Comments Posted By Akruranatha
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 1263 Comments
In NOD, Chapter 39, the same six items of surrender are given with slightly different wording.
5(i), “to become very meek and humble” is presented in NOD as “to always think oneself inferior to Krishna, even though one may have full capacity to perform something on his own.”
5(ii), “to decide one’s life for this service” is given in NOD as, “to always feel inability without the help of Krishna.”
5(iii), “to become one of the members of a spiritual family” is given in NOD as “to identify oneself with Krishna’s devotees.”
5(iv), “to have firm faith that Krishna will protect him” is given in NOD as, “to believe that Krishna will always give protection” (which is more or less identical).
Items 5(v) and 5(vi), to accept all things favorable for devotional service and to reject everything which is unfavorable for devotional service, are more or less identical in NOD and in this verse 5 version presented here.
Actually, only items 5(i) and 5(ii) are significantly different from NOD. 5(ii) is very different (I am not even sure I have got 5(i) and 5(ii) matched up with their respective corresponding NOD phrases).
I am sure these must be alternative translations of a verse from Bhaktirasamrta Sindhu, but I do not know the Sanskrt verse or word-for-word. Anyone know it?
I like item 5(iii) very much. I feel that belonging to ISKCON is belonging to a spiritual family. There may be other ways to identify oneself with Krishna’s devotees, or other devotees to identify oneself with, but in ISKCON we have a family, for better or worse, complete with the stubborn brother or crazy aunt and such other characters we find in most families.
Comment Posted By Akruranatha On 08.03.2010 @ 22:15
I do not pretend to know what Bhaktivonod Thakur was expressing in that part of Jaiva Dharma. It was kind of a small discussion and not a very detailed comparative analysis of different Islamic traditions. When I have time I will go find my copy of Jaiva Dharma and see if I can quote the relevant passages.
I do get the impression that some Sufis, by emphasizing God’s immanence over His transcendence, trend toward pantheism and impersonalism. At least the orthodox Muslims have a personal sense of God as their master whose will must be obeyed, which is more dualist and seems to be more on the Vaisnava side of the acintya bhedabheda equation than some more monistic types of Hinduism and Islam. At least, that was my impression when I read it of what the Thakur meant.
Personally I have very little experience with Islam and its various practitioners.
But yes, this film “The Clay Bird” presented a sensitive portrait of both positive and negative aspects of Islamic Bengali life, at the critical time of the run up and early days of the war for independence from Pakistan. Some teachers at the madrassah were more authoritarian and rule-oriented. Others were more friendly with the students and personally humble and “soft”, and they appreciated that humble aspect of Sufi preachers in Bengali history.
The orthodox father was rigid in his faith, not only in Islam, but in homeopathic medicine (he was a practitioner-healer). This led to a major crisis in the film (the death of his daughter due to his rejection of allopathic treatment). Similarly, the father had faith in the military authorities, that union with West Pakistan was important for worldwide Islamic progress, and that the army would not do anything against the best interest of the village. But in the climactic crisis the army killed many villagers and burned the houses down, leaving him a broken man.
The more gentle, faithful Muslims were more practical. One boatman was a particularly strong, sympathetic character, a wise judge of human nature.
The father’s homeopathy led (for me at least) to this aching sense that all these ideologies were really foreign. That is, although this was a faithful Islamic film, even Islam itself was, like Marxism or Allopathic medicine, another non-native element. Some of the young Bangla nationalists alluded to this.
Lord Caitanya, though apparently more recent, really represents the original culture of all Bengalis and, ultimately, of all people.
Comment Posted By Akruranatha On 03.03.2010 @ 17:46
Very well put Niscala!
To be more clear (although I know I am usually far from clear), I was not trying to make a case for secularism, or liberalism, or democracy, or science. I took for granted that we all shared in appreciating Srila Prabhupada’s critiques of these modern trends.
I guess I was making a case against what I am calling “fundamentalism”, Kali yuga appeals to religious authority without enlightenment, for ulterior purposes, which divide people and spread doubt, fear, uncertainty, loathing.
I was saying the materialistic and atheistic trends in modern life have their origins in reactions to the unenlightened chauvinism that dresses itself up as “religion” in this age of hypocrisy and quarrel.
And that the real antidote to atheism, materialism, relativism, hedonism, etc. is to embrace the chanting of Hare Krishna and the reading of Srila Prabhupada’s books.
One point you make in the end about Sufism: In Jaiva Dharma, Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur discusses Islam, in a way that makes it sound like Sufis are more like mayavadis, and the regular mullahs with their emphasis on strictly obeying God’s commandments are more like Vaisnavas. I found it interesting.
There is a Bangladeshi movie called “The Clay Bird”, about a boy growing up during the time of the Bangladesh war, being educated in a madrassah. His father is a staunch but rigid Muslim, the Kazi of his village. It is a touching movie that shows a lot of aspects of Bengali life, including traveling groups of singing musician-preachers. It reminds me that even though they are not Hindus, there is something very Bengali about them that reminds me of us. :-)
The film is more sympathetic to the Sufi mood of compassion and feminine energy, as opposed to the rigid, rule-oriented Islam of the main character’s father. One of the song sequences has a mock debate between a Sufi sadhu and a woman playing the role of an orthodox Sharia critic. The chorus goes:
Woman: “If you want to go to heaven, keep fear of Allah in your heart.”
Man: “If you want to be close to Allah, keep love (’prema’) in your heart.”
Of course this Islam was influenced by Lord Caitanya.
In one of the verses, the woman accuses the man of not performing ritual animal sacrifices on holy days.
He replies, “God commands us to sacrifice what is most dear to us. Are goats and cattle your most beloved? Most people are fond of sense enjoyment. If you can, control your ten senses and meditate on God.”
Comment Posted By Akruranatha On 28.02.2010 @ 19:55
Yes, it is very important that ISKCON devotees do not fall into the habit of simply trying to shout down opponents, “You have to believe me because my book is from God (and yours is not).”
People are sick and tired of this kind of religious “discourse”. It may be true that your book is from God, but why should I listen to you rather than someone else who has a different scripture, a different ritual, a different priesthood, also claiming to be from God?
One of the lines Vaisesika uses on book distribution to overcome the resistance of certain customers goes something like this: Q: “Is this book about religion?” A: “No. ‘Religion’ is where they try to tell you what to do, but this book shows you how to find out for yourself.”
It is an effective line. It works. And it is really true.
Of course, we use the word “religion” in different ways. Often we use it in a positive way. We translate “dharma” as “religion”. We say, “‘Religion’ is the code of conduct directly established by God,” and things of that sort.
But people are understandably wary of “religion” when it is used as a kind of official institution of more or less blind faith and obedience. “Religion” in that sense can be the enemy of true righteousness and enlightenment.
It is becoming popular nowadays for people to say, “I am spiritual, but not religious.” We can appreciate what they mean, and show them Hare Krishna offers them ways to be “spiritual” and not “religious” in that sense.
When the European world of Christianity was being torn apart by major schisms within the dominant authoritative church, resulting in wars and inquisitions, “Science” emerged as a new authority that (supposedly) did not depend on faith in fallible persons.
“Democracy” also began to emerge (or re-emerge) as a basis of establishing political authority separate from a personal monarch. (”A government of laws, not of men.”)
“Liberalism” emerged as a powerful ideology holding that each individual is competent to determine his or her own best interest (as opposed to paternalist authoritarianism).
“Secularism” emerged as concomitant concept, because state-sponsored religion is inherently paternalistic, unliberal, undemocratic, (and “unscientific”?)
We don’t have to be on the wrong side of history. We do not support blind faith in authority. Krishna consciousness is really the perfection of science and philosophy and art and morality and liberty and love and obedience. And you can find out for yourself.
Comment Posted By Akruranatha On 23.02.2010 @ 22:37
There is a danger that lurks in large, powerful organizations, yet we want ISKCON to be a large and powerful organization. We just need to avoid the dangers.
When a big organization, whether state, church, school or corporation, has an official policy of honoring and respecting someone, there is a great danger of inauthentic feelings, of coerced and phony respect, and of backlash by “rebels” who feel they are being intimidated to be untrue to themselves and to God (their higher selves).
We see this a lot in government. A king is supposed to be a representative of God. Any authority is. A father, a teacher, a platoon commander, should be obeyed. Why? Because God should be obeyed, and we show our obedience to God by how we obey those He has appointed as our authorities.
In many societies a king is even considered an incarnation of God (as in ancient Egypt or countless other civilizations), or a descendant of a family of incarnations. In Vedic civilization the royal families of the sun and moon, in which Rama and Krishna appeared, are full of divine avatars. It should be so. No one but God should be obeyed, and those we obey should be ordained by God as our authorities. That is the natural order of things.
Therefore to organize politics it often becomes expedient to create a God-like status of a state leader, whether or not the leader is worthy. George Washington notably resisted this pressure to become super human, but a strain of public worship of Washington is still there in American nationalist sentiment, in spite of its running counter to the ideals of the American revolution.
There was a religious cult accepting Maximilien Robespierre as “Prophet of the last days, herald of the New Dawn,” which, whether or not he actually encouraged it (a debated point), figured in his downfall. Napoleon succeeded in being accepted as a God-like figure.
Tyrants like Stalin or Kim Il Sung are surrounded by a cult of worship, along with repression and punishment of those who are suspected of not being devoted and obedient. Paranoia and deception become a way of life. People are not free to express their true feelings.
Sometimes I think that the intense, even pathological hatred and hostility we see from some of ISKCON’s detractors springs from this kind of dynamic. They felt, whether rightly or wrongly, that they were being officially forced to worship unworthy men, against their conscience. It still seems weird to me, though.
Comment Posted By Akruranatha On 23.02.2010 @ 20:47
By having a formal process, the Catholics really have a serious inquiry into, for example, the miracles that were supposedly performed by their saints.
Similarly, if we have a formal process (not necessarily using the methods and criteria of the Roman Catholic Church), it will have a tendency to avoid “myth” creation.
We could inquire in detail (for example) about the basis for the doctor’s opinion that TKG actually left his body before the crash. We could also inquire from those who were in the car and survived the crash whether TKG had showed signs of having left his body before the crash, and see how their observations tally with the doctor’s.
Even if TKG apparently left his body due to injuries from a car accident, that does not take anything away from the enormous service he did in ISKCON, or on Srila Prabhupada’s great affection for him and trust in his abilities, or on his magnificent exposition of Krishna consciousness.
[I am eagerly awaiting the imminent publication of his doctoral work at Oxford. Is it published yet?]
I did not hear Bhakti Caru Swami’s class about TK Goswami’s disappearance. I did watch the class about H.H. Bhakti Tirtha Swami on Mayapur TV and loved it!
But the idea of “guru” or “saint” by ecclesiastical convention is one we have to look at and thoroughly discuss.
If one can really give Krishna’s instructions to a disciple, intact, and train the disciple in the authentic ways of bhakti, he or she is a “guru”, whether officially recognized as such by any official church or government, or anyone else.
Conversely, if one distorts the teachings of Krishna or cannot actually train a disciple in how to perform His devotional service, he or she is not a “guru”, even if officially (or privately) recognized as such.
This is quite apart from the consideration of whether ISKCON should continue the process of regulating who may serve as initiating guru in ISKCON. It is an entirely different point. ISKCON may have reasons for requesting a devotee who may otherwise be qualified not to perform that function (of serving as initiating guru in ISKCON), and ISKCON may give devotees a chance to perform that function even though they ultimately prove unworthy (Srila Prabhupada himself gave devotees a chance who later fell down).
It is not that having a group of devotees decide something is less reliable than just letting everyone come to their own conclusion.
But there may be danger in how we enforce such decisions.
Comment Posted By Akruranatha On 23.02.2010 @ 19:41
Interesting points.
I have heard also that a kind of hagiography has developed around other ISKCON spiritual leaders who have passed away. One would think that their wonderful deeds and words would be enough to earn them the respect of all, without actually inventing stories that are contradicted by reliable eye witnesses.
Or on the other hand, is it better to just let people glorify devotees however they are inspired to do so, as long as their motives are pure?
We should never falsely criticize a devotee (and we can all agree that TKG has been unfairly criticized and vilified by many), but is there really much harm in ignoring some possibly excessive praise?
I guess one harm would be, if we do create “mythology” about the lives and deaths of our spiritual leaders, this may create suspicion and doubt (in the minds of many) about the authenticity and historical accuracy of the stories about other saints we read about in Caitanya Caritamrta and Srimad Bhagavatam, or in stories we hear about those who are universally recognized as saints within our tradition (e.g., Narottama Das Thakur, Syamananda Pandit, Baladeva Vidyabhusana, Jagannatha Das Babaji, etc.)
So, maybe we should insist on being hard-nosed historians when making such inquiries. Who is this doctor who opined that TKG left his body before the crash? On what data did he base such opinions?
As for “ecclesiastical convention” and the process of canonization, I guess I am not as disestablishmentarian as Nrsimhananda. (Technically, the word relates to churches as organs of state government, so it does not quite fit, but I may never have an opportunity to call myself an antidisestablishmentarianist again) :-)
I mean, we have to have some means of deciding whose appearance and disappearance days to celebrate and fast on, who is mentioned in the BBT Calendar, etc. I do not see what is wrong with a group of senior devotees conferring and deciding these issues as ISKCON policy, when and if the need arises. We just hope they decide correctly.
We may not personally agree with all such decisions, but I hope our most enlightened leaders generally will agree about such things. If our process really works, I would expect the steady, senior, sincere practitioners to generally agree.
At any rate, Srila Prabhupada seems to have vested the authority for such decision-making for ISKCON in the GBC. It doesn’t bother me if there is a “formal” process, but I want it to be an accurate process.
Comment Posted By Akruranatha On 22.02.2010 @ 03:46
Live from Sri Mayapur Candrodaya Mandir! HH Candramauli Swami
This is a great class. I heard it on Mayapur TV but I could not absorb the outline of the 16 anarthas until I saw it printed here. It is nice to have this kind of systematic explanation, it is easy to remember and eventually I pray to get actual realization.
I. Anarthas of Philosophical Misunderstandings
A. Misunderstanding who we are
B. ” Supreme Personality of Godhead (in relation to nature and jivas)
C. ” process of sadhana
D. ” other spiritual philosophies in relation to Bhakti-vedantaII. Anarthas Caused by Pious Activities
A. Attachment to material enjoyment
B. ” ” mystic power
C. ” ” endeavors to reach heavenly planets
D. ” ” liberationIII. Anarthas caused by Impious Activities
A. Attachment to things unrelated to K.C.
B. Deceitfulness
C. Faultfinding
D. Desire for fameIV. Offenses
A. To Holy Names
B. To Deities
C. To Vaisnavas
D. To other living entitiesThese 16 anarthas cause the 6 enemies of: (1) lust, (2) greed, (3) anger, (4) Illusion, (5) pride and (6) envy.
These 6 enemies cause 6 “waves” (I think I heard this before as “whips”?). I am not sure I got all 6 (do birth and death belong to one category?): (1) hunger, (2) thirst, (3) birth and death, (4) old age, (5) lamentation and (6) illusion.
It is interesting to me that the anarthas are grouped into these 4 categories. I have often wondered about the difference between “impious activities” and “offenses”. One clue is that impious activities and pious activities cause specific kinds of anarthas. Offenses are themselves anarthas, and are grouped into four kinds.
It is like having our own “periodic table” of anarthas. Having such a systematic outline seems to be a nice conceptual tool or road map for understanding the process of getting rid of the anarthas through bhajana-kriya. It is easier to recognize them as something to be destroyed.
And the process of harinam sankirtan crushes them!
And even the different categories that remain through the different stages of nistha, ruci, and all the way to prema, is so systematic. Amazing!
And the warning that offenses to Vaisnavas (and other living entities) are so dangerous. Wonderful class!
Comment Posted By Akruranatha On 20.02.2010 @ 16:09
Service in an official capacity as a spokesperson with a high profile as sannyasi, TP, GBC, may also be something we ought to reserve (as we generally already do) for those who are following vows strictly.
I think I am in general agreement with all the commentators here, Locanananda, Suresh, Pskaraksa, and Mukunda, that there are some senses of membership in which very few requirements or qualifications apply.
On the other hand, if someone is called upon to speak on behalf of ISKCON, there may be reasons to restrict the group of eligible persons who can perform that service, so that ISKCON’s message is properly presented.
To use an obvious example, a Mayavadi sannyasi may be very strict in observing severe vows and living a holy, simple life, but we would not want such person to speak on ISKCON’s behalf, or to give a lecture in an ISKCON temple, even if he knows Sanskrt and can recite a lot of verses. He may want to do so. He may even think of himself as a member of ISKCON (or qualified to show us how a real member of ISKCON should be). I have actually seen such cases.
How does this fit into our understanding of ISKCON membership?
And what about the ongoing internecine debates among devotees of different “camps” or splinter groups who have left the main branch of ISKCON? Are they members of ISKCON if they want to be? Or if they say, “We are the real ISKCON”?
Isn’t Srila Prabhupada’s decision to delegate to the GBC the authority to manage ISKCON an important instruction or strategy of Srila Prabhupada to maintain the integrity and unity of ISKCON, to keep us focussed on the task at hand as a united preaching mission and not be divided by squabbles over power, leadership, or authority?
Therefore, perhaps it should also be a criterion of basic membership that one both wants to be a member and one accepts the legitimate authority of the GBC to make final decisions on ISKCON’s policy.
Mind you, that is not the same as saying every ISKCON member agrees with all decisions of the GBC. Just like I may not agree with every law passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by the President, but I still accept that that is the legitimate process by which U.S. laws are made.
As a U.S. citizen I have a basic duty to obey such laws. But even that is a different issue. I may drive above the speed limit, but if a cop catches me I accept: “Yes, he has the authority to give me a ticket.”
Acceptance of such “legitimacy” of the GBC is crucial, IMHO.
Comment Posted By Akruranatha On 02.03.2010 @ 03:53
Yes, Puskaraksa. Lord Caitanya distributes Goloka Vrindavan prema indiscriminately through chanting the Maha Mantra, without considering who is fit or not fit to receive it.
However, those who really receive that prema are never again attracted to the stale allurements of Maya. How could they be?
Still, even when we get a tiny inkling of the foreshadowing of the taste of that prema, we become very inspired to serve in ISKCON and to help in the distribution to others, in this mood. And we try to become trained in the ways of bhakti yoga so that we can eventually chant in pure prema.
We are enjoined to respect even the devotees who just once chant “Krishna”, even if they do so neglectfully! We have faith that the Holy Name is so great, that if it even appears on the lips of some person, however sinful or deluded they may be, they are to be accepted as having already surpassed all rituals of the Vedas, even if they come from a family of mlecchas or candalas!
If even the great devotees who are free from all vices are thus indiscriminately distributing the Maha Mantra with such great faith, how anomalous it would be for the beginning devotees who still have some unfortunate habits to be more discriminatory than the perfect devotees are?
And yet there is a need to teach the standards of moral behavior and sadhana bhakti to those who have become inspired by this movement to try to achieve perfection in the chanting. We would be short-changing the world if we did not give the actual method for chanting correctly, free from all material association of unwanted things.
So… the definition of “membership” has to take such considerations into account.
It seems necessary therefore that we have different kinds of membership. One kind of membership for serious initiated devotees who continue to strictly try to follow the process correctly. Another kind of membership for those who, whether previously initiated or not, have not been willing to make or keep such a firm commitment.
And yet, nobody wants to hear about how fallen we are, do they? Do we less committed devotees have to walk around with shameful insignias, like “dvija bandhu” armbands? We just ought to discretely not perform services (like Deity worship) that is meant only for the committed, initiated devotees who are keeping their vows very strictly.
But it is really not so shameful to be a beginning Hare Krishna chanter. It is, as noted above, a very respectable thing to be.
Comment Posted By Akruranatha On 02.03.2010 @ 02:57
Pages (127) :
[1]
2
3
»
… Last »
«« Back to the Comments Members Stats Page
«« Back to the Dandavats Website General Stats Page
