|
Post by karan1386 on May 1, 2012 12:13:52 GMT -6
HARE KRSNA Nitai das prahu , I do not know what causes in you so much hatred towards Bhaktivedanta... He always only criticised the demons and the sahijiyas and pretenders..., but at the same time I am not accusing you because you might just be 'unaware' and not all that , but if and as long as you are chanting the Holy Names, I pay my respect to you...That is something that Prabhupada taught me. Prabhupada did what no one could do , and I do not need to explain what. You also know..... If you knew prabhupada personally, you must be an aged man...and please note that I am not at all angry in saying any of this. And because I seem to have made you very angry(usage of words like bullshit for IGM and all), clearly not a trait of vaishnav already(but still good that you chant if you do) and because I can not hear criticism of prabhupad I will not visit your 53 membered decade old site(you can check the login attempts).I just joined because to me it looked like I could not post my message without joining.. . an advice : try not to get angry. KRODH, is the deadliest of all. Keep chanting HARE KRSNA!!
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 1, 2012 22:27:23 GMT -6
HARE KRSNA Nitai das prahu , I do not know what causes in you so much hatred towards Bhaktivedanta... He always only criticised the demons and the sahijiyas and pretenders..., but at the same time I am not accusing you because you might just be 'unaware' and not all that , but if and as long as you are chanting the Holy Names, I pay my respect to you...That is something that Prabhupada taught me. Prabhupada did what no one could do , and I do not need to explain what. You also know..... If you knew prabhupada personally, you must be an aged man...and please note that I am not at all angry in saying any of this. And because I seem to have made you very angry(usage of words like bullshit for IGM and all), clearly not a trait of vaishnav already(but still good that you chant if you do) and because I can not hear criticism of prabhupad I will not visit your 53 membered decade old site(you can check the login attempts).I just joined because to me it looked like I could not post my message without joining.. . an advice : try not to get angry. KRODH, is the deadliest of all. Keep chanting HARE KRSNA!! No I don't really hate Bhaktivedanta. I hate frauds and he happens to be one. Him and his guru Bhaktisiddhanta and his guru-bhais Sridhar, Bhaktivilas Tirtha, Narayan, and the rest are all frauds. I call them the fraud squad. Sure, I was taken in by them when I was younger. I feel foolish about that. But that was largely my own fault. I should have asked more questions and registered the hints and signs they were sending. Who but a fraud claims that their little lineage is the only real lineage and tells his disciples to avoid all others who claim to be Caitanya Vaisnavas? Who but a fraud tells his disciples that using their brains and ability to think is mental speculation? There were so many signs. Isolate your followers so they have no chance of discovering that they are being hoodwinked and lied to and cheated. It is one of the oldest tricks in the book of fraudulence. Fortunately, people figured it out eventually and left his sorry butt behind, in spite of all his warnings and threats. That really pissed him off. Talk about krodha. There is no krodha like that of a fraud unveiled. Anyway, he is dead and I feel sorry for him. He was a victim of fraud himself. His guru cheated him. He could have fixed it but instead he decided to perpetuate the fraud just as you are doing. But we are on to you. You come around here with your phony humility and protestations that you are so very fallen and begging for mercy and grace from us. We have seen it all before. You are a turd and we can smell you even with all that perfume on.
|
|
ash
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by ash on May 1, 2012 23:51:03 GMT -6
No I don't really hate Bhaktivedanta. I hate frauds and he happens to be one. Him and his guru Bhaktisiddhanta and his guru-bhais Sridhar, Bhaktivilas Tirtha, Narayan, and the rest are all frauds. I call them the fraud squad. Sure, I was taken in by them when I was younger. I feel foolish about that. But that was largely my own fault. I should have asked more questions and registered the hints and signs they were sending. Who but a fraud claims that their little lineage is the only real lineage and tells his disciples to avoid all others who claim to be Caitanya Vaisnavas? Who but a fraud tells his disciples that using their brains and ability to think is mental speculation? There were so many signs. Isolate your followers so they have no chance of discovering that they are being hoodwinked and lied to and cheated. It is one of the oldest tricks in the book of fraudulence. Fortunately, people figured it out eventually and left his sorry butt behind, in spite of all his warnings and threats. That really pissed him off. Talk about krodha. There is no krodha like that of a fraud unveiled. Anyway, he is dead and I feel sorry for him. He was a victim of fraud himself. His guru cheated him. He could have fixed it but instead he decided to perpetuate the fraud I'm more inclined to think this is projection on your part. I don't think any of those gurus that you mention deliberately committed fraud. I don't think they could have "fixed things." I have some Catholic and Buddhist background, and I've known comparable people. They aren't frauds, nor psychopaths. They are just kind of ... simple. They are not particularly sophisticated in the worldly sense. They can't satisfy the desires of just anyone whom they happen to meet.
|
|
ash
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by ash on May 2, 2012 0:04:28 GMT -6
There is something psychologically harmful about theism. I don't think so. I do believe that the harm that can accompany theism is due to an unhealthy approach to theism and theists. That kind of harm seems quite common. Well, how do you know, and why should we trust you? ;D In that they address different aspects of the human experience and have different goals. Religions are often presented, both by ordinary Western religiology as well as by some religionists, as equal candidates in the competition for figuring out the Absolute Truth. I don't think this is accurate though. I think that not all religions have the same goal - the individual religions state as much themselves anyway. So I think there is actually much less actual conflict between religions than people tend to think.
|
|
|
Post by malati on May 2, 2012 5:14:54 GMT -6
Nitaidas: There is something psychologically harmful about theism. I have made this point many times here, but no one seems to agree, especially Malatidi who does not or refuses to see the psychological damage it has done her and the rest of us. Krsna does not want us to love him as a god, but as a friend.
What you wrote is fallacious on 2 counts. Firstly, from the historical angle; there are other ideologies that have caused more harm/damage to humanity than theism. Think of atheist/communist regimes. Maybe we need body count!
Second, what psychological damage has theism done to me? Disagreeing with some of your views? Mellow down, people might think I'm nutty!
Krsna does not want us to love him as a god, but as a friend.
Your telling this, as if it was self-evident as early as when you were a baby! You have to admit that you learned this from someone too. GVism is a path and we have to start from somewhere but I doubt very much that that highest goal was self-evident to you from when you were a baby.
|
|
|
Post by gerard on May 2, 2012 6:11:30 GMT -6
No I don't really hate Bhaktivedanta. I hate frauds and he happens to be one. Him and his guru Bhaktisiddhanta and his guru-bhais Sridhar, Bhaktivilas Tirtha, Narayan, and the rest are all frauds. I have to object a little. I met some of these people and I thought Prabhupad to be an uninteresting business man who was full of himself. Narayan Maharaj was one chunk of ego. But Bhakti Ballabha Tirtha Maharaja is an unassuming, genuinely humble but very strong little man. And Sridhar Maharaja was the embodiment of sincerity. Maybe they were not very well informed, but not "frauds". That implies consciously and knowingly cheating people. That goes too far in some cases. (But if you look at the way any swami or Hindu (or any believer) in general treats a text by reading only his own belief into it, then the word fraud might apply.)
|
|
ash
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by ash on May 2, 2012 7:41:26 GMT -6
But if you look at the way any swami or Hindu (or any believer) in general treats a text by reading only his own belief into it, then the word fraud might apply. But why do you call that "fraud"? It's not like they are reading their own belief into the text with some desire to consciously and knowingly cheat people. One thing that has always fascinated, bewildered and frustrated me about believers is their apparent conviction that they are right.
|
|
|
Post by gerard on May 2, 2012 9:35:02 GMT -6
It's not like they are reading their own belief into the text with some desire to consciously and knowingly cheat people. I don't know, I cannot read their minds, so this is a difficult one, in general their knowledge of Sanskrit is very good so they do know what the text says, yet they come up with their interpretation and thereby twisting the often obvious meaning. They must be aware of that. Does "their apparent conviction that they are right" prevent them from seeing their own twisting and turning of the texts? I find that hard to believe. They just use, or perhaps better said abuse, the text to promulgate their own belief and don't really care what the text actually says. First their belief, then the text, not the other way around as it should be. But maybe that is only a rationalist, western way of looking at text.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 2, 2012 10:18:23 GMT -6
No I don't really hate Bhaktivedanta. I hate frauds and he happens to be one. Him and his guru Bhaktisiddhanta and his guru-bhais Sridhar, Bhaktivilas Tirtha, Narayan, and the rest are all frauds. I call them the fraud squad. Sure, I was taken in by them when I was younger. I feel foolish about that. But that was largely my own fault. I should have asked more questions and registered the hints and signs they were sending. Who but a fraud claims that their little lineage is the only real lineage and tells his disciples to avoid all others who claim to be Caitanya Vaisnavas? Who but a fraud tells his disciples that using their brains and ability to think is mental speculation? There were so many signs. Isolate your followers so they have no chance of discovering that they are being hoodwinked and lied to and cheated. It is one of the oldest tricks in the book of fraudulence. Fortunately, people figured it out eventually and left his sorry butt behind, in spite of all his warnings and threats. That really pissed him off. Talk about krodha. There is no krodha like that of a fraud unveiled. Anyway, he is dead and I feel sorry for him. He was a victim of fraud himself. His guru cheated him. He could have fixed it but instead he decided to perpetuate the fraud I'm more inclined to think this is projection on your part. I don't think any of those gurus that you mention deliberately committed fraud. Why of course they did. They all knew they had no proper connection with CV. Puridas pointed it out to them in the 1940s. Those who were honest left and sought real initiation and real instruction in the philosophy and practices of CV. Those who weren't moved into their vacant positions and started perpetuating the fraud. Sure they could have. Puridas did. Sundarananda Vidyavinode did. Manindranath Guha did. Krsnadas Babaji did. You guys are soooooooo ignorant of the history of GM! It is not the same thing. There is no institution in CV but guru-parampara. If that is neglected or negated there is nothing.
|
|
ash
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by ash on May 2, 2012 10:36:34 GMT -6
I don't know, I cannot read their minds, so this is a difficult one, in general their knowledge of Sanskrit is very good so they do know what the text says, yet they come up with their interpretation and thereby twisting the often obvious meaning. They must be aware of that. Does "their apparent conviction that they are right" prevent them from seeing their own twisting and turning of the texts? I find that hard to believe. They just use, or perhaps better said abuse, the text to promulgate their own belief and don't really care what the text actually says. First their belief, then the text, not the other way around as it should be. But aren't you doing the same, by presuming that you know "what the text actually says/means"? Can you give some examples where you see such twisting on their part? I tend to think they are talking about the text in an associative manner, listing what comes up in their mind as they consider the text. Different people will of course likely have different associations to the same cue. I think that in general, Westerners, with a tradition in "critical thinking," are more inclined to be careful about asserting absolutes easily, more prone to tip-toe around a point. Once, I was talking to a Hindu about religion. He seemed frustrated with me, and asked me whether I believed that Hinduism was Sanatana Dharma. I replied by noting that "Hinduism" is a very versatile term, and that I don't know what he means by it, that he should explain. He replied that he just wants me to answer the question. That he knows that Hinduism is Sanatana Dharma, and that he only wants to know whether I believe it to be so too. I couldn't answer, and he wouldn't explain what he meant by "Hinduism." I don't think he was deliberately being mean or some such, though. Don't forget that the emblem of India says "power, courage, pride and confidence." And from what I've known Indians/Hindus, they take these things very seriously. I think they tend to see themselves as superior to us. They tend to believe they were born into the holy land, and that this means that have special credentials that we don't have. So they tend to treat us with a mild contempt and find it beneath them to engage in discussion with us where they would take us seriously. I'm sure some Hindus are even gravely offended because we whites don't keep a 20 cubits distance from them. Of course, not every Indian/Hindu is like that, but it seems to me that many are or have a tendency to do so, and the whole Indian culture seems to have this supremacy issue built into it.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 2, 2012 10:46:35 GMT -6
There is something psychologically harmful about theism. I don't think so. I do believe that the harm that can accompany theism is due to an unhealthy approach to theism and theists. That kind of harm seems quite common. Well, I strongly disagree here. I think theism is devastating to a love relationship. This is the whole point behind the distinction made in CV and nowhere else between aisvarya and madhurya. One cannot avoid fear if one thinks someone you know is a god and thus one cannot ever feel really at ease with him or her or capable of intimacy with him or her. If is even worse on the side of the deity. That is why he must forget himself with the help of yogamaya. And we must forget who he is too by passing out of or beyond theism to a kind of a-theism. Well this is a good question. And smile tells me that you probably have some answers already. There are several answers, of course. The one I like the best is perhaps not really an answer. It is a question. Why select just me for this question? Why not ask the same of those so-called gurus you follow or those so-called scriptures? Just because one shaves one's head and puts on a robe, does that mean we should trust that person. Or, just because something is written down in an old text, does that make it true? As soon as we hear something from someone or from some text we should ask: can this possibly be true? If so, how can this person or text have known it? If not, what purpose does it serve for this person or this text to mislead us here? When I say something I don't expect anyone to immediately accept it. I am no guru or authority. Must people have no idea who I am. I do expect people to at least entertain the idea, to ask can this possibly be true? But, i don't expect people to immediately trust me or for that matter, to distrust me either. I don't believe this is true. As one of those religiologists by profession, I think that religions are quite different and not at all the same, that they are not all addressing in different ways the same absolute. I don't think that religions have goals either. They aren't planned. They fulfill needs in people of various sorts and they do it largely by creating and fostering illusions. There is statistical evidence that shows that people with religions are slightly more happy and slightly less intelligent. Religions have no access to the truth, absolute or otherwise. They inhibit the real search for truth except occasionally when by some odd coincidence they promote the study of nature as they have in the West. That was just a fluke, nothing endemic to religion. We are really better of without them.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 2, 2012 11:07:44 GMT -6
Nitaidas: There is something psychologically harmful about theism. I have made this point many times here, but no one seems to agree, especially Malatidi who does not or refuses to see the psychological damage it has done her and the rest of us. Krsna does not want us to love him as a god, but as a friend.What you wrote is fallacious on 2 counts. Firstly, from the historical angle; there are other ideologies that have caused more harm/damage to humanity than theism. Think of atheist/communist regimes. Maybe we need body count! So you do admit that theism is harmful to human life. Many have died because of it and are still dying because of it. I am not so sure that atheist and communist ideologies killed because of those ideologies, but in the service of the quest for power or control. Communism has never really been practiced anywhere in the world, as far as I know. What I had in mind though is more of the psychological effect on the individual of theism. It is horrible, dehumanizing, dread-inducing, delusion supporting and so on and so forth. Disagree all you want, but you must admit that fear is a dampener for love. And that one can never get over fear if one thinks of someone as a god. I don't deny it as I said elsewhere on the forum. This is something I learned from CV (not GV). But, I had to think about it deeply in order to see the ramifications and implications. And I am still discovering things about it. It is brilliant. But does it mean that Rupa or Sanatana had some access to the truth that we don't? No. They simply used their brains and sensitivities. We should do the same.
|
|
ash
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by ash on May 2, 2012 14:40:45 GMT -6
One cannot avoid fear if one thinks someone you know is a god and thus one cannot ever feel really at ease with him or her or capable of intimacy with him or her. Sure. I think this is allright, though. Again, there is the comparison between the devotion of Queen Kunti and the devotion of Mother Yasoda. I think that the most we ordinary humans can hope for is a devotion like Queen Kunti's. Anything more would be an attempt to unilaterally take control of the relationship. Doing so isn't perceived as fair in ordinary human relationships, and I don't see why it would be allright in one's relationship with God. For example - "I want to be friends with you, and I want you to be the kind of friend to me that I want, and you will do so." or "I will marry you and you will love me." - I really don't think it works that way. Granted, humans often fantasize that relationships would work that way, that one could unilaterally control the other person and the relationship. Much poetry has been composed to that effect. But in reality, things just don't work that way. Because you've made the claim. You're barking up the wrong tree. Actually, I think this is a poor way to approach the issue. There is a Buddhist sutta that basically says that if all one can do is to speculate about a matter (especially if it is a heavy metaphysical matter), then one should drop the whole speculation altogether and go do something else. I agree with that. Some problems simply are outside of one's scope to solve, and it only makes sense to put those problems aside. I think that a verificationist approach (ie. by asking "Can this possibly be true?" and trying to answer that) is a hopeless endeavor. The secular idea of religious equality, religious choice, and religious solidarity does suggest that all religions are to be treated equally, which further suggests they are believed to be the same in some crucial way. Of course they do. In Buddhism, the goal is liberation from suffering. In some Hindu schools, it is love of God. In Christianity, it is to spend eternity with God in heaven. Etc. That's your opinion.
|
|
ash
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by ash on May 2, 2012 14:56:10 GMT -6
Why of course they did. They all knew they had no proper connection with CV. Puridas pointed it out to them in the 1940s. Those who were honest left and sought real initiation and real instruction in the philosophy and practices of CV. Those who weren't moved into their vacant positions and started perpetuating the fraud. Sure they could have. Puridas did. Sundarananda Vidyavinode did. Manindranath Guha did. Krsnadas Babaji did. You guys are soooooooo ignorant of the history of GM! Certainly, I do not know all the details, and I am not sure how much they really matter. I just don't like to think of anyone as a "fraud" or as someone who "deliberately misleads people." Judgmental negativity doesn't accomplish anything good. That doesn't mean that I agree with those people or that I support them. For my own peace of mind, I like to think of people and everything in terms of such a narrative according to which everyone is eventually happy and everything works out fine. Sure, people make mistakes sometimes. But to believe that someone is truly a fraud, evil - that actually means to believe that God set up the world and everything in an evil manner. And I don't want to believe that.
|
|
ash
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by ash on May 2, 2012 15:00:20 GMT -6
Disagree all you want, but you must admit that fear is a dampener for love. And that one can never get over fear if one thinks of someone as a god. But as it is, currently, are you associating with Krsna as your friend? Do you two hang out together? Do the two of you have lunch together, play sports, go mountainhiking, go to galleries, to parties, etc. etc., do everything friends do?
|
|