05-11-2005, 10:52 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Carl+May 12 2005, 01:12 AM-->QUOTE(Carl @ May 12 2005, 01:12 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>gangajal</b>,
"proud Hindus" should be upset over so-called Tantra and Kali-worship cults focussed on in english-language text-books simply because this is a heavily biased misrepresentation of Vedic dharma as a whole, and also because these practices are arguably deviant practices (apasampradayas). As I stated in a previous post, about 70% of Hindus identify themselves nominally as "Vaishnava" (though they may not be clear about the philosophy). But howmuch of real Vaishnavism -- which is far better described as monotheistic rather than monistic -- gets discussed in "Hinduism" books?? Ask most english-educated Hindus, and they will tell you that Hinduism is "NOT monotheistic", that "we are all God", and that Advaita is the last word on Vedanta! -- even though Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, Vishnuswami and Lord Chaitanya came after Shankara (whose individual mission was to kick out the atheistic shunyavadi philosophy out of bharatvarsha). So this is the kind of misrepresentation that is happening.
Most of this happens under the banner of "Vivekananda". But try to understand the time and circumstances under which Vivekananda was working. His main concern was to politically unite Hindus at a time of aggressive and manipulative colonial evangelism. In that spirit -- and not out of any theological conviction -- Vivekananda says, "But in the modern period, in the name of a generic 'Hinduism'...It is therefore, that I preach this Advaita". But Vivekananda himself acknowledges that his own guru, Ramakrishna, did not seem to speak Advaita, or Dwaita, or Acintya bhedabheda tattva, or anything else. Vivekananda spoke of "Shri Ramakrishna's religion" as something quite separate. But for the sake of political and theological unity, he preached advaita, being as manipulative as the adversary.
But such mayavad is seriously offensive to any serious Vaishnav (70% of Hindus are descendents of those who accepted Vaishnavism). In fact, even the way Ramakrishna described and "experimented with" Vaishnavism is a mockery. He indulged in a so-called tantric deviation called "sakhi-bekhi" -- one of the 13 apasampradayas enumerated by Chaitanya mahaprabhu Himself. To give you an idea, this sakhi-bekhi business involves some concocted "mano-dharma", where the male starts behaving like a woman, associates and performes patently perverted acts with real women, etc, supposedly to whip-up some psychological condition, in imitation of a "rasa" with Shri Krishna. This sort of utter nonsense was severely condemned by Chaitanya mahaprabhu himself, though several such cults exist in Bengal and even Vrindavan. But it is precisely such kind of humbug that is discussed under the rubric of "Vaishnavism" in certain books. This is an example of what is offensive and suffocating to serious Vaishnavas.
More importantly, try to appreciate the REAL DAMAGE being done by mayavad representations of 'Hinduism'. It is THESE pseudo-philosophies that actually discredit the vast majority of Vedic agamas (including 80% of the Upanishads, most of the 4 Vedas, and ALL the Puranas). They only like to cherry-pick sentences (or sometimes even half-verses!) to support their philosophy. so understand this -- that the mayavadis trash most of Hindu literature (often appealing to modern pseudo-historical theories). So before anyone tries to put together a "united Hindu front", I suggest we pause and take a look at the people and philosophies that are being used to put up this front. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Carl,
1. It seems you are trashing any thing that does not agree with ISCKON's sectarian position. Tantra and Kali-worship are not deviant as you are claiming. In fact there is historical evidence that Chaitanya himself worshipped Kali. Govindadasa mentions in his kadaca that Chaitanya went into ecstasy in a temple dedicated to Kali in Padmakota during his South India tour (c 1500). There is other evidence that Chaitanya did not like your kind of sectarian view. Chaitanya reverently visited Siva temples and expressed joy that one of his companions, a devotee of Rama, refused to take initiation with a Krshna mantra.
2. I have no objection that you do not agree that Advaita is the final position of the Vedas. The different Acharyas have given these different philosophies to satisfy different minds. However, just as you can not accept Advaitavada, you can not expect people who follow Advaita to accept Vaishnava philosophy. Chaitanya himself was an ardent admirer of Sridhar Swami who was an Advaitin albeit of the bhakti type. Chaitanya told Vallabhacharya," You have the vanity to write your own commentary without showing your respect to Sridhara, and have even criticized him! It is by the
grace of Sridhara that I have understood the Bhagavata. He is a world teacher;
I consider him to be my very own Guru. Whatever you have written out of pride
against Sridhara is wasted effort; no one will accept it. Give up your false
pride and follow Sridhara in your commentary. Whatever you write in accordance
with Sridhara will be honoured and accpeted by all.' (CCa 7/128-132) So you see Lord Chaitanya accepted an Advaitin as his Guru.
All six Goswamis have been full of praise for Sridhar Swami even though
Sridhar was an Advaitin (though an ardent proponent of Bhakti). Jiva, for
example, writes at the commencement of his Bhagavata commentary, the
Kramasandharva:"I salute the venerable Sridhara, the sole guardian of Bhakti.
This commentary, bearing the name Kramasandharva, should be understood to
function as clarifying what was not clearly stated by the Swamin, or
mentioning what was left unsaid." Jiva cites Shankara as an authority several times in
his Sarvasambidini.
Sridhara acknowledges his debt to Sankara at the beginning of his commentary
on the Bhagavad Gita. He writes,"After studying, according to my own light,
the interpretation of the commentator (Shankara) and the writings of his
sub-commentators, I begin this commentary on the Gita." Sridhara does not
follow Shankara very closely, placing greater emphasis on Bhakti, often
speaking of the jiva as portion of Brahman and giving a more realistic
interpretation to the concept of Sakti.
3. You have also trashed Ramakrishna and Vivekananda. Since my Guru is of the Ramakrishna order I
feel I have to defend their reputation. You claim that Vivekananda was being manipulative when he preached Advaita and that Ramakrishna did not follow any system. You clearly do not have any understanding of their teachings. Ramakrishna himself told the monastic disciples to have the Advaitic experience and then live in the world. Ramakrishna also accepted the other philosophical systems but always said that Advaita is the highest experience. So your claim that Vivekananda was being manipulative is false.
4. You have made a nasty allegation that Ramakrishna performed perverted acts with real women. This is completely false allegation. He did worship Krishna with the attitude of a woman. This is a recognized Vaishnava position since only Lord Krishna is man. In fact there is a story regarding this kind of worship. Once Mira Bai visited Vrindavan and wanted to meet Santana Goswami. Sanatana Goswami refused saying as a Sannyasi he could not talk to a woman. Mira Bai scolded him saying that it is a pity that Sanatana Goswami still thinks himself as a man when it is well known that Lord Krishna is the only man in the universe. An embarrassed Sanatana Goswami, a direct disciple of Chaitanya, met Mira Bai.
"proud Hindus" should be upset over so-called Tantra and Kali-worship cults focussed on in english-language text-books simply because this is a heavily biased misrepresentation of Vedic dharma as a whole, and also because these practices are arguably deviant practices (apasampradayas). As I stated in a previous post, about 70% of Hindus identify themselves nominally as "Vaishnava" (though they may not be clear about the philosophy). But howmuch of real Vaishnavism -- which is far better described as monotheistic rather than monistic -- gets discussed in "Hinduism" books?? Ask most english-educated Hindus, and they will tell you that Hinduism is "NOT monotheistic", that "we are all God", and that Advaita is the last word on Vedanta! -- even though Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, Vishnuswami and Lord Chaitanya came after Shankara (whose individual mission was to kick out the atheistic shunyavadi philosophy out of bharatvarsha). So this is the kind of misrepresentation that is happening.
Most of this happens under the banner of "Vivekananda". But try to understand the time and circumstances under which Vivekananda was working. His main concern was to politically unite Hindus at a time of aggressive and manipulative colonial evangelism. In that spirit -- and not out of any theological conviction -- Vivekananda says, "But in the modern period, in the name of a generic 'Hinduism'...It is therefore, that I preach this Advaita". But Vivekananda himself acknowledges that his own guru, Ramakrishna, did not seem to speak Advaita, or Dwaita, or Acintya bhedabheda tattva, or anything else. Vivekananda spoke of "Shri Ramakrishna's religion" as something quite separate. But for the sake of political and theological unity, he preached advaita, being as manipulative as the adversary.
But such mayavad is seriously offensive to any serious Vaishnav (70% of Hindus are descendents of those who accepted Vaishnavism). In fact, even the way Ramakrishna described and "experimented with" Vaishnavism is a mockery. He indulged in a so-called tantric deviation called "sakhi-bekhi" -- one of the 13 apasampradayas enumerated by Chaitanya mahaprabhu Himself. To give you an idea, this sakhi-bekhi business involves some concocted "mano-dharma", where the male starts behaving like a woman, associates and performes patently perverted acts with real women, etc, supposedly to whip-up some psychological condition, in imitation of a "rasa" with Shri Krishna. This sort of utter nonsense was severely condemned by Chaitanya mahaprabhu himself, though several such cults exist in Bengal and even Vrindavan. But it is precisely such kind of humbug that is discussed under the rubric of "Vaishnavism" in certain books. This is an example of what is offensive and suffocating to serious Vaishnavas.
More importantly, try to appreciate the REAL DAMAGE being done by mayavad representations of 'Hinduism'. It is THESE pseudo-philosophies that actually discredit the vast majority of Vedic agamas (including 80% of the Upanishads, most of the 4 Vedas, and ALL the Puranas). They only like to cherry-pick sentences (or sometimes even half-verses!) to support their philosophy. so understand this -- that the mayavadis trash most of Hindu literature (often appealing to modern pseudo-historical theories). So before anyone tries to put together a "united Hindu front", I suggest we pause and take a look at the people and philosophies that are being used to put up this front. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Carl,
1. It seems you are trashing any thing that does not agree with ISCKON's sectarian position. Tantra and Kali-worship are not deviant as you are claiming. In fact there is historical evidence that Chaitanya himself worshipped Kali. Govindadasa mentions in his kadaca that Chaitanya went into ecstasy in a temple dedicated to Kali in Padmakota during his South India tour (c 1500). There is other evidence that Chaitanya did not like your kind of sectarian view. Chaitanya reverently visited Siva temples and expressed joy that one of his companions, a devotee of Rama, refused to take initiation with a Krshna mantra.
2. I have no objection that you do not agree that Advaita is the final position of the Vedas. The different Acharyas have given these different philosophies to satisfy different minds. However, just as you can not accept Advaitavada, you can not expect people who follow Advaita to accept Vaishnava philosophy. Chaitanya himself was an ardent admirer of Sridhar Swami who was an Advaitin albeit of the bhakti type. Chaitanya told Vallabhacharya," You have the vanity to write your own commentary without showing your respect to Sridhara, and have even criticized him! It is by the
grace of Sridhara that I have understood the Bhagavata. He is a world teacher;
I consider him to be my very own Guru. Whatever you have written out of pride
against Sridhara is wasted effort; no one will accept it. Give up your false
pride and follow Sridhara in your commentary. Whatever you write in accordance
with Sridhara will be honoured and accpeted by all.' (CCa 7/128-132) So you see Lord Chaitanya accepted an Advaitin as his Guru.
All six Goswamis have been full of praise for Sridhar Swami even though
Sridhar was an Advaitin (though an ardent proponent of Bhakti). Jiva, for
example, writes at the commencement of his Bhagavata commentary, the
Kramasandharva:"I salute the venerable Sridhara, the sole guardian of Bhakti.
This commentary, bearing the name Kramasandharva, should be understood to
function as clarifying what was not clearly stated by the Swamin, or
mentioning what was left unsaid." Jiva cites Shankara as an authority several times in
his Sarvasambidini.
Sridhara acknowledges his debt to Sankara at the beginning of his commentary
on the Bhagavad Gita. He writes,"After studying, according to my own light,
the interpretation of the commentator (Shankara) and the writings of his
sub-commentators, I begin this commentary on the Gita." Sridhara does not
follow Shankara very closely, placing greater emphasis on Bhakti, often
speaking of the jiva as portion of Brahman and giving a more realistic
interpretation to the concept of Sakti.
3. You have also trashed Ramakrishna and Vivekananda. Since my Guru is of the Ramakrishna order I
feel I have to defend their reputation. You claim that Vivekananda was being manipulative when he preached Advaita and that Ramakrishna did not follow any system. You clearly do not have any understanding of their teachings. Ramakrishna himself told the monastic disciples to have the Advaitic experience and then live in the world. Ramakrishna also accepted the other philosophical systems but always said that Advaita is the highest experience. So your claim that Vivekananda was being manipulative is false.
4. You have made a nasty allegation that Ramakrishna performed perverted acts with real women. This is completely false allegation. He did worship Krishna with the attitude of a woman. This is a recognized Vaishnava position since only Lord Krishna is man. In fact there is a story regarding this kind of worship. Once Mira Bai visited Vrindavan and wanted to meet Santana Goswami. Sanatana Goswami refused saying as a Sannyasi he could not talk to a woman. Mira Bai scolded him saying that it is a pity that Sanatana Goswami still thinks himself as a man when it is well known that Lord Krishna is the only man in the universe. An embarrassed Sanatana Goswami, a direct disciple of Chaitanya, met Mira Bai.