Tags
The ISKCON leadership recently convened in India for their yearly pow-wow. This year one of the topics up for discussion was brought up by Sivarama Swami, who is one of the more powerful and wealthy gurus with many disciples and projects in Europe. Earlier last year he announced his idea to bring new laws to ISKCON to codify just who and who is not an official member. He brought this up at the recent meetings of leaders for official discussion.
What he proposes is essentially to make it clear that the only officially recognized members of ISKCON are those who accept Prabhupada and laws of ISKCON, along with the leadership and their rules, as the guiding and central authority in their lives. That means you must follow the rules that Prabhupada created for ISKCON at the very beginning, e.g. the “4 regulative principles” [no sex whatsoever except to make babies in marriage, no drink or drug of any type, strict vegetarianism, and no gambling of any type], as well as no “sense gratification” such as any type of entertainment that isn’t part of “devotional service”, which includes print media, TV, movies, theater, dancing, singing, playing musical instruments, sports, or any other type of entertaining activity that is done without being part of “service to guru and Krishna.”
He also went a step further than those old rules and regulations which were asked of everyone who aspires to become “Krishna conscious” or wants to join ISKCON. Sivarama wants to make divorce against ISKCON law, which can mean that if you divorce you are no longer an official member. That upset a lot of people since divorce is so common amongst the western Hare Krishnas, with higher rates than the rest of society. I saw one study that said some 90% of marriages end in divorce amongst western devotees.
Another rule he mentioned was you can only be initiated by gurus in ISKCON, also you must tithe 10% of your income to ISKCON, and submit to ISKCON justice and rulings.
According to Sivarama Swami if you’re not an official member you are not “officially connected to Prabhupada, the Gaudiya parampara, or the Gaudiya sampradaya,” and you cannot live, work or be employed in any temple or farm, or have any type of management or leadership position from congregational Namhatta on up. Nor can you give classes, do pujari work or any kind of priest work. Nor can you have rituals performed for you, i.e. initiation, wedding, birth, etc. Nor can you take part in any ISKCON initiative, e.g. living in Mayapur, use of gurukulas, co-operatives, etc.
What is this really all about? With ISKCON long-time members and especially it’s leaders, almost everything is really all about making money and exploitation of others. This idea by Sivarama isn’t really about making it clear who is an official member of ISKCON for any good social or spiritual reason, it’s really more about making it clear who is not a member in order to make it easy to denounce people as unworthy of being a member, thereby keeping them from positions of sannyasa and guru. Sannyasis and gurus are where most of the money coming towards ISKCON is going to from people’s donations. The more sannyasis and gurus there are means there is less money to go around. If you have 50 million dollars in total donations every year coming to ISKCON, and you are greedy, you want as few sannyasis and gurus around as possible to be the recipients of those donations so you can get more for yourself. I think ISKCON’s leaders like Sivarama Swami want to be able to slow down, stop, or reverse the number of sannyasis and gurus — less competition means more money in his pocket.
Otherwise, what is the point of demanding so much to be in ISKCON? Is that going to increase or decrease morale and devotion to ISKCON? Obviously it can only harm morale and cause social distrust, leading to feeling too much pressure to be perfect little cult zombies, and then antisocial dysfunctional relationships will be even more the norm — leading to people staying even less amounts of time as members of ISKCON than usual. Which is probably what Sivarama wants — more people on the outside making money and tithing so they can believe they are members to some degree and “connected” to Prabhupada, Krishna, etc.
It’s not that there weren’t objections. For instance, Indian guru Gopal Krishna Goswami argued against it because he doesn’t want to alienate the large number of Indians who are his disciples or going to be his disciples. Almost all of them are not following or going to follow the cultish demands of Sivarama Swami. They are mostly Indians with jobs and families, or they are students, who want to be initiated. They also give him lot’s of money. It would be rightly seen by his followers as an insult if they were all of sudden told they weren’t good enough to be considered life-members of ISKCON, yet their money was good enough to accept.
Others complained that Sivarama’s use of various metaphors comparing ISKCON to a nation state and citizenship to ISKCON membership, as being poorly drawn out. Others complained that it all seemed a bit too draconian, or that divorce was common among ISKCON leaders. But none of the critics have raised what I think is, well, hilariously inept about the whole situation.
What’s really funny about all this is how in the guise of being the definitive bhakti-yoga organization, and thinking and advertising themselves as such great paramhamsa gurus, and the true inheritors of the mantel of the Gaudiya sampradaya — how such a pathetic excuse for a Gaudiya guru could get away with such buffoonery with none of his colleagues calling him on it:
If you advance enough in Krishna consciousness, you will no longer be considered spiritually advanced enough to be allowed to be a member of ISKCON — according to Sivarama Swami.
Raganuga-bhakti is taught in Gaudiya Vaishnavism as the better of two types of approaches to bhakti-yoga. Vaidhi-bhakti is the other approach. Vaidhi-bhakti is bhakti which is inspired by promises of salvation and liberation, desire for freedom from suffering, desire for bliss and heaven. It’s motivation is the promises found in Vedic scriptures.It’s a regulative rule laden worshipful form of bhakti-yoga. It’s also strictly for neophytes. It’s described by Sri Chaitanya, Jiva Goswami and other acharyas that the rules and regulations of vaidhi-bhakti are of no concern for those on the path of raganuga-bhakti. The path of raganuga-bhakti is inspired by raga, emotional spiritual attachment to Radha Krishna, to wanting to be with them. If you take up bhakti sadhana because you are very attracted to living with Radha Krishna as one of their close friends, family or lovers, after you have heard about Krishna lila, then that is the description of a raganuga-bhakta:
Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 22.155
tat-tad-bhāvādi-mādhurye
śrute dhīr yad apekṣate
nātra śāstraḿ na yuktiḿ ca
tal lobhotpatti-lakṣaṇamtat-tat — respective; bhāva-ādi-mādhurye — the sweetness of the loving moods (namely śānta-rasa, dāsya-rasa, sakhya-rasa, vātsalya-rasa and mādhurya-rasa) of the inhabitants of Vṛndāvana; śrute — when heard; dhīḥ — the intelligence; yat — which; apekṣate — depends on; na — not; atra — here; śāstram — revealed scriptures; na — not; yuktim — logic and argument; ca — also; tat — that; lobha — of covetousness to follow in the footsteps; utpatti-lakṣaṇam — the symptom of awakening.
When an advanced, realized devotee hears about the affairs of the devotees of Vṛndāvana — in the mellows of śānta, dāsya, sakhya, vātsalya and mādhurya — he becomes inclined in one of these ways, and his intelligence becomes attracted. Indeed, he begins to covet that particular type of devotion. When such covetousness is awakened, one’s intelligence no longer depends on the instructions of śāstra [revealed scripture] or on logic and argument.
PURPORT
This verse is also found in the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu (1.2.292).
Prabhupada changed the original meaning of this verse by inserting the English phrase “When an advanced, realized devotee” at the beginning. That is not in the original text. This is a more correct translation:
“When someone hears about the sweet relationships of the devotees of Vrndavana — he becomes inclined in that way, and his intelligence becomes attracted. Indeed, he begins to covet that particular type of devotion. When such covetousness is awakened, one’s intelligence no longer depends on the instruction of sastra, revealed scripture, logic or argument.”
Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 22.152 -53
rāgamayī-bhaktira haya ‘rāgātmikā’ nāma
tāhā śuni’ lubdha haya kona bhāgyavānlobhe vraja-vāsīra bhāve kare anugati
śāstra-yukti nāhi māne — rāgānugāra prakṛtiThus devotional service which consists of rāga [deep attachment] is called rāgātmikā, spontaneous loving service. If a devotee covets such a position, he is considered to be most fortunate
If one follows in the footsteps of the inhabitants of Vṛndāvana out of such transcendental covetousness, he does not care for the injunctions or reasonings of śāstra. That is the way of spontaneous love.
A few verses later Sri Chaitanya explains about the path of raganuga some more:
Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 22.156-157
bāhya, antara, — ihāra dui ta’ sādhana
‘bāhye’ sādhaka-dehe kare śravaṇa-kīrtana
‘mane’ nija-siddha-deha kariyā bhāvana
rātri-dine kare vraje kṛṣṇera sevanabāhya — externally; antara — internally; ihāra — of this spontaneous love of Godhead; dui — two; ta’ — indeed; sādhana — such processes of execution; bāhye — externally; sādhaka-dehe — with the body of an advanced devotee; kare — does; śravaṇa-kīrtana — hearing and chanting; mane — the mind; nija — own; siddha-deha — eternal body or self-realized position; kariyā bhāvana — thinking of; rātri-dine — night and day; kare — executes; vraje — in Vṛndāvana; kṛṣṇera — of Lord Kṛṣṇa; sevana — service.
There are two processes by which one may execute this rāgānugā bhakti — external and internal. When self-realized, the advanced devotee externally remains like a neophyte and executes all the śāstric injunctions, especially those concerning hearing and chanting. But within his mind, in his original, purified, self-realized position, he serves Kṛṣṇa in Vṛndāvana in his particular way. He serves Kṛṣṇa twenty-four hours a day, all day and night.
The phrase: “When self-realized, the advanced devotee externally remains like a neophyte and executes all the śāstric injunctions” — is not in the original text. Prabhupada added that to the translation of this verse and thereby changed what was actually being taught by Sri Chaitanya about raganuga-bhakti. Sadhaka-dehe just means “the body of a person doing sadhana,” and not “with the body of an advanced devotee” — as is translated in the word for word, and not “When self-realized, the advanced devotee” — as we see in the final outcome. Nowhere in the original text does it then say “remains like a neophyte and executes all the śāstric injunctions.” In fact just a few verses earlier as I quoted above, the opposite is taught – raganuga bhaktas aren’t concerned with the rules and regulations of shastra. The above verse actually says:
“(Raganuga) Sadhana should be performed both externally and internally. First, one should engage the body and external senses in the processes of sravana and kirtana (hearing and chanting). Next, internally, one should engage the mind to think of one’s own siddha-deha (spiritual body), and in that spiritual body conceived within the mind to day and night perform seva to Krsna in Vrndavana.”
Then the next verse is also purposefully mistranslated by Prabhupada in order to continue on with the deception. Depending on rules and regulations of shastra is the definition of vaidhi-bhakti. Prabhupada changed the definition and description of raganuga-bhakti into that of vaidhi-bhakti. Why? To fool people into thinking they needed to always be surrendered to ISKCON rules and regulations (to keep them slave-like), even if they advance in Krishna consciousness to the level of raganuga-bhakti:
sevā sādhaka-rūpeṇa
siddha-rūpeṇa cātra hi
tad-bhāva-lipsunā kāryā
vraja-lokānusārataḥsevā — service; sādhaka-rūpeṇa — with the external body as a devotee practicing regulative devotional service; siddha-rūpeṇa — with a body suitable for eternal, self-realized service; ca — also; atra — in this connection; hi — certainly; tat — of that; bhāva — the mood; lipsunā — desiring to obtain; kāryā — to be executed; vraja-loka — of a particular servant of Kṛṣṇa in Vṛndāvana; anusārataḥ — by following in the footsteps.
The advanced devotee who is inclined to spontaneous loving service should follow the activities of a particular associate of Kṛṣṇa’s in Vṛndāvana. He should execute service externally as a regulative devotee as well as internally from his self-realized position. Thus he should perform devotional service both externally and internally.
There is no “advanced devotee” or “regulative” in the original verse. Sādhaka-rūpeṇa simply means “a body of a person doing sadhana” not “with the external body as a devotee practicing regulative devotional service.” Sadhana is of two types in bhakti-yoga, vaidhi-sadhana and raganuga-sadhana. What the verse says is that the raganuga-bhakta should practice two types of activities — sadhana done with the body, e.g. sravanam, kirtanam — which is part of raganuga-sadhana, as well as internal meditation on the siddha-rūpeṇa — the perfected or liberated form you concieve of yourself as, in your eternal bhava (relationship) with Radha Krishna in lila.
This is how Jiva Goswami describes raganuga-bhakti in his Bhakti Sandarbha:
In the Gautamiya Tantra it is said:
“For they who are always fallen in love with the lotus feet of Lord Krsna there is no japa, no Deity worship, no meditation, and no rules.”
When attraction (ruci) is not yet manifested even the best raganuga bhakti is considered to be mixed with vaidhi bhakti. Even a devotee who has attraction (ruci) for the Lord may, in order to benefit the people of the world, engage in raganuga bhakti mixed with vaidhi bhakti. Therefore, in some situations it is appropriate to practice raganuga bhakti mixed with vaidhi bhakti.
If raganuga-bhaktas are inspired by Krishna to teach by example how to follow vaidhi-bhakti to neophytes, then they may follow the rules and regulations now and then in order to teach by example, e.g. chanting prescribed number of japa, deity worship, etc. They don’t need to follow for themselves, it is up to what Krishna wants of them for the benefit of others. It is definitely not required for their spiritual development. Rules and regulations have the sole purpose of elevating people to raganuga. Once there they do not need to follow any rules or regulations because the rules and regulations only aid those who have not attained the stage of raganuga. Jiva Goswami then challenged what he just said and quoted numerous citations from shastra telling of the importance of following rules and regulations of bhakti. Then he answers his own challenge with this:
The Supreme Personality of Godhead declares (in Brahma-yamala, also quoted in texts 9 and 24 of this anuccheda):
“The Sruti and Smrti sastras are My commands. Therefore one who disobeys the scripture disobeys Me. Such a person hates Me. He may claim to be devoted to Me, but in truth he is not.”
These words do not apply to the devotees engaged in raganuga bhakti, for such devotees are already on the right path in spiritual life. Rather, this verse is addressed to they who follow the wrong paths, the paths of heretics and atheists like Buddha, Rsabhadeva, Dattatreya and others.
The scriptures declare:
“A heretic opposed to the religion of the Vedas may worship his own deity. However, he will go to hell until the time when the universe is destroyed by floods.”
Even though many Vedic rules are not followed in it, raganuga bhakti is not outside the path of the Vedas. Actually raganuga bhakti is the perfection of the religion described in the Vedas and the scriptures that explain the Vedas. This is so because raganuga bhakti makes one attracted (ruci) to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In the Vedas are described many heretics and atheists, such as Buddha, who are opposed to the Vedas and thus are outside the sphere of Vedic religion. For example, in Srimad Bhagavatam (1.3.24) it is said:
“Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.”
Therefore raganuga bhakti is proper and correct. It is much better than vaidhi bhakti. The previously discussed rules of the scriptures are meant for [those who seek] merging into the existence of the Lord [to purify non-devotees].
On very rare occasions Prabhupada told the truth to some degree:
From http://vanisource.org/wiki/Lecture_on_SB_1.2.33_–_Vrndavana,_November_12,_1972
Prabhupada: So you have to uncover. You have to discover. That discovering process is devotional service. The more you are engaged in devotional service, the more your senses become pure or uncovered. And when it is completely uncovered, without any designation, then you are capable to serve Kṛṣṇa. This is apprenticeship. Vaidhī-bhakti, that is apprenticeship. Real bhakti, parā-bhakti, that is rāgānugā-bhakti. This rāgānugā-bhakti, we have to come after surpassing the vaidhī-bhakti. In the material world, if we do not try to make further and further progress in devotional service, if we are simply sticking to the shastric regulation process and do not try to go beyond that… Shastric process also regulation, that is required. Without shastric process you cannot go to that platform. But if we stick to the shastric process only and do not try to improve ourself… The shastric process is kaniṣṭha-adhikāra, lowest stage of devotional service.
arcāyām eva haraye
pūjāṁ yaḥ śraddhayehate
na tad-bhakteṣu cānyeṣu
sa bhaktaḥ prākṛtaḥ smṛtaḥ
Generally, people come to this temple, they are very devoted to the Deity. They offer their respects, flowers and other things, make the regulative process, circumambulate. This is nice beginning, but one has to go above this. One has to know who is actually bhakta, who is ac… Na tad-bhakteṣu cānyeṣu. One has to do good for others. That is madhyama-adhikārī. If I become satisfied only with these regulative principles for worshiping the Deity in the temple and following the regulative principle daily, but if I have no other idea, then sa bhaktaḥ prākṛtaḥ smṛtaḥ. Prākṛta means on the material platform. Such devotee can fall down at any moment, because he’s on the prākṛta stage. And prākṛta means this guṇamayī, prakṛti. It is very strong.
So any devotee can fall down if he remains prākṛta-bhakta. So he has to raise himself above this in the madhyama-adhikāra. So here it is said that sva-nirmiteṣu nirviṣṭo bhuṅkte bhūteṣu tad-guṇān. So we are not enjoying actually. We are enjoying the interaction of the three modes of material nature. And we are thinking… The same thing, as my Guru Mahārāja used to say, that licking up the bottle of honey. That is not real honey. You have to open the bottle of the honey and lick up the real honey, then you’ll get taste. That is advancement of spiritual knowledge.
Also:
Persons desiring to follow in the footsteps of such eternal devotees of the Lord as the Vrsnis and the Vrindavana denizens are called raganuga devotees, which means that they are trying to attain to the perfection of those devotees. These raganuga devotees don’t follow the regulative principles of devotional service very strictly, but by spontaneous nature they become attracted to some of the eternal devotees such as Nanda or Yasoda, and they try to follow in their footsteps spontaneously. There is a gradual development of the ambition to become like a particular devotee, and this activity is called raganuga. (NOD, Ch. 16, p.125)
In all, there are sixty-four items listed for the rendering of service unto Krsna, and these are the regulative principles enjoined in the sastras and given by the spiritual master. One has to serve Krsna according to these regulative principles, but if one develops spontaneous love for Krsna as exhibited in the activities of those who live in Vrajabhumi, one attains the platform of raganuga-bhakti. One who has developed this spontaneous love is eligible for elevation to the platform enjoyed by the inhabitants of Vrajabhumi. In Vrajabhumi, there are no regulative principles set forth for Krsna’s service. Rather, everything is carried out in spontaneous, natural love for Krsna. There is no question of following the principles of the Vedic system. Such principles are followed within this material world, and as long as one is on the material platform, he has to execute them. However, spontaneous love of Krsna is transcendental. It may seem that the regulative principles are being violated, but the devotee is on the transcendental platform. Such service is called gunatita, or nirguna, for it is not contaminated by the three modes of material nature.” [CC M.8.221]
Sivarama Swami responds to questions and critics
http://www.sivaramaswami.com/2010/02/26/more-on-who-is-a-member-of-iskcon-part-i/
http://www.sivaramaswami.com/2010/02/27/more-on-who-is-a-member-of-iskcon-part-ii/#
Steve Bohlert said:
You have understood and explained things well. ISKCON and A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami were strong obstacles on the path of raganuga, which is why I left in 1974, along with the corruption which was also rampant. I have practiced raganuga bhakti since Lalita Prasad Thakur initiated me into it in 1974.
Now, I teach Universalist Radha-Krishnaism or natural devotion (raganuga bhakti) from a contemporary Western perspective. There are no rules and regulations, nothing to belong to or join, and no gurus or sannyasis.
2 Sadhanas said:
“This rāgānugā-bhakti, we have to come after surpassing the vaidhī-bhakti.”
Raganuga bhakti and vaidhi bhakti are two separate paths from the beginning. One does not lead to the other. Although since anything is possible, I suppose in rare cases it might. I’d need some examples.
Malati dasi said:
Braja
I would like to send you an email. Can you please give me your e-address? Thanks
Vrajabhumi said:
Malati dasi
http://harekrishnanews.wordpress.com/about-and-submissions/
Vrajabhumi said:
2 Sadhanas
Vaidhi-sadhana can and does lead to raganuga-bhakti. Vaidhi-bhakti is bhakti that is not inspired by the desire to be in a close relationship with Radha Krishna. It’s inspired by promises of the salvation of Vaikuntha or Goloka, liberation from suffering and unhappiness, gaining good karma,etc, based upon the teachings of shastra. That type of person, with a sufficient amount of learning and realization, due to the practice of vaidhi-sadhana, will come to desire to be in a close relationship with Radha Krishna. It just takes the development of faith and appreciation, which comes from knowledge and realization, and which for some people is experienced very early on and for other people can take a long time.
2 Sadhanas said:
What are some examples of vaidhi sadhana leading to raganuga sadhana and then to Braj Prem?
Vaidhi bhakti leads to aishwarya prem wherein one will take up residence in Vaikuntha or the Goloka Region where Radha Krishna are worshipped like a Royal Couple.
A mix of vaidhi and raganuga leads to Dwarka, where there is a mix of aishwarya and madhurya bhavas.
Vrajabhumi said:
2 Sadhanas
You’re taking esoterica too literally. Plus, I said vaidhi-sadhana, not vaidhi-bhakti, can and does lead to raganuga. Vaidhi-bhakti is a mindset, it doesn’t lead to raganuga anymore then ignorance leads to knowledge, these are states of mind. But someone with the vaidhi-bhakti mindset (inspired by promises of a higher reality to take up bhakti-yoga) can move onto the raganuga mindset by vaidhi-sadhana, that is the whole point of vaidhi-sadhana.
2 sadhanas said:
There is no difference between vaidhi sadhana and vaidhi bhakti. Bhakti IS sadhana.
Vrajabhumi said:
2 sadhanas
You’re wrong about that. Do the participants in lila do sadhana? No. But their lives are all about bhakti. Sadhana is a specific activity, such as learning philosophy or chanting or archana, whereas bhakti is a state of consciousness, a state of mind, an emotional mindset. Vaidhi-bhakti is bhakti that is inspired by the promises of shastra rather than the desire to be in a relationship with Radha Krishna. Whereas vaidhi-sadhana is regulative spiritual practices based upon rules — such as rising early every morning, bathing, then putting on tilak, then off to chant and study for a set amount of time, hearing from sadhus, engaging in archana and Tulasi worship, visiting holy places, doing service for, bhaktas, sadhus, temples or ashrams, associating with other bhaktas, etc. Sadhana literally means “that which lead you to a goal.” Sadhana is the means, suddha-bhakti — bhava and rasa — is the goal.
Sadhanas said:
Bhakti is sadhana. Prem is the goal.
It’s a continuum, with bhakti on one end, prem on the other, but both are the same thing – one in unripened form – sadhan bhakti, and one in ripened form – prem bhakti. Bhakti is the means and the end.
There are 2 forms of sadhana bhakti:
Vaidhi bhakti
Raganuga bhakti
Both have “rules” because sadhana means “practice”.
Vaidhi bhakti sadhaks, upon perfection achieve aiswarya mayi prem.
Raganuga bhakti sadhaks, upon perfection achieve madhurya mayi prem.
The two are separate, distinct paths.
Can there be crossovers from one sadhana to the other? Yes, I’m willing to concede there can be.
Vrajabhumi said:
Bhakti means love and devotion, as in prema-bhakti. Sadhana is spiritual practice with the goal to bring you to the level of prema-bhakti so you can enjoy bhava and rasa with Radha Krishna. As for your other statements — you are taking metaphoric esoteric teaching too literally, so you end up presenting a completely wrong conception. Don’t bother arguing more on these points anymore. I don’t want to waste my time trying to point out what should be simple to understand over and over, and I don’t want to waste my time reading your misconceptions over and over.
Sitapati das said:
“Prabhupada changed the definition and description of raganuga-bhakti into that of vaidhi-bhakti. Why? To fool people into thinking they needed to always be surrendered to ISKCON rules and regulations (to keep them slave-like), even if they advance in Krishna consciousness to the level of raganuga-bhakti:
The first part of that is an interesting, objective observation. The second part (about Prabhupada’s motivation) is pure speculation.
And, I’m sorry, but no matter how much more circumstantial evidence you offer up to support your assertion about Prabhupada’s motivation, it remains a speculation.
Here’s another speculation about his possible motive: He did it to counter-act the sahajiya tendency that had thrown Gaudiya Vaisnavism into disrepute for hundreds of years before his param guru, Bhaktivinode Thakura, re-established its reputation through his writing and the work of his son, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati.
Srila Prabhupada wrote to a specific audience and he wrote to help them rise to the level of human life (dharma), so that they could then transcend it by “abandoning all varieties of dharma”.
I don’t think that his intention was to “make people slaves to an institution”. That’s just a natural conclusion of any institution, and it might be the intention of some of his followers.
However, His intention was to give people the adhikar to tread the path of raganuga bhakti, while not allowing his writing to be used to justify sahajyism.
So there’s another internally consistent attribution of motive.
But we should be really careful about attributing motives to others. Why did you write this article? I can guess, but I would be just guessing. Why did I write this reply? You could give some explanation, but it would be a guess, speculation.
I think your writing is best when it sticks to the observable facts, but over-reaches when it ventures into speculation. That is my opinion.
Pingback: Bad « Hare Krishna Women
SADHANAS said:
“However, His intention was to give people the adhikar to tread the path of raganuga bhakti”
The only adhikar for raganuga bhakti is the desire for the same. Nothing less, nothing more.
Vrajabhumi said:
SADHANAS
You wrote:
Yes, but first you need to develop that desire. Sitapati was saying that Prabhupada’s intention was to give people the ability to develop that lobha (or longing) for bhava and rasa.
I disagree with him. Whenever Prabhupada translated about raganuga he always misinterpreted what the actual teachings say, stating that only “self realized devotee” or “pure devotees” or “liberated devotees” are qualified for raganuga-bhakti. And he would also write that raganuga-bhaktas lived externally as vaidhi-bhaktas. Those were interpolations, nowhere in the original teachings is that taught. He changed the adhikar (authorization, qualification) for raganuga. As SADHANAS points out, the actual teachings say that the only adhikar is lobha (longing, strong desire) for bhava (a direct one on one relationship) and rasa (experiencing the varieties of moods and emotions in a relationship) following in one of the bhavas of the participant devotees in lila.
He also changed the demands on raganuga-bhaktas. The teachings say that the rules and regulations of vaidhi-sadhana are of no concern for a raganuga, but they may follow them to set an example for vaidhi-bhaktas. Prabhupada taught that raganuga-bhaktas follow all the rules and regulations of vaidhi-sadhana, in addition to the internal aspect of raganuga-sadhana.
If Prabhupada changed the teachings in order to give that adhikar, why would he insist that only the very highest level bhaktas have that adhikar? That only has the effect of stifling actual qualified raganuga-bhaktas from raganuga-bhakti and sadhana because bhaktas are taught to see humility as a sign of advancement. If you haven’t attained bhava-bhakti then you are not “self-realized” nor “liberated” nor a “pure devotee.” No beginner qualified raganuga-bhaktas would consider themselves to be liberated self-realized pure devotees. Those are the results of raganuga-bhakti and sadhana, not the qualification for it. If you are a self realized liberated pure devotee then you have no use for any type of sadhana.
Yet Prabhupada said that was the adhikar for raganuga-bhakti. Clearly his purpose was to discourage raganuga-bhakti. Why? It seems obvious to me — to keep people believing they are dependent on being vaidhi-bhaktas. ISKCON was formed by Prabhupada into a strictly vaidhi-centric organization, he taught and his followers still do that any deviation from 100% surrender to all of Prabhupada’s rules and regulations is a “falldown” from grace, sinful, and very dangerous for your future.
Malati dasi said:
Jai Sri Krishna
Brilliant explanations Vrajabhumi.
Sitapatidas: He did it to counter-act the sahajiya tendency that had thrown Gaudiya Vaisnavism into disrepute for hundreds of years before his param guru, Bhaktivinode Thakura, re-established its reputation through his writing and the work of his son, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati.
Funny that. The writings of the foundational acharyas of GVism (Srila Rupa and Visvanath Chakravardipad et. al) were not able to stop the unfolding of history, eg. that some will turn sahajiyas and you think Bhaktivedanta Swami will be able to ridGV of Sahajiyas. So to you it’s worth changing the very core of the teachings of Gvism and worth stifling sincere devotees who has the adhikar and sentiments for raganuga.
Sita-pati das said:
Sorry Malati, but you’re off base by attributing this to me:
“So to you it’s worth changing the very core of the teachings of Gvism and worth stifling sincere devotees who has the adhikar and sentiments for raganuga.”
What I said was that I was offering another internally consistent explanation for Prabhupada’s motivations in what he did. I did this to demonstrate that other speculations about motive are possible, aside from the one that Vrajabhumi offered.
Please be careful about attributing motives to others. That’s the point I am making in my reply to Vrajabhumi’s article where she crosses that line between analysis and speculation, and it’s the same point here where your reply to me crosses that same line.
Sita-pati das said:
Vrajabhumi, you do not disagree with me, you misunderstand me.
I did not say “that Prabhupada’s intention was to give people the ability to develop that lobha (or longing) for bhava and rasa.”
I said that this was another possible speculation about his motives.
“What he did” is analysis. “Why he did it” is speculation. And when it comes to speculation, there are multiple possibilities. I offered another one to go along with yours.
Vrajabhumi said:
Sita-pati das
I understood that you were giving a different speculation for his motives. I just disagreed with that speculation, since it seems contradicted by what he taught. My explanation or speculation seems more likely in view of all things considered, IMO.
Sita-pati das said:
Vrajabhumi, thank you for pointing out here that this is a speculation with a likelihood of being correct (and conversely a possibility of being incorrect). And that’s my issue with this piece. Here you admit it, but in the article you mix your analysis and your speculation together freely. For example, you said:
“Why? To fool people into thinking they needed to always be surrendered to ISKCON rules and regulations (to keep them slave-like), even if they advance in Krishna consciousness to the level of raganuga-bhakti.”
On one hand you are trying to critique a fanatical presentation, on the other you are using the same rhetorical devices…
GM said:
“Vaidhi bhakti leads to aishwarya prem wherein one will take up residence in Vaikuntha or the Goloka Region where Radha Krishna are worshipped like a Royal Couple.”
There is inferiority / superiority attributed to spiritual destination in this comment. You don’t realize the rarity of develop any bhav towards Krishna.
For example, Iskcon devotees are fighting about details in spiritual world and they even lack basic human qualities like compassion (abusing helpless children and women) etc…
What happens is that when you talk in abstract terms, then you loose focus on basics!
When I was child, I developed attraction to pastimes of Lord Ram. Tears will flow, hair will stand on my body when I will read pastimes of Ram. Even now, I experience significant amount of ecstasy in kirtans frequently or while reading pastimes of Ram. It seems to me that raganuga bhakti means to develop spontaneous attraction to pastimes of Krishna or Ram etc. Just read and have faith on those pastimes. Meditate on them. They work like magic and you will experience the bhakti. You can also experience the same while doing jap of holy names of Krishna.
Raganuga means enjoying the bhakti. It may be reading the pastimes or meditating on them, or chanting His names or any thing else.
The problem with devotees is that they fail to develop this spontaneous attraction and they become more process focused instead of goal focused.
We need to look inwards and see if we are developing that spontaneous attraction. If not, then we need to change our heart or practice.
Trying to attribute superiority or inferiority to various practices is foolishness. It is born out of ignorance.
Sometimes, spiritual comparison are made for example statement my Rupa Gosvami in the last verse of NOI. But interesting thing about these comparisons is that they don’t attribute superiority or inferiority. A particular devotee A may be better than another devotee B and at the same time, the devotee B is better than devotee A. Everyone is complete (purna).
om parnamidam purnat purnam udacyate ……
In spritual dimension, everything remains complete and you take part of that completeness and still, the part remains complete. …………..
Basically, it means that don’t try to see spiritual domain with your material vision and see the completeness of the true devotees of Krishna.
KEEP IT SIMPLE. DON”T TALK IN LANGUAGE WHICH YOU DON”T EVEN UNDERSTAND.
Vrajabhumi said:
Sita-pati das
What rhetorical device that I have used is the same as Prabhupada?
Malati dasi said:
Sitapatidas
I think you are splitting hair by making petty distinction between analysis and speculation.
When you are making speculations you make conclusion or state opinion based on conjecture or suppositions and you may base your conjectures from inferences from evidence or premises based on deductive or inductive reasoning.
When you do analysis you break down a topic to gain a better understanding of it. And you may use methods like heuristics to make speculative formulation as a guide to investigation . In analysis we obviously employ deductive or inductive reasoning also.
There is not much difference between the 2 terms in the case of Vrajabhumi’s discussion. You are just being pedantic.
However if you are talking about financial investment sure a distinction can be made for speculation because financial action is quantifiable. Speculation in this case is when there is low margin of safety. And you use mathematical probability because it is quantifiable.
So in the case of Vrajabhumi’s discussion because conditions or the facts can not be quantitied her conclusion of the “motive” is considered analysis also because she used reasoning. She made an informed conclusion because she studied the facts .
You are making a fuss because you don’t like the conclusion she came to. She made her conclusion and if you want to prove that her conclusion regarding the motive has no solid basis then you have to refute it.
As a note: nowadays there are higher statistical methods that can assign probability to certain conditions/facts and and in the process make logical pathways to where certains facts can lead to. In this method then we can see if the “motive conclusion” of Vraja has a low margin of safety or stated in another way “more likely to be true”. But we are not mathematicians.
Vrajabhumi said:
Malati dasi
You’re right. It’s obvious that my analysis is speculative since there is no way to prove what I said. So I felt no need to claim that it was speculative at first because it should be taken as a given. Sita-pati’s complaint was something I considered to be irrelevant, but, as I am used to this same debating technique from his previous debates where he always resorts to pedantic or semantic arguments whenever he has nothing else to say as if it is some illuminating and vital consideration, I pointed out that even though it was speculative, that had nothing to do with the point at hand. He also resorts to genetic fallacy when he has no argument. For example at http://harekrishnanews.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/sense-and-nonsensibility/#comment-58 he said to me:
Just because I speculated upon why Tripurari refused to accept what should be an obvious truth, IMO, why should that be seen as a mirror of my motivation? I presented a logical thorough analysis of why Tripurari’s position has to be wrong. He did not do the same. He just claimed that because my interpretation wasn’t a literal interpretation, that I was wrong.
He ignored and obfuscated on the relevant points I brought up. I said he may be motivated to be obstinate because he presents himself as a bona fide spiritual master whom people should serve, therefore to admit he is wrong on such a major and obviously wrong conception would be tantamount to admitting to not being all that he presents himself as. Whereas I have said repeatedly you don’t need a guru and that you certainly don’t need to surrender to and serve a guru without which you cannot spiritually advance to the goal of bhakti. Tripurari does the opposite. He claims it is absolutely imperative to surrender to and serve a guru.
So how is that my motive in speculating on his desire to be seen as above making philosophical mistakes, and therefore to be seen as a guru worth submitting to and serving, is the same as my motivation when I point out the obvious monetary incentive he has to not admit a major philosophical mistake? He has a clear monetary incentive to never admit philosophical mistakes due to his claim that people absolutely need to surrender to a bona fide guru — and he is that bona fide guru you should submit to and serve. I have repeatedly rejected that ideology with long explanations on this blog as to why the absolute necessity of surrendering to a guru is no longer relevant in the modern age due to mass media. Therefore how is my motivation the same as what I said is probably his motivation to not admit mistaken views?
Sitapati das said:
Vrajabhumi, In response to your question “What rhetorical device that I have used is the same as Prabhupada?”
It’s the good old “throw out an interpretation as a fact”.
“Why? To fool people into thinking they needed to always be surrendered to ISKCON rules and regulations (to keep them slave-like), even if they advance in Krishna consciousness to the level of raganuga-bhakti.”
I don’t disagree with this *as a possibility*. I do disagree with it as a dogmatic assertion.
Sitapati das said:
Without some mystical insight there is no way that anyone *could* know this with 100% certainty. And even with mystical insight it’s still not inter-subjectively verifiable – why am I even bothering? This whole argument is about religious belief and scriptural interpretation anyway.
Sorry, I take it all back. Say whatever you want.
Vrajabhumi said:
Sitapati das
You said:
That wasn’t what I did, nor what Prabhupada did. Prabhupada wasn’t presenting an interpretation, he changed the traditional teachings. An interpretation would have involved commenting on the teachings about raganuga. What he did was make bogus translations of other peoples writings, presenting those bogus translations as the opinions of those writers. Also, I wasn’t stating my interpretation of his motivation as unequivocal fact, I was presenting them as a likely possibility, that should be obvious since I do not claim to be God and therefore obviously cannot state with absolute certainty what his motivations were. As Malati said — you are ignoring the relevant argument and indulging in pedantics. I consider your complaints to be a red herring, as well as a straw man rhetorical style. You have nothing of substance to argue against, so you attack my style of writing using a baseless accusation in order to discredit me.
You also said:
Well, obviously. But that is simply another irrelevant point. Prabhupada’s motivation is not the relevant point, it was simply an attempt to give cause to what he did, and obviously speculative. What is relevant is what he actually did, that he changed the teachings while claiming to be purely representing GV, thereby misleading countless people into believing a bogus form of GV is authentic.
Sadhanas said:
“Vaidhi bhakti leads to aishwarya prem wherein one will take up residence in Vaikuntha or the Goloka Region where Radha Krishna are worshipped like a Royal Couple.”
>>>>>>
”There is inferiority / superiority attributed to spiritual destination in this comment.”……..
No superiority or inferiority here. Just a statement regarding what type of sadhana leads to what type of sadhya. All are not the same………
”….Trying to attribute superiority or inferiority to various practices is foolishness. It is born out of ignorance. ”
……
Nope. It’s born out of reading Raga Vartma Chandrika.
With regards to “fear of sahajiyaism” that Sitapati refers to.
Sahajiyas are a seperate sect of their own right. ISKCON conflates having romantic relationships with “sahajiyaism” or smoking ganja with “sahajiyaism” or even drinking coffee with “sahajiyaism”.
Sahajiyaism is a separate set doctrine with a number of set sadhanas – in it’s own right.
Ekayani DD said:
All of these responses bring up valid concerns and intelligent responses to the orthodoxy proposed by Sivarami Swami in the GBC meeting this year in Mayapura and to the reaction to it by his fellow GBC member Gopal Krishna Goswami. After considering the matter for some time, it seems to me that the best course of action is for the GBC leadership to prepare a booklet available to each would-be member of an ISKCON temple frankly stating the beliefs and principles as stated by the founder-acharya of the movement, including the references found on the homepage of this website. After reading about Srila Prabhupada’s views on women, children (especially their removal from their parents when only a few years old–see his letter to Satyabhama of 27 Dec. 1968), blacks, and his openly anti-semitic remarks, how many of the intelligent and accomplished Indians my ex-husband was referring to would choose to associate with such people at all? There are plenty of Hindu temples out there (without the extravagant interiors and deities perhaps) for expatriate Indians to attend. The fact is that most Indians attending ISKCON temples have heard about the four regulative principles while sitting opposite a devotee during a Sunday love feast, so that concern is really besides the point. A fully informed member of ISKCON is a rarity even among the initiated disciples of my godbrothers and this shows how deceit and obfuscation still rule. Take off your blinkers, people!
I’m actually working on a prototype of what this booklet would be and will shortly post it on my website at http://www.mysite.verizon.net/vze4x2q7, but there is plenty of toe-curling information there as is. Thanks for your courage, Vrajabhumi!!
Vrajabhumi said:
For those who don’t know, Ekayani is Gopal Krishna Swami’s ex-wife.
Fair & Lovely Skin Lightening Cream said:
“After reading about Srila Prabhupada’s views on women, children (especially their removal from their parents when only a few years old–see his letter to Satyabhama of 27 Dec. 1968), blacks, and his openly anti-semitic remarks, how many of the intelligent and accomplished Indians my ex-husband was referring to would choose to associate with such people at all? ”
Indians are world famous for their prejudice against Black people, so generally speaking, I can’t see very many of them getting upset over Prabhupada’s statements about Black people.
The thing that would get their goat is taking children away from their families. Indians are obsessed with their families.
Jerilyn said:
OK, to sum this up we know three things
I. We were visited by a bigoted man posing as a swami.
II. This swami was surrounded by a group of equally racist and sexists nutcases posing as swamis.
III. We need to make a point of finding a bona fide translation of all Indian scriptures so that we can tell this dead swami’s followers that they’ve been found out!
Bonebag said:
this person misquoted scripture in order to enslave folks: pure and simple! I have yet to read about another guru who did such and was given such leeway! To attempt to whitewash it by calling the writer’s observations speculation is to go along with the sham. No other swami or monk has so misused scripture!