Comments Posted By suryajee
Displaying 1 To 4 Of 4 Comments
Thus, by correlating the unorthodox actions of Srila Prabhupada with all his words and then finally with sastra, Sita devi is practically demonstrating authentic Vaisnava thought process. This cannot be trounced by Kulapavana Prabhuâs contemporary sociological observations.
The resounding conclusion is: âWe have to connect the dots.â (#236) Otherwise, Srila Prabhupadaâs unorthodox (Rudra-like*) actions (and ourselves as imitators) become, in effect, disconnected dots.
with respect to all,
* One who is not a great controller should never imitate the behavior of ruling personalities, even mentally. If out of foolishness an ordinary person does imitate such behavior, he will simply destroy himself, just as a person who is not Rudra would destroy himself if he tried to drink an ocean of poison.
Comment Posted By suryajee On 12.07.2011 @ 13:54
So on the surface, Urmila Mataji’s theory appears to be a more advanced and spiritual position, while Sita Mataji’s appears to be contaminated with materialistic religion; when in fact, the exact reverse is true: Sita’s model promoting B and being all spiritual generates no karma at all; while Urmila’s has material karma (A2) and requires the addition of B3 or B4 to eradicate karma and add the transcendental preaching component.
By the development of teaching in BG 2.48 describing yoga, the discussion has gone beyond category A for good. So the idea of an A2 and B3/B4 combination being recommended subsequently in the Gita (or as a major thrust of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings) is logically unsustainable. Hereafter, the Gita expects of its readers the ability to recognize the fine distinctions between yoga-yukta-fighting with ordinary fighting and yoga-yukta-stri-dharma with ordinary traditional womanhood–the same ability required in differentiating the Deity from a stone. And, again, the performance of yoga-yukta prescribed activities itself constitutes transcendental preaching.
It is no wonder that Lord Krsna remarks: “Even the wise are bewildered about action and inaction.” 4.16. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura concludes: “He is intelligent who sees that persons of pure heart fixed in knowledge like Janaka do not renounce activity, but rather engage in action, in niskama karma-yoga, do not accrue karma (akarma); and who sees that one who does not perform actions, renouncing actions as a sannyasi, *though *talking *profusely *of *knowledge *because *of *knowledge *of *scriptures*, actually obtains bondage of karma leading to misery.” (HH Bhanu Swami translation)
In the concluding statements of the most sacred section (rasa-lila) of the cream of the Vedic literature, it is said “the statements of the Lord’s empowered servants are always true, and the acts they perform are exemplary when consistent with those statements. Therefore one who is intelligent should carry out their instructions”–to which Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti cautions that even those instructions should be followed when they are consistent with scripture (vicaryaiva) (Sarartha Darshini 10.33.31 translated by HH Bhanu Swami).
Comment Posted By suryajee On 12.07.2011 @ 13:47
(Incidentally, I highly appreciate Urmila Mataji’s presentations and overall mood of concern such as reflected in the lecture above, her posts #84, #103, her lectures I attended at New Vrindavan, as well as informal conversation in the living room of my in-laws in New Jersey.)
Both of these styles (of Kulapavana Prabhu and Urmila Mataji) in argumentation basically make an assumption and present scattered data appealing to emotion. However, in his sandarbhas, Srila Jiva Gosvami recommends, by referring to the Upanisads, the stages of sravana (hearing the sastra), manana (logically analyzing and harmonizing), which leads to nidhidhyasana (holistic meditation). To explain the second stage, he refers to how Lord Brahma scrutinized all he had heard for a long period of time before acting to create.
Similarly, Sita Mataji has presented the results of her performance of manana. In true sattvic form, her argument does not base itself on a false assumption and is not appealing to any emotion, such as fear of abuse-potential, feel-good utopian communist idealism, nor a false sense of guilt or fear of blasphemy (aparadha) of apparently disobeying Srila Prabhupada (or Rupa Gosvami)–and without any clever manuevers. So both the methodology as well as results of debate favor Sita Mataji by far. She demonstrates that the complete Vaisnava culture doesn’t merely mean quoting a Vaisnava or referencing his historical acts, it means engaging in the correct unbiased thinking process of one–and presenting it with etiquette.
In post #48, Urmila Mataji contrasts ordinary dharma with preaching and transcendence. However, Bhagavad-gita classifies activity in two ways:
A) generating karma (subdivided into 1. vikarma (generating bad karma) and 2. karma (generating good karma))
B) generating no karma (subdivided into 1. karma-yoga, 2. jnana-yoga, 3. bhakti-yoga, and 4. bhakti with mixtures)
Urmila Mataji’s theory, if I understand her correctly, is that Srila Prabhupada taught everyone to combine A2 plus B3 or B4, (wherein B3/B4 has to be added as the transcendental preaching component).
Sita Mataji’s theory is that Srila Prabhupada taught everyone only the B category (itself transcendental and itself a form of preaching) with the idea to progress specifically to B3.
Comment Posted By suryajee On 12.07.2011 @ 13:44
Kulapavana Prabhu in his various posts simply patches together information (mixed varnas, women rishis, Gaudiya women gurus, Srila Prabhupada giving women gayatri, etc.) coupling that with a warning of potential of Taliban-style abuse without any legitimate attempt at reconciliation with opposing information (he only handwaves it away in #258 as supposedly “situation” specific and in #313). Furthermore, there is an undercurrent as well as overt emotional outburst (using boldface characters) regarding “quality” and a supposedly Vedic utopian ideal of equality.
(Incidentally, the “equality” of souls that occurs in Bhagavad-gita (5.18) is only in these three respects:
1. they are constitutionally beyond the gunas and matter
2. they are ontologically related to and dependent upon Paramatma
3. they are sat-cit-ananda like the Lord.
Kulapavana Prabhu is assuming that “equality” is something other than these, when in fact, the souls possess different types of bodies, unique guna conformations, karmas, and, therefore, different duties and, furthermore, the svarupas of the souls themselves have different instrinsic degrees of knowledge of God and flavors of ananda which are realized respectively upon liberation [according to Srila Prabhupada’s earliest points in his introduction]. So either materially or spiritually our specific activities differ!)
Urmila Mataji’s #76 post assumes stri-dharma is material and that chanting and preaching is transcendental and the subsequent line of argumentation is limited to “Srila Prabhupada wrote this letter and purport” and “Srila Prabhupada told certain women disciples to lead kirtana and preach” as though our appreciation of Srila Prabhupada is going to somehow absolve us of the requirement to use our intelligence to analyze his teachings and sastra. In #116, she poses a strawman argument (based on (1) the assumption of material vs. spiritual and (2) the blurring of the wide spectrum of “preaching”) and concludes that Sita Mataji’s assessment of dharma contradicts Srila Prabhupada’s instructions for women to “preach”. She concludes (in #122 & #303) with a clever deflection of Sita Mataji’s logic back against the latter hinting that Sita’s actions to post here are illogical (yet remaining silent on the tremendous logic verbalized by Sita dd, aided by Bhaktilata dd).
Comment Posted By suryajee On 12.07.2011 @ 13:41