pages. I think he has realized at least to some extent the results in the form of a backlash some of his controversial and extreme presentations can bring about. If you have visited my own site, www.yogapitha.org, you will see that I follow a far more neutral path by comparison.

As far as this whole issue of adaptation of our tradition to keep it up to date, I also agree that it requires some in depth discussion and planning by committee as far as possible. Otherwise things could easily spin way out of control, and I think we have already seen that happen a few times in the past couple of decades in various quarters.

________________________________________________________________________________

Getting back to my living organism analogy:

The organism that is extremely prolific in the reproductive are is like the charismatic religious leader. It is able to produce many many offspring, as opposed to the organism that is like the average person in the role of preceptor, which only produces a handful of offspring. Certainly those leaders that have a great deal of charisma are going to be the most visible and the most likely to make the cover of Time magazine or onto an Indian postage stamp posthumously. Also, those that publish books are automatically going to become more prominent in the public arena. From what I have heard, our Baba had more total disciples than initiated persons in ISKCON twenty years ago, yet his name had not become a household word like Prabhupada's had become. I think book publication and establishing temples around the world were a couple key factors in that difference in the level of fame, since both obviously were extremely charismatic in their own ways - Baba by dint of his intense bhajan and Prabhupada on account of his public speaking and organizational skills. Baba was certainly well known in the Vaishnava community in India, as was Prabhupada, but Baba moreso for his role within that community and Prabhupada for his spectacular success in spreading the chanting of harinam far and wide outside of that community.

So the question still remains, how much of the success of any mission established by some Chaitanyaites depends on the emergence of a highly charismatic leader? I guess it depends on how one measures success. Puridas did not build a huge following after leaving Gaudiya Math, yet he produced some publications of Goswami granthas that are of superior quality and worthy of our awe and admiration, if not reverence.

I just sent Nitai an email summarizing the feedback from everyone on his donor pages. I have suggested he do something along these lines instead:

https://www.cso.org/%2Findividual%5Fgiving%...ng%5Fform%2Etaf?

QUOTE(Ananga @ Jul 26 2003, 01:55 AM)

So, perhaps what we are really talking about here is accelerating that process in order to keep the tradition from falling too far behind the times and ending up getting abandoned completely.

Now, this is where I utterly disagree with Nitai and we can't seem to even find common ground. The families which have preserved the various Hindu traditions have in some cases preserved them intact for thousands of years. I am thinking of the quite remarkable Rig Veda tradition here. This is also a pan-Asian phenomenon. In China, for example, the secret of gunpowder was preserved by one family. Critics of the 'caste system' do not understand its place in preserving complex subtle traditions in a hostile world. In the last 20 years Hindu family traditions have undergone a resurgence, just as traditional religious beliefs have worldwide (Islam! Hasidic Judaism...) Indian families will still be preserving their traditions long after the Modern West becomes a distant memory. They have seen Empires come and go.

It is Modernity which is under threat, not Tradition!

Those are indisputable facts of life, Adiyen Ji. If by modernity you mean the current state of Western culture, which is dominated by a mix of rap music and rock 'n roll and reality television and the action hero on the big screen, then that is most likely a passing fad that could already be on its way out. Technology and political systems, on the other hand, tend to have much more staying power.

I don't know that anyone was suggesting that Caitanyaism is actually under any threat of being lost. The discussion was more about how it might be effectively spread beyond those isolated geographical regions within the borders of Bharat Varsha where it has managed to flourish for so long. There is much mixed opinion about the level of tangible success of the missionary activities of the past three and half decades. Some feel that it was a tremendous success, while others (such as Nitai) see it as overblown hype and in reality marginally effective at best. Now, something like the practice of hatha yoga is another matter. Nobody has suggested that it has not enjoyed a resurgence in popularity in America in the past few years, because like rock music it is one of those trends that may ebb and flow - it does not appear to be going away any time soon.

One thing to consider with respect to this issue is the difference between our own generation, dubbed the 'post-war baby boomers', and those of our children and grandchildren. What types of approaches to propagating Gaudiya Vaishnavism are going to work best with them? Vaishnavas are not immune to the social norms and attitudes of society in general. For example, I observed both hippie communes in the 1970s and ISKCON ashrams and farms of that era, and the similarities between both types of communities were striking. In fact ISKCON devotees were preaching at that time that their communities were very much like hippie communes with the distinction that their type of communal living was not modelled on Communism but rather on spiritual principles. I think many of the hippies saw things differently though. The point is that much of what has already shapen and will shape the Caitanyaite tradition in the future is going to be forces that stem from societal pressure. If we can accurately forecast social trends, then we should be able to predict their impact on Vaishnavism. Anyone that saw the writing on the wall when the phrase 'Information Superhighway' was coined several years ago, could have easily foreseen all of the devotee websites that we have today.

Nitai has emailed me his response to the feedback on the donor titles. Indeed it was only meant to be satirical, although I told him that it was not all that clear from the presentation. I personally would not have made that type of joke on that type of web page, but to each his own I guess.

What is encouraging is that we here at Raganuga are able to discuss matters without the situation ever getting out of hand as it has on so many other forums, despite our diverse opinions and opposing points of view. It helps to have a level headed and sensible forum moderator.

QUOTE(Ananga @ Jul 27 2003, 02:23 PM)

Technology and political systems, on the other hand, tend to have much more staying power.

Of all the political systems the world has known, Western Democracy is the most fragile and easily lost. It remains to be seen if it has any staying power at all, Ramdasji.

Technology, for example, could end all our freedoms by revealing that we are just DNA-automatons, with free will just an irritating old belief to our increasingly powerful technocrat overlords as they master the DNA mechanism. Despite all the public bluster about right and wrong, no-one now really knows how we will deal with such an eventuality. The only people right now who have the resources to deal with it at all are, in fact, the religious conservatives of each culture.

Liberal Humanists have not come up with a response to the revelation that Humanity itself is just the expression of a particular genetic code. Do chemicals have rights or merit respect? What if technology leads us to be able to create humans from chemicals? How much would individual human lives be worth then, if they were easily replaceable?

Not that technology isn't useful in its place, but some greater notion needs to prevail to keep it there, Ramdasji. It cannot be put above human beings as they have traditionally understood themselves. Do you see?

So I predict a strong return to tradition as a response to technological change. Gaudiyaism will then need to put its roots down deeply in the particular culture it is in. I think a Western Gaudiyaism is a good idea, but this is what I think has to be taken into account, at some level, to achieve it.

QUOTE(Ananga @ Jul 27 2003, 03:32 PM)

Ahhh, our dear Nutty Professor strikes again!

Where would we be without him?
Yes, I agree the discussion has been exemplary, and thanks to the moderator for that.

Sounds lke you have some visions of the future right out of "Terminator 3, Rise of the Machines", Adiyen. Who exactly are these mad scientists you have referred to as 'technocratic overlords'?

Western democracy definitely takes a lot of work to maintain and defend, let alone put in place to begin with. Will it manage to take hold and last in a place like Iraq? It was certainly a major struggle to get it underway in France with Mr. Bonaparte throwing a wrench in the works. I think the success of any political system is integrally tied to its economic effectiveness. After all, the last czar of Russia was not helped by the conditions of poverty and starvation endured by millions of his peasant subjects. For the experiment in democracy here in America to have lasted from 1776 to today, as well as inspiring the same experiment on a massive scale internationally, demonstrates some real staying power, I would have to say. If it were all that fragile, I don't think it could be as strong a force as it is as a political ideology. Also, consider that it has continued to evolve over time as well. Don't forget about the abolition of slavery and the impact of the civil rights and women's suffrage movements. However, I think you are right to some degree, as evidenced by various countries where democratic governments have been overthrown by dictators more recently than Napoleon's rise to power.

As far as technology at the level it has reached in the past century, that is a much more difficult variable to predict, since there is not enough track record to go on. The type of potential for environmental disasters that we have today were just not an issue a thousand years ago, or even two hundred years ago.

Conservative religious values can be beneficial as a moral compass, as long as they are not of the misogynistic fundamentalist variety that are a throwback to times of barbarism best left forgotten, and as long as they do not result in the abuses of power that occured prior to separation of church and state. As long as people do not become completely atheistic, they are going to pretty much judge new developments like genetic manipulation according to their personal conscience, which is inherently shaped by their religious background. The more imminent danger appears to be the profit motive outweighing other moral concerns. Also, don't forget that some members of the extreme religious right would welcome a Puritanical regime (remember those guys that used to burn witches at the stake in Salem?) or even an outmoded monarchy taking the reins of power.

In my opionion, the trend is toward a utopian controlled anarchy, and I hope we get there sooner than later. My own optimistic vision is that technology will play a key role in accelerating that trend. Government must best serve the needs of the people in general, otherwise it is just a hindrance to our evolution as a species and definitely a hindrance to bhajan. Politicians of the powermongering ilk are just dinosaurs and are already on their way out. That will be a good thing, as they make room for more intelligent and responsible leadership.

QUOTE(Ananga @ Jul 29 2003, 03:58 PM)

Who exactly are these mad scientists you have referred to as 'technocratic overlords'?

Today's bureaucrats projected a few years into the future. No need for Terminator 3-type drama, my friend. We might begin with current attempts to fine tune the justice system in relation to disadvantaged minorities. Then develop more precise scientific ways of identifying the disadvantaged. Soon we all have our DNA on file, with government of the people by the cognoscenti for their own good, attuned to their particular genetic deficiencies.

I'm thinking Huxley's 'Brave New World'. Would you really welcome it?

***
There's another point I'm edging towards:

Different cultures have different moral ideas about the human person. Like me, you are probably pondering that Hindus and Buddhists don't seem to have the same regard for individual human life that westerners appear to. I'm talking about in practice, not in theory. But it would seem obvious that differences in moral theory have something to do with this. I think the Western differences are a lot older and deeper than popular modern theorists realise (and that without this depth we are adrift in moral anarchy, which I think is a worse thing than any of the alleged sins of tradition...but let's put that debate aside for now).

We on the boundaries of these traditions should discuss this; here are some questions you seem to be approaching too: What exactly is a human person? What are her rights and responsibilities? Do we believe in specifically human rights? The latter belief arises solely in the Judeo-Greek tradition, while Peter Singer made a good case that Buddhists regard the taking of human life equivalent to the taking of animal life. (panditah sama darshanah?) Is it really all in the Manu Samhita or the Codes of Vishnu?

Modern Vaishnavas might say that Human life is special due to its potential, atatho brahma jijnasa. But some humans do not have the capacity for brahma jijnasa, while even animals and plants benefit from hearing Harinam. It's an enormous gray area. If you like we could move this to the 'modernising thread' though it seems a shame to break the flow of your posts there!

QUOTE(Ananga @ Jul 29 2003, 03:58 PM)

Conservative religious values can be beneficial as a moral compass, as long as they are not of the misogynistic fundamentalist variety that are a throwback to times of barbarism best left forgotten, and as long as they do not result in the abuses of power that occured prior to separation of church and state.

Ramdasji,
There is no other nation in the world which has achieved the degree of seperation of church and state that the US has. Yes, the Europeans are now attempting to fuse a common secular meta-authority (is that how you use 'meta'?). But the individual member states will retain their seperate religious identities, and this could be the big issue on which the whole project fails. A French leader, for example, recently asserted that Turkey was 'not a European country'. The only way it differs from say, Greece, is in religious history, for modern Turkey was founded as a secular state, inspiring Nehru to do the same in India. In British nations, the Queen is both the Head of State and the Head of the Anglican Church.

Most of the world is just not like the US, and probably never will be. Switzerland only recently gave women the vote! 'Times of Barbarism'? They are hardly forgotten, my friend. I am right now facing a choice of High Schools for my daughter, in which I have to decide whether I want her in a school where a large number of girls wear 'Hijab', the Islamic Veil. In areas of the city where Middle Eastern immigrants dominate, my wife says the young men are abusive towards women who wear western dress. I have heard that in some parts of Europe, even non-Muslim women who don't wear veils are attacked.

Anyway, in the State-run schools here, and in many western countries like Germany, there is compulsory religious instruction, because authorities accept the point I am trying to make to you, that western religious tradition is essential to maintaining western values. The virulent campaign to separate church and state probably only happened in the US and France, with the latter being so thoroughly Catholic that it came to little.

- There is a pretty good argument that seperation of church and state was there from the beginning of the western tradition. Gibbon makes something like this point in the first chapter of 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire', with regard to the liberality of 'pagan' culture. But it also soon became a practical ideology for the christianised Roman Empire, because Roman subjects were never fullly converted but all still held their citizenship rights. This was aided by the 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's' Bible instruction. A major point in the development of western tradition was Augustines masterpiece 'City of God', which he placed clearly seperate from and beyond the City of Man. Again, the point is that no other tradition had quite the same development, and none came to these conclusions. But from Augustine on, it was no accident!

Yes, that old rationalization that women can be treated in a demeaning manner because it is just for their own protection. The people they need protection from are those so called 'protectors' - an abusive spouse or father for example. Political satirist Bill Maher makes a very good case for Western culture just plainly being better simply with logical arguments. One thing he points out is the problem with any culture that makes its women wear beekeeper suits. I have to agree with him wholeheartedly that we do not have to respect them at all. What if they thought it was a good thing to molest children? If so, then how many Westerners would be singing that tune? Is Bill saying that we have a genuine utopian society? No, not at all. After all he is a satirist and takes jabs at our own foibles at every opportunity. He is just making a general blanket statement, which we can relate to when we look at our standard of living compared with places such as China, and our record on human rights compared with regimes such as the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. I think you as an Australian should be familiar enough with these matters, since your country is very much like the USA in so many respects.

What we have the capacity for as Western Vaishnavas is to take the best of both worlds, namely Eastern wisdom and an enlightened post-industrial society that places importance on civil rights and religious freedom. We can merge that into something truly utopian. The outcome is that some day we can have leaders from our community elected to public office, and if they are up to the challenge, they can raise the bar as responsible politicians free of corruption. That will not require any of them to wear their faith on their sleeve, so to speak. People in general will respect us when they see that we have character that inspires their respect, not because we can spew some flowery words about Goloka and religiosity. They have already seen all sorts of con artists that are very charming on the surface as they trick them out of their hard earned money. Attempting to drag a caste system into the mix, no matter how well conceived and intentioned, will only serve to foul the waters.

A lot of people have raised the concerns you have mentioned about DNA research, Adiyen Ji. I only question whether those fears are overblown, if not downright paranoid. Racists are always going to find fodder for their propaganda cannons. Fortunately reasonable people manage to keep them in check and on the periphery of power, at least as far as the ones over here in the US. A source of hope is technologies just over the horizon that will free us from our centuries long reliance on fossil fuels. Some engineers are right now perfecting some portable solar generators using curved mirrors and a small steam engine, which is miles ahead of photo-voltaic cells for purposes of general consumption.

The trend may not have hit Australia yet, but right now American companies are shipping large numbers of jobs, particularly professional white collar positions, to places like India and Eastern Europe. It is just a tool for them to show cost cutting measures to shareholders, who in turn are always eager for news about the bottom line being improved at the companies in which they have invested. I suspect the money saved is not even a drop in the bucket for those huge multi-billion dollar corporations, considering the humongous size of their budgets. Oh well, sometimes what appears to be progress is not really.

There is religious identity, and then there is our identity in the society in which we were raised and currently live, which is predominantly Judeo-Christian and egalitarian, at least for those of us that were not born in India. That is particularly true for those of us who are not members of those large institutions that have their ashrams and farm communities. It is out of necessity that we are forced to straddle two worlds, and we will continue to exist in that reality regardless of whether or not we establish a strong Vaishnava community representing traditional Gaudiya lineages in the West (or down under as the case may be). If we do not act as effective East/West liaisons, then it is not likely that we will be very successful in communicating the essence of raga marg to the non-Vaishnava audience. The operative word here is communicating, since we are not out to be zealous proselytizers. That's right - no armies of street book distributors in the plans, and no money collectors at the gates in airports.

Middle Eastern terrorism is not just a threat to Western democracy and culture. It is also a threat to Vaishnavism. Any sort of temple Deity worship is going to be viewed as pagan idolatry by that whole crowd of mindless fanatics. So, I personally am watching very carefully the whole campaign by the current administration in the White House to root out those violent groups. That is because I think the success of that campaign is crucial to world peace and international religious freedom.

QUOTE(Ananga @ Aug 1 2003, 12:38 AM)

Anangaji,

I am not so pessimistic in this regard. Certainly, if one were living and working in Iran, one would not carry out the same kind of public outreach as if one were living in Chicago. Public deity worship presupposes that there is a receptive public, and if you don't live among a receptive public, shouldn't your deity worship be done in your living room or den, rather than in a temple open to the public?

Perhaps the "Western model" for disseminating raga marga teachings will focus more on quiet discourses about the philosophy, and on kirtan shared with our guests, than on inviting people to watch us performing deity worship.

But I wouldn't be so quick to assume the worst. I don't think there would be much difficulty establishing a public temple in a community where the residents were used to the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox expressions of Christianity.

Have you ever visited an older Catholic church, with ornate "stations of the cross" and statues of Mary and perhaps other saints -- not to mention the crucifix with its image of the suffering Jesus? I believe that as Vaishnavas we have some "common ground" with which to reach Catholics. On a technical level their "veneration" of saints is not theologically parallel to our understanding of deity worship. But on the level of "common discourse" we may not be quite as foreign to them as you think. I have talked to Catholics -- priests and laymen -- who agree with me on this. And I imagine one would discover much the same among the Eastern Orthodox, whose veneration of icons troubles even the Catholics.

It's all a question of how the matter is presented. Yes, deity worship might trouble an iconoclastic Protestant, or a zealous Muslim. But the very concept of madhurya-rasa might scandalize some of our neighbors even more than would our deity worship. Should we give this up, or cease speaking publicly about it at all?

Some, in the name of "reform" have said "yes" to each of these options. But I believe the real question is: "How can we be good neighbors while remaining true to our beliefs?"

Perhaps the most important step is to help our neighbors understand that we are not a threat. We are not cultists who would be happy to see their sons and daughters give up their careers and devote their lives to fund-raising for our projects.

Imagine that you were a Vaishnava whose only exposure to Christianity was from a Jehovah's Witness or Unification Church proselytizer. Your perspective on Christianity would be far different than if your exposure to Christianity came via Mother Teresa. Certainly, those Vaishnavas who left their faith and served in Mother Teresa's organization may have disappointed their families, but at least Mother Teresa's Christianity was deep and authentic and not cultic (Christopher Hitchens' criticisms notwithstanding).

Now put yourself in the position of your Baptist neighbor. He has rightly developed a skepticism about "Hinduism" -- or at least about "Hare Krishna" belief and practice. Can you fault him for that? I can't.

In response, some devotees have formed organizations that deemphasize deity worship and/or public kirtan, or that even in private kirtan shun the use of the maha-mantra because of the bad connotations they believe it has developed with potential converts.

But we are NOT "seeking converts" in the usual sense. I think this gives us the freedom to be far more authentic and "unapologetic" in our practice of authentic Caitanya Vaishnavism. But it doesn't give us the freedom to be antinomian, antisocial jerks, who fail to treat our "non-Vaishnava" neighbors with full respect and consideration.

Ultimately, isn't the best form of "preaching" simply the life and activities of the siddha-mahatma? How many of us were drawn to Caitanya Vaishnavism by our appreciating the buildings in which Mahaprabhu lived? Probably none. We were drawn by his life and precepts.

So I believe that our main project as Western Vaishnavas should be to "build" siddha-mahatmas, not to build temples.

If we choose to build temples with elaborate deity worship, this is at best a means to an end, and at worst a near-irrelevancy. But if we build our temples where our Christian neighbors have some hope of understanding us (e.g. Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians), and we reach out to those neighbors in a non-threatening way that tends to break down their old stereotype of who and what a "Hare Krishna" really is, then I think we should be fine.

Perhaps, too, we should remember that even in several of the Arab countries, there are thriving temples where deity worship is carried on. True, in some countries you can't preach to a Muslim without facing the death penalty, but you can carry on your own religion undisturbed, if you are a respectful member of civil society. I think it is this last element that many Western devotees have neglected, to our great detriment, particularly in the 60s and 70s.

Nobody "pressured" Haridas Thakur to shave up, move into the ashram, and sell records or paintings to earn money for his guru. He took upon himself the social ostracism from his community of birth, because he had been captivated by Mahaprabhu and his teachings. If we can establish such a model for ourselves, in which we do not seek to exploit others for our own (or our 'pet projects') gain, perhaps we will earn the credibility that will help us be accepted in even the most difficult environments, just as the Vishnu Temple and the Shiva Temple are accepted in Doha, Qatar.

I am with you on everything except the part about Mother Teresa, Vamsidas. I think Hitchens has some valid criticisms of her, as well as of the journalists that have failed to do their homework in covering her activities. Is not the smashing of household Deities in India by fanatical Catholic missionaries an end result of her influence and of others like her? He also raises some serious doubts about the Catholic canonization process.

Also, I was not referring to the entire Arab community in the Middle East, just to the extremists that view all outsiders as infidels that must be destroyed. It would be nice to be able to think that the Ourang Zebs of the world are long gone, but unfortunately they are still very much with us. I was extremely disappointed when the most powerful nations in the world did not step in and stop the dynamiting of the big statues of Buddha by the Taliban.

QUOTE(Ananga @ Aug 1 2003, 03:20 PM)

Anangaji,

Please do not misunderstand my mention of Mother Teresa. I merely meant to indicate that she represents "normative" and "non-cultic" Christianity in a way that the Jehovah's Witnesses or Unification Church do not.

Roman Catholic Christianity places great value on the idea of the redemptive power of suffering. This leads, in extreme cases, to a kind of masochistic impulse among the devout, which when turned outward can look like sadism. Perhaps sometimes it IS little more than sadism.

I do not know whether Mother Teresa deserves to be called a "Catholic saint." Perhaps she was a sadist who, when she was honoring Mother Mary, was by her cruelties engaging in a perverse kind of "death worship" more appropriate for Mother Kali. Or perhaps not.

Your comments are interesting, but are somewhat beside the narrow point I intended to make. I am sorry if I appeared to be giving too much endorsement to her, when I merely meant to contrast normative Christian values (however poorly or cruelly practiced) with the wildly innovative value systems brought by some other groups in the name of Christianity.

Vamsidas:

Point taken. Clearly Mother Teresa represents the most extreme conservative factions of the Catholic Church. I still remember my parents dragging me to Roman Catholic Sunday masses when I was a child back in the 1950s and early 60s and the liturgy was entirely in Latin, which meant I could not understand a single word of it. Also, I remember the torture to be endured during all of the kneeling, let alone the boredom of sitting through the whole ritual. Don't forget the collection plate being passed around. Fortunately for my siblings and me we attended public schools (I had to go to Sunday chatechism for a year or two, but my parents let me quit after that short run), which meant we did not have to submit to the indocrination and beatings by nuns. Most importantly we escaped sexual abuse by priests, although not everyone was so lucky (I am not sure about the parish in our home town, but as everyone knows the problem has been rampant worldwide for several decades now).

One of my cousins was divorced by his wife, and although it was clearly his fault and nor hers, she was nonetheless ostracized by many of our Catholic relatives. I am not talking about a hundred years ago, but rather less than thirty years back. We also know a Serbian Orthodox woman that can never remarry in her church because they decreed in their parish court that she was the cause of her divorce, when in actuality her husband was the cause, but because his father was a founding member of the parish and donated a huge some of money, they sided with him for political reasons.

Getting back to Western Vaishnavas, something like arranged marriages is perhaps way too conservative in the extreme. We know a Greek orthodox couple that tried that, and it ended in disaster, and I believe it had much to do with the American culture that they were born and raised in. It would probably be more prudent for Vaishnava parents to make sure their adolescent sons and daughters are using protection during sex, than for them to be totally unrealistic in their expectations. That is not an outright endorsement of premarital sexual activity, but it is a sensible approach to the matter nonetheless. Since we have no children, I don't have to worry about such matters myself.

QUOTE

Middle Eastern terrorism is not just a threat to Western democracy and culture. It is also a threat to Vaishnavism. Any sort of temple Deity worship is going to be viewed as pagan idolatry by that whole crowd of mindless fanatics. So, I personally am watching very carefully the whole campaign by the current administration in the White House to root out those violent groups. That is because I think the success of that campaign is crucial to world peace and international religious freedom.

Dear Ramdasji,

I’m far to be the right person to say anything here in this thread, but at the same time it is hard for me to read this type of statement from someone that I appreciate and do not say a word or two. Of course, it could just be a reaction that is deriving from a plain reading, but again, it is there and hard to keep silent.

In a short approach, USA gave a bad example by attacking civilians from a country in poverty. No nation will make any progress by making wars against kids and old people from anywhere. To say that the White House is uprooting terrorism is just as good as to say ‘let’s make peace by creating a war.’
In regard to the safety of Vaishnavism and Democracy you may be right but I certainly doubt if any of this big Nations have anything about that inside their agenda, but, the propagation of violence and disorder through a grotesque neo-imperialism system.

QUOTE

It would be nice to be able to think that the Ourang Zebs of the world are long gone, but unfortunately they are still very much with us. I was extremely disappointed when the most powerful nations in the world did not step in and stop the dynamiting of the big statues of Buddha by the Taliban.

Here your very question answers it. In other words, if they really wanted peace, that would be an appropriate circumstance to give peace a chance, but other than that, they were too busy making money$$$.

It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to be friend the one
who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion.
The other is mere business. -Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948)

Sorry if I’m exceeding with my feelings, but that is how I see this chaotic society; at the same time I'm positively sure that you are aware of it.

Hare Krishna ! Shanti, Shanti, Shanti... Hari Om...

How well the current administration is handling the campaign against terrorism is what needs to be evaluated and ascertained. Just because it is a good idea does not mean that the implementation of it is necessarily being carried out intelligently.

Reactionary factions are present everywhere as hard line religious fundamentalists, and they always have been a potential threat to religious freedom and human rights. The difference is when they actually take up arms and attack perceived enemies.

Despotic regimes are not always easy to topple, yet they have become easier to identifiy and expose via dissemination of information and the efforts of groups such as Amnesty International. I am sure Islam probably has some worthwhile contributions to make in theology. It is the extremist factions that are promoting jihad agains the non-Muslim world and abusing their women that I see as a dangerous element.

QUOTE

It is not a matter of how a Nation can destroy it’s enemy, but in a global view, is how it is affecting the understanding and responsibility of everyone to stop unrestricted violence whatsoever.
To say that one is better than other does not lead to solution. Innocent people are been killed and that is the whole thing; immoral violence can’t be part of a society that fights to preserves human rights.

Shanti, Shanti, Shanti... Hare Krishna !

I don't think anyone aside from the terrorists support the idea of unrestricted violence.

I don't think anyone aside from the terrorists intentionally target innocent people.

I doubt there's ever been a war or a large conflict where innocent people wouldn't have been injured or killed.

Ahimsa as a general principle is an ideal of the highest order. Self defense and keeping the peace are part of that ideal.

Some are questioning if the Bush administration had enough justification for the Iraqi campaign. Others are wondering if it is not Viet Nam all over again. Those are very valid concerns. That is why I say that the situation needs to be evaluated carefully to determine just how wisely the whole thing is being handled by the politicians. Terrorism takes many forms. In one of its forms it involves attacks on countries seen as enemy powers. In another of its forms it involves despotic leaders (such as Hussein and his relatives) oppressing their own nations. In yet another of its forms it involves wanton destruction of the environment for motives of profit and greed. To solve all of those problems is a vast undertaking. That does not mean that it is not a sacred duty to be shouldered by all responsible world leaders. How much would King Rama have been admired had He not valiantly fought the Ravanas of His era?

The world has changed and continues to become one global community that is tightly intertwined. Isolationism is no longer an option. Imperialism you say? Unless there is an actual empire, there is no question of imperialism. Do the most powerful nations have to be reponsible in throwing their weight around? Certainly, and I never implied otherwise.

QUOTE(Ananga @ Aug 1 2003, 11:38 PM)

I still remember my parents dragging me to Roman Catholic Sunday masses when I was a child back in the 1950s and early 60s and the liturgy was entirely in Latin, which meant I could not understand a single word of it.

Funny, but the thing which attracted me when I first saw an Indian aroti ceremony was that it reminded me of those wonderful Latin masses of my childhood, killed by the 'Vatican II' reforms, Ramdasji. And my attraction to Raganuga and its Sadhus comes straight out of my childhood exposure to Catholic piety, especially the introspection and inwardness, called 'quietism'.

Marriage is a very difficult subject, made complicated by our generation's being able to seperate it from economic and biological necessity, something unprecedented in history.

Attempts in the press to judge current events are largely premature. The facts are not in, and the reporting and editorialising (and politicising) sometimes near-hysterical. Its just like when the police are at work, you cannot stand nearby judging everything they do moment-by-moment. When the dust settles the facts have to be carefully gathered and analysed. What now appears bad may in fact be good!

There are so many theories about violence nowadays. Some will say that even using some words constitutes a violent attack, what to speak of 'wanton destruction of the environment'. Actually I think most enviro-damage is accidental.

I feel that generalising definitions is self-defeating. If nearly everyone (except one's own group of 'victims') is guilty, then no-one is really guilty. For example, feminists used to say, 'All men are rapists'. Which had the effect of making a criminal act, rape, into a general thing which everyone participated in, thus letting real rapists off the hook!

The same applies to much of the emotional rhetoric flying around, (mis-)using terms like 'Imperialism'.

When I was a schoolboy (in a Catholic school of course) I had a friend who was actually a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. We used to attend gatherings organised by our local Soviet Embassy, poetry readings, and he distributed copies of Mao's Little Red Book. We often heard the words 'American Imperialists' in those days (the 1960's), and we read every day how many had been killed that week in Vietnam. But we did not know that up to 30 million people had died of starvation in China as a direct result of Mao's bizarre policies, which he called 'Great Leap Forward'.

Vamsidas, you can see that I am an example of what you are saying about interfaith affinities. But perhaps you didn't realise that a lot of western Hare Krishnas were indeed Catholic. I know one devotee who thinks this is a wicked conspiracy which explains all the Sannyasi-Bishops and hierarchy!

Aware as I am of 'Mother' Teresa's weak points, her work exemplified a point I was making earlier. She collected the dying off the streets, so that they could die in dignity in a hospice (I know she has been accused of not doing enough to prevent death because she had the Catholic death and suffering redemption belief which you mention Vamsidas).

But that's what I want to draw attention to, the concept of Dignity and dying with dignity. This concept is a very deep thing for us westerners, but it seems unknown in India and elsewhere, at least for the poor. One feels sorrow to witness the plight of the Bhangis, for example.

Human Dignity, my friends. Is this not a notion which Vaishnavas ought to hold? If it is missing from our current beliefs, shouldn't we add it? Is it something we westerners have a special affinity for?

QUOTE(Ananga @ Aug 2 2003, 09:27 PM)

The world has changed and continues to become one global community that is tightly intertwined. Isolationism is no longer an option. Imperialism you say? Unless there is an actual empire, there is no question of imperialism. Do the most powerful nations have to be reponsible in throwing their weight around? Certainly, and I never implied otherwise.

Now days, after 5000 years of evolution of the human race, here we are, dealing with the basics of a human society. To whom shall we blame, are we all not Kali’s children ?

With all these technologies and sophistication that is related to the social development, what would be the furtive way to make and Empire? What if a Giant incorporation that can have total control of TV’ stations, Radio’ stations, Newspaper agencies, Media, Educational Institutions, Libraries and total access of all kinds of information and countries, Banks and Bankers, chosen writers, scientists, doctors, Politicians, and of course, an unrestricted access to mines of diamantes and gold, satellite communication, drugs and religions. With all that, facilitated by many branches of the main incorporation that globalizes everything and back up by a Democratic mechanism; the invisible hands of the empire operates. An invisible (protected, undetected) Empire that has been diligently built centuries after centuries, now reaches one of it’s highest point and is vastly controlling the “entire global community that is tightly cooperating knowing or unknowing”.

It sounds fiction and I wish it was. Probably, terrorism is just another distractive, intelligent cover up and well commanded actions that will benefit the New Order’s top secret sequential plans.

That whole notion smacks of paranoia, Hari Saran.

The wealthy and powerful are influential, as they always have been. Do they cooperate? Yes, they do. Does that constitute some vast conspiracy for world domination? That's highly unlikely. Sure, it makes for great fiction, but it does not account for the reality of the various power struggles that are unfolding on a daily basis.

If anything, there is a massive coalition for the rule of law, and the terrorists are an anathema to that alliance. You really need to stop and think about what you are alleging. There are billions of socially responsible and morally decent people in the world, and they are acting of their own volition and are not under the control of this imaginary invisible empire of yours. It is the brainwashed terrorists ready to sacrifice their lives in mindless violent attacks that are the ones who are being controlled by a conspiracy of powermongers.

Corruption is a fact of life. That point I am not debating. Take the Magdalene laundries in Ireland that were operated by the Catholic Church until very recently, for example. It was basically a system of enslavement of tens of thousands of innocent women for profit. It also went unchallenged on account of the power that the Church had wielded in that country for centuries, essentially making it above the law. Fortunately it has now been exposed and the Church is being forced to settle numerous lawsuits against it by women that were victimized.

So I say to you that it is not a case of some new international conspiracy to meld together an invisible empire, but rather a situation of people becoming more aware of civil rights violations around the world and that trend very much threatens to break the back of despotism. That is what the terrorists find threatening, because it means that the repressive totalitarian regimes that support their activities are on their way out.

Capitalism certainly has many flaws, however it has proven itself by raising the standard of living of the highest percentage of the population. That is something that it has far surpassed oligarchies and communist regimes in accomplishing. Here is an example I often cite in these types of discussions: A World War II veteran, who was a German national, told me back in 1978 how much he respected and loved America on account of the very humane treatment he had received as a POW in Texas. You do not find that same type of sentiment from the other side, rather horror stories of brutal treatment of captured soldiers by the Nazis and the Japanese.

The Viet Nam war was a complete failure, therefore many Americans are concerned that the current Iraqi campaign not fail in its mission. And don't fool yourself, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis share that same concern.

Please do not fall into the same trap that many a Western Vaishnava has of developing a distorted view of reality that results in this type of paranoia of governments and otherwise law abiding and moral people. I know plenty of Christians that would be unfairly labelled as demonic by such misled Vaishnavas, only because those Vaishnavas are viewed as members of some potentially dangerous cult by those people. It is for the most part not the fault of those Christians, since they have formulated those opinions on what little knowledge they have. All it takes is a small amount of education to get them to change their minds and see people of the Vaishnava faith as pious persons like themselves.

It was a long time ago that I remembered to watch one of those American Super productions movies. But I confess that I’m missing Tom Jobim, my favorite Brazilian musician and of course the whole Bosa Nova of the time.

After reading some of yours thoughts I came to the conclusion that we had different experiences in life that determinates how we are feeling and seeing what is surrounding us and the entire social-political visions surely are naturally affected by that.

Just see, when your mama use to take you to the Sunday mass, at that time, including Sundays, I was eyewitness of one of the most brutal time in Brazil, at that time, I was just 7, students that latter became teachers at the college, were running way from police officers that were ready to kill them just because they were writing or reading or just talking about certain topics that was not convenient for the political moment.
It was the 60’s and the Militaries took over to control the country. And why is that, because the whole Capitalism systems were fight against communism. At that time, the communication, such as Newspapers, TV and so on were controlled. People was killed for nothing, some disappeared forever, there was unexplained accidental death of the President Jucelino Kubichekh and many other authorities, musicians and writers. So we know how much lives it cost to make the Capitalism system flourish and guarantee the comforts and dreams of those who were favorable for that.
To show how good it may be, the Capitalist community were lending money and making all kinds of economics arrangements so the economy in Brazil would grow, at that time, almost 10% a year… imagine how it was helping for advertising the whole Capitalism operation? Who among those who were profiting would complain? So anyway, after the beginning of 80’s when finally the democrat part won, the very first thing to happen was that the people would start to face the reality and effects of the ‘money’ that was to support the Capitalism operation and now it was to be paid back by the cost of high percentages and consequently (as part of the second part of the plan), the economy would go down to the most inflationary situation.

That is a rough Idea of how this so called Capitalism “raised the standard of living of the highest percentage of the population” as you said. And I may ask you which population you are talking about? Besides few countries, the majorities are suffering with a bad economy and people are loosing jobs day after day.
If that sounds fiction for you, fine, Hollywood is master in the art of creating them. The invisible hand that chronologically manipulates many of these economics and political strategies are not so invisible for those who had or have to deal with that.

May be that same invisible hand was the one who killed Kennedy, John Lenon and many others.

As A.C.B. Swamiji said :

" So as Krishna was attempeted to be killed...And Jesus Christ was killed. So they may kill me also."
May 3, 1976, Honolulu

This is the last time I will replay on this topic. It is dry… very dry. Thanks for sharing some of your thoughts, just chant Hare Krishna and be happy.

Thanks Yugal Kisore for attaching that beautiful picture of Panditaji; may the rays of his moon face help me to remove the darkness of my eyes. Radhe Radhe !

You're welcome, Hari Saran Ji.

Thank you for participating in the discussion. Yes, there was a huge difference in our life experiences, considering the type of political and economic troubles that have occured in South America over the past several decades. I also observed conditions in India in the late 70s and early 80s, and that particular democratic regime has also been plagued by many problems, although not quite as severely as Brazil in the timeframe you have described. Currently in the USA there is a health care crisis and economic instability that have millions of people in great anxiety about the near future. The capitalistic system is being tested by the economic recovery underway (which has been lackluster so far) and the resolution of those issues.

The topic of politics on its own is dry, but this thread is not, because it is about planned projects that include publication of high quality English translations of goswami-granthas and the Sanskrit repository website, as well as social issues that affect our Vaishnava communities. I would hope that someone like yourself, that could translate from English to Portuguese, will step forward to take on that responsibility some day.

Thanks for the advice about being happy and chanting. One can never do too much of that.

While politics in itself may be a dry subject matter to discuss, when we evaluate the practical application of the Vaishnava-dharma in the modern scenario, all of a sudden it all becomes full of meaning to us, tangible and certainly worth examining.

So, then what's your take on it, Madhavananda Ji? I think Scandinavian governments are much more like the USA than they would be like Brazil. I am not sure about Finland, but Sweden tends to be more socialistic in areas like medicine. There are some tradeoffs in the form of higher income taxes when programs like that are socialized. The biggest problem here in America in recent years has been accountability for how the government spends the taxes that they raise. There have been a lot of wasteful practices and that is a sort spot with most citizens. What I have often wondered is why individual income must be taxed, since the country got along just fine before such a tax was instituted. Is it just greed on the part of politicians, or does it really have some positive benefits? I have heard people argue that public schools need that type of revenue to be able to function, but my response to them is: What kind of quality of education does the public school system offer in the first place? From what I know, it is not all that great to begin with.

QUOTE

What I have often wondered is why individual income must be taxed, since the country got along just fine before such a tax was instituted.

You aroused my curiosity there, Anangaji. Before Tax on individual income? Not sure what you're referring to. Some past era? Tax and civilization tend to go together in most of recorded history. I realise that the US and Brits had a few differences over this at one stage...

I think what you're referring to, if it was indeed a stage of US development, is something unique. For example there may be no need for the Sultan of Brunei to tax his subjects, but oil economies are a recent phenomenon.

I also find state control largely a cause of problems rather than a cure, with one exception: gun control. Where I come from, conservatives restrict and try to eliminate private gun ownership. The results for us have been good, too.

A quick web search turned up this information:

History of the Income Tax in the United States
Source: Ernst & Young LLP
The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.

The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. His powers and authority remain very much the same today.

In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.

As far as the history of taxes in general is concerned, the American Revolution was very much a rebellion against taxation without representation. That is what the Boston Tea Party was all about - throwing tea into the harbor to protest the high taxes by the King imposed on such goods. In Ireland they used to tax windows in houses. You can still see older homes in the countryside there with very few windows in them.

The issue is one of fairness of taxation, since everyone agrees that the government needs to be able to raise revenue somehow in order to function. Here in the USA, state income taxes vary widely. Nevada has none, but they can afford to forego them on account of the money pouring into the casinos. California has very high rates, on account of various social programs that are funded by the revenue raised, such as free health care for those without medical insurance. What has really been on the rise around here over the past couple of decades is property taxes, which are collected at the county level.

Inheritance tax has become a political football recently, due to so many baby boomers coming into money left by dying parents. It is sheduled to decrease each year until it reaches zero over a ten year period, then will shoot back up to its original level again.

QUOTE(Ananga @ Aug 4 2003, 04:02 PM)

You're welcome, Hari Saran Ji.

The topic of politics on its own is dry, but this thread is not, because it is about planned projects that include publication of high quality English translations of goswami-granthas and the Sanskrit repository website, as well as social issues that affect our Vaishnava communities. I would hope that someone like yourself, that could translate from English to Portuguese, will step forward to take on that responsibility some day.

Thanks for the advice about being happy and chanting. One can never do too much of that.

Dear Ramdasji,

Sorry for not reply promptly, it is all a matter of time; the week has already started with so many e-mail behind to be replied, plus the necessary endeavors for the daily bread and family dealings takes the rest of the precious time and energy.

Yes, political topics can be dry but not this thread; it is sweet and has a nice flow of information. Thanks to be there, it is so kind of you.

Regarding to the invitation for translating the Goswami-granthas , E/P, it is indeed a privilege that I really doubt if I deserve. Phullakalika and Nityadas, are far more advanced and they have been responsible for spreading the messages of Panditaji in Brazil. By they influence I came in contact with this site. For some reasons they keep themselves invisible (the cost of internet connection is higher?) but they are there and we are coordinating the translation of raganuga.org, made by Madhavananda, we will use it as an introduction tool for Portuguese speaking countries. So let me finish with that first and than we can see how to continue with other translations.

Yours,

QUOTE(adiyen @ Aug 5 2003, 10:06 PM)

Fascinating.

The original 3% tax rate on income back in the mid 19th Century was far more fair and reasonable than today's rates in excess of 20%.

Bush has pushed some tax cuts through, which are certainly needed. However, his fiscal policies in general are highly questionable, given the current economic crisis in the US, which has gotten worse under his administration. It could very well cost him the election in 2004, since people are much more concerned with such domestic issues than some wars being waged on the other side of the world.

Greetings everyone

Careful, orthodox practitioner, read with a grain of salt, or skip.

If I am correct after digging through this thread one of the initial discussion points has been the thing about institution, institutionalization and what's involved. In this regard I'd like to remind you of some threads in the development of German philosophy, particularly the idealism stuff following Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (Fichte, Schelling, Hegel) and the reversal in Marx and his fans. I agree with Hari Sharan about the dryness involved here, because it tends to become a case of word juggling, while the important thing is really "subjective experience" which he brought into play by reminding us to "chant and be happy".

What Hegel has clearly shown, and what has been discussed by the Neo-Marxists of the Frankfurt School (Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer, and their disciple Habermas, still alive), is that the institutionalization-process involves ipso facto an objectivation of subjectivity, in which a loss of identity occurs. That's the alienation we all experience when we deal with formalized structures, or instrumentalized forms of work (through machines and their products in the form of goods for mass consumption). There is an increasing loss of I-consciousness, of subjectivity, because in the reach of an objectified idea each member only "is functioning" instead of "is living".

A simple example is the power grid system of electricity supply which turns us into consumers and recipients of a particular public service. You guys remember how it feels during load shedding in India? Well, I do not know about India, but here in Europe, when that happens, it is like an awakening of a primal instinct, there is like a surge in an experience of coming to real life again when that candle burns and gives its pure small light. For a moment one is on one's own again, in a form of pure experience. What you do or do not do matters, whereas with the light switch, you just turn it off or on without much thought. I am not living like an Amish here, but it is certainly worth a thought, of what it implies culturally in terms of gain of subjectivity and fulfilling awareness versus the alienation and functionalization of the post-modern world.

Tinkudi Goswami lived in the woods. He was not a consumer of anything, he was a pure subject, not objectified to any instrumentalization (I assume). I would follow his example, esp. if I was his disciple.
These small things are important. Gauranga did not found any institution. He did not even write a book, another burden to be carried around (sorry you defenders of the Church Fathers, the Goswamis). Just start the whole thing, do your bhajan,and keep it as subjective, as close to your heart as possible. Do not print marvelous books in fantastic editions. Handwrite them kaligraphically! Illustrate them like the Benedictans did in Medieval times. Work on a book for a year or two, that's giving it value and shakti. You might find followers just due to this kind of work. Hey man, think how that bhakta loves your book, the one who illustrates and the one who receives it. He'll love that book by its appearance alone, let alone by its content. And the love comes through to anyone coming close to that book.

Bhakti is about love, so facilitate the growth of love wherever you can, and do not kill it with some damn institution with laws and by-laws and what not.

The same thing with being a guru. Just allow it to happen, do not ask the paper tigers, including some pandits and other big shots in created institutions in Holy Dhams. They are alive and well as spiritual beings, but as much as they try to institutionalize their spirit, that much they are killing it inadvertently, rest assured. Yes, guru, sadhu, shastra is of value. But try not to be objectified by observers by bringing yourself too much into discussion or scrutiny of "advanced bhaktas" not walking in your particular pair of shoes.

You know, teaching is certainly necessary, but I doubt anyone achieves much subjectively by reading alone or by hearing another speech about how bad the mayavadis are or how great the bhakti-process is, followed by a zillion slokas. It's a starter, and an enhancer once you are on the way, but what has to move is the heart, something we cannot instrumentalize, but only receive, cherish...

I am sure you rasika bhaktas know better what it is.

And keep the whole thing as simple and direct as possible. --

A last word about some good things Christianity has produced. There is a type of literature which in German is called "Erbauungs-Literatur", literally "edification-literature". It is one of my favourite type shastra, because there is deeply felt wisdom, often written centuries ago for the simple people, sometimes expressed in poems sometimes in stories, waves of insight bringing one closer to God. What happens in those texts is an enhancing, nourishing of one's subjectivity. It is soul touching, at least for me. I am not a Bengali and never will be one (this lifetime), so I understand and get more nourished on food that my great-grand-mother ate than on muri and roti and lanka and all that stuff foreign to my system.

The one good thing about India and Indians is that their minds are not as differentiated, atomized as ours. That makes them great feelers, when they put their simple minds to rest, ready to receive higher inspiration. Many Indian intellectuals are still black-and-white thinkers, the "two-legs-good four legs-bad" variety of Orwell's Animal Farm. Why import that? The institutions we all passed through had a lot of Orwellian animal farm impact, isn't it? You can analyze it in terms of the objectivation and functionalization process, or in terms of social alienation of the production process, which either way results in an increasing loss of consciousness and subjective awareness. What love can grow on such soil? so yes, write your own literature based on real subjective experience.

My "stick-likes" to you all, pandits and others.

Jai Nitai

nabadip

Dandavats and welcome to the discussion, Nabadip.

Those are very excellent insights about institutions and their shortcomings. There has always been something entirely anarchist about the rishis and munis living in the forest, with no attachment to any social hierarchy. That is also very much the tone of Chaitanyaism as it has been passed down over the centuries. Still, they have always had a community, albeit a loosely knit one.

The problem we are faced with is how best to accomplish things as a group without at the same time falling into the various traps of institutionalism. Perhaps the smaller ashrams within the Gaudiya community in India can provide somewhat of a model that can be adapted to our Western culture. It was those I had in mind rather than some of the big institutions, for example TM.

Personally I think size does not matter at all here. You can kill your bhajan kutir spirit alone, with a group or whatever number, by formalizing access to you, the guru, for instance, by keeping reality distant from you, by various denials, as is happening with people considering themselves holier than thou, or humbler than thou on the reverse side. By building a wall of knowledge around you, for instance, anything that stops people from being human and real. Where artificiality is in demand, there art cannot live. Just because Bhakti is a purely subjective process, and there is no external measurement of anything, so many substitutes are introduced, to feel safe... If everyone has his her position in a hierarchy, the feeling of safety results. But it is a false safety, killing the spirit of growth and understanding.
Instead, I'd allow it to remain an open process. How to do this? Just shed expectations, on a moment to moment basis.

I second the excellent write-up of Navadip, especially from 'Tin Kuri Gosvami lived in the woods' downwards. Bravo!

@Adiyen
Hi there, you mentioned en passant Switzerland which introduced the voting right for women late. This is generally misunderstood. I'd like to show the basis of that misunderstanding because it also sheds a little light on the point I am trying to get accross. Historically, democracy in Switzerland grew out of cooperatives of farmers coming together once a year to vote on important matters. Voting was a very personalized form of political partizipation, kind of like an ista-ghosti where everyone speaks out in the "ring", as the space was (and in some Cantons still is) called in which the people stood. Anyone could talk about any subject, bring out complaints, make a point, whatever. Also everyone could see how others were voting. Often opinions were only formed in the process of discussion.

I'd say this was as close as it could be to an unalienated, 'true' form of socio-political opinion forming and conflict resolution. In a sense this was a popular parliament (the word literally coming from French "parler", to speak). As Switzerland grew industrially and with bigger cities forming , other ways of voting were introduced. The misunderstood thing about women was that any legislation introduced in Switzerland has to be voted on by the people as a whole. In all other countries it was just decreed by parliament or the president or whatever. That's easy. No majority had to be formed there. But in Switzerland with its more real form of democracy each and every man had to be convinced to give his wife the voting right.
Now, the interesting part is that there is a view that women actually lost power by getting that right, and a lot of women did not want that right. They had more control over how their husbands and sons voted without their own voting right, while with the right the family could get split on issues. It's getting intricate and into small Swiss details. Appenzell, one very small Canton where they still meet annually in "the Ring", was the last Part of Switzerland to introduce the right a few years ago, which of course attracted a lot of uneducated comments the world over. They faced the problem that "the Ring" might become too small, and there was some opposition on the grounds that the men used to vote with their traditional Sword and so on.
I think what is really required for a community "to work" is partizipation of all in a process of opinion forming on a vertical level. I think Switzerland as a multi-ethnic and mulit-cultural model could give some understanding of how that could work for people of different backgrounds.

I'd say a mature vaishnava community should be just that, a "com-union" with a particular process of sharing that gives everyone an equal opportunity to participate in a process of getting to an identification with the common goal, or the basis of that community. The unifying process is important. I have seen that communities that are hierarchically structured tend to exclude or reduce newcomers, because they can never catch up with "the founding fathers", even if later they stayed dozens of years. This seniority stuff is bad news. What is desired is that there is a true welcoming spirit with a readyness to receive joyfully and lovingly every newcomer, instead of defining him her from this or that parivar. And as I said a particular process which enables that welcome spirit, a small ritual perhaps, weekly repeated, I do not know.

I think you're on the right track, Nabadip Ji. There can be strong leadership without a pyramid structure. The network model is what it is called. Leaders need to emerge on the strength of their knowledge and deeper experiences of raganuga bhakti, not on their particular political rhetoric. The knowledge also needs to be untainted by various apasiddhantas, such as the common misconception that lila-smarana is for those that have achieved the stage of anartha-nivritti, when it in fact is a means of reaching that stage.

We need more leaders and less followers, if that is not too against the idea that to serve is supreme. The important distinction for us to make is between blindly following and following with a good measure of personal judgment. At some point the sisya has to be able to function on his/her own, without having to constantly run to the guru for guidance on every single detail. The problem, as I see it, is far too many sisyas that never became independent enough to stand on their own two feet. We hear ad nauseum that this or that person has an opinion on the sole strength of it being what they were spoonfed by their guru. Appeal to authority does not cut it in a debate. There must be sound logic to an argument for it to carry any weight. Scripture is just one of several different types of evidence. If that is the only arrow in your quiver, then you are inevitably going to be cut to ribbons by a strong opponent in short order. The guru can give you the basic tools, but it is what you do with them that will determine just how effective you are in the community. A cult is not what we are aiming for, rather its antithesis.

There is nothing unique in the Swiss experience as you describe it, Nabadipji. All democracies were once like that and are now like this, were multicultural, then became assimilated till more 'others' enter the picture and the cycle starts over. Indeed, most democratic national assemblies began as a gathering of educated males. These are stages we can trace from the earliest experiences in Athens 2500 years ago.

Your point could be summarised as a problem of scale - nations growing too big and impersonal. Indeed a terminal stage in this development appears to be the hung election, neither side achieving a majority, both feeling cheated...where do we go then? A divided electorate, rival camps, festering resentment, finally civil war and capitulation or separation. Sometimes this is avoided by military coups. In ancient Athens the coups was the lapse into autocracy. 'I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him...'.

But we could view all this in a Darwinian way - people gather in tribes for strength, the tribes inevitably grow (and become more structured and impersonal - loss of individual identity) and need more resources. Neighbours are reluctant to share, if the two tribes are matched in strength there is war or armed vigilance ('Cold' War?). If not, the strong conquer. The thing is that western culture has gone beyond Darwinism and developed a system of ethics and morals to restrain it in such circumstances. We have gone beyond 'might is right' (yet the authority of our moral law is still based on the strength of the policers in the last instance). We have created overriding moralistic legal systems which I'm sure your Frankfurt School very much disapproves of! (Hence 'Neo-Marxism' contradicts itself fighting both for and against the same thing: justice! Inversion of Hegelism? No, this new 'Marxism' bypasses the specifics of Marx, and in its ambiguity just turns out to be plain old C19th Romanticism again, a la Rousseau. Which is fine by me.)

I admire the Swiss for holding on to their traditions. But isn't it all rather pointless? It seems the Eurocrats will soon swallow you all up, even claiming that they are 'protecting your identity' by placing you all under their benevolent rule. This puts dear old Habermas in a difficult position, for he is surely not anti-Europe, is he? In an earlier generation the same thing happened to Sartre, who was initially a Libertarian, quite a bourgeois individualist, but in the 60's he backflipped! But Rousseau is really the grandfather of all this, and all its contradictions (dialectics!) are clearly visible in his thought, as are the historical consequences of applying it.

Is there perhaps a need for a new Guillaume Tell to fight this new Euro-threat? Or is Habermas really not of much use? - I favour the latter.

What then?

Hopefully this discussion is bringing the problem of the international identity crisis of the Gaudiya movement into focus. Part of that problem is that the only knowledge people in general have of the movement is related to oligarchical institutions like Gaudiya Math and its offshoots. There is virtually no awareness of the vast Chaitanyaite community spread worldwide that is not affiliated with those organizations, let alone the Nimbarkis, Vallabhaites, Sahajiya sects, Bauls, Tantriks and the Swami Sivanandas of the world that are also participants in the movement in their own right. To overcome that disadvantage is going to take some time, but it is also not going to occur without some major effort on the part of our community to get some equal time, and ISKCON has pretty much monoplized the air waves to date. What could work extremely well to our advantage is the growing trend of people disillusioned with ISKCON as a result of the many scandals that have rocked its fortress-like walls and driven it into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. They will continue to turn elsewhere for their sadhu-sanga, and as they link up with the traditional paribars in the lines of Sri Nityananda et al, they will make our voice that much louder and our presence that much more visible. Publication of books is not only for insiders, but it will also play an important role in shaping public perception of our version of bhakti. Once people see a bhakti tradition that is more meditative and less evangelical, that will make it attractive rather than repulsive, IMO. The internet has some small impact, but that is nothing compared to channels like hard copy books, festivals held in public places, temples, schools, classes and lecture tours. There is absolutely no reason to condemn those media just because they are easily corrupted by the politics of hierarchical institutions. As long as we don't fall prey to building those types of empires, then we don't run that same danger.

Nitai Das and I have similar but not identical backgrounds. One major difference is that he left ISKCON while Prabhupada was still on the planet, whereas I left a couple of years after His Divine Grace's disappearance. He was acting as a lone wolf, whereas I was part of a whole group of people that rejected the historically inaccurate parampara coming though Bhaktisiddhanta and decided to forge a link with a solid branch on the Caitanya tree. His defection was confrontational, whereas ours was quietly carried out with little or no fanfare. I had never even intended to announce my new affiliation to members of ISKCON, but somehow it was leaked to them by some gossips in Braj (human nature I guess, even in the holy dham). We also have entirely different perspectives on the bhakti movement and its future. Hopefully we can reach some common ground in our ideological debates and not end up just walking away from the whole endeavor, because I think that is going to be a key to the success of building a community with any strength, since there are certainly many different opinions on key issues held by not just a few of us, but literally millions of Vaishnavas around the world. We can have some identity in unity without having to stifle the spirit of diversity. I think that will actually make for a more robust and colorful community, and we certainly don't want a drab and monotonous society.