[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Siva as yogi?
Ken Stuart writes:
>>It is dishonest to say that one can be spiritual and still be engrossed in
>>materialistic vices.
>
>Once again, a straw man.
>
>No one is saying "One can be spiritual and still be engrossed in
>materialistic vices".
>
But you said, "Many of these groups teach that spirituality is
preferable to material desires, without going down a laundry list of what
constitutes material desires."
If they don't specifically mention what these material desires are, then how
can they expect people to give them up? If you simply tell people to give up
material desires, without specifically saying what must be given up, then
people will interpret that according to their whim. One person may think it
is okay to keep eating meat, not considering it to be a vice. Another person
may think it is okay to continue to drinking alcohol.
On the other hand, being vague about what is expected is certainly an
excellent way of maintaining a following. That way, no one gets offended,
and everyone continues to get the feeling that they are very religious
without actually having to performing any regulations they may find
inconvenient.
>Also, you seem to feel that if you happened to know one person in a
>spiritual group who does something, then that proves that the
>teachers of the group don't teach morality.
No, I did not say that at all. What I am saying is that if the teachers
don't specifically teach their followers to give up specific vices, then
that is just as good as them sanctioning such vices.
>
>Do I have to post explicit details of what a handful of ISKCON members
>have been convicted by the law of doing?
Strawman alert!! There are no ISKCON members who have been convicted by law.
Srila Prabhupada established the GBC (Governing Body Comission) to make sure
that people who fell from the Krsna-conscious standard were removed from the
movement, or at least from positions of importance.
So, your question should read as follows: "Do I have to post explicit
details of what a handful of ex-ISKCON members have been convicted of law of
doing?"
The answer is no, since it is not relevant here. That people fall down in
all spiritual traditions is a given. Lord Krishna confirms in the
Bhagavad-Gita that the allurements of the material energy are very difficult
to get over, and that only one who is fully surendered can cross over the
ocean of maya (Gita 7.14). He also says that fallen yogis get a good birth
in their next life (Gita 6.42), and that a devotee who accidentally
committed some transgression should still be given all respects (Gita 9.30)
if he returns to devotional life. Srila Prabhupada knew that many disciples
would fall down, but he was concerned with engaging them as devotees
nonetheless, because that way they would at least get a good birth to
continue devotional service in future lives instead of falling further and
further down.
In fact, Krishna declares in Gita 9.31 that His devotee never perishes. Even
one who has fallen down will eventually return to devotional service and be
saved; Lord Krishna does not forget even the slightest amount of service
that a jiva performed for Him. On the other hand, no such claims are made
for the devotees of other gods. In fact, the Lord confirms that the path of
spiritual advancement is worse for the impersonalist than for the devotee
(Gita 12.5). The reason for this is that the devotee can fix his senses on
the transcendental, all-attractive form of the Lord, while the
impersonalist, who does not accept the reality of the Lord's spiritual form,
can do nothing other than simply repress his senses. So, falldowns from
spiritual life are more likely to happen for nondevotee yogis.
ISKCON has gotten a bad rep in the past because the GBC did not try to
protect fallen devotees who got in trouble. Consequently, such incidents
were made public and people got the idea that the rest of Srila Prabhupada's
disciples were also like that. But think about this for a moment: would you
rather be a follower of a movement where falldowns are carefully hidden from
the public eye, or would you prefer to be in a movement where a central body
constantly maintains the spiritual standard for its leaders?
I can think of at least one popular, impersonalist yogi who got the "Hindu
of the Year Award" who was responsible for some rather unspeakable moral
transgressions. Since he happened to cover his tracks really well, everyone
thinks of him as a saint. Even worse is the fact that he is the founder of
his movement, not simply a fallen disciple.
Similarly, I can think of other Hindu yogis who never "fell down," because
their standards were already so low that is hardly possible to fall from
them. So, once again, such people are considered to be saints even though
they do not follow Vedic morality. On the other hand, Srila Prabhupada
required his disciples to follow the Vedic regulations, which include 1) no
meat-eating, 2) no illicit sex, 3) no gambling, and 4) no intoxication. I
have more respect for a person who sets high ideals and tries unsuccessfully
to follow them than I do for someone who lowers the standards so everything
will be convenient for him.
>
>Do those instances prove the Srila Prahbupada did not teach morality?
>
No, since anyone can clearly pick up Srila Prabhupada's books and see that
he very specifically mentions and emphasizes the regulative principles. On
the other hand, many other Hindu books I have read rarely bring up morality.
>>>Amazingly, you missed the page previous to the one you quoted from the
>>>HT book, which states:
>>>
>>>"Q: Should only a husband and wife have sexual intercourse?
>>>A: Yes, wisdom and experience demand the intimacies of sexual
>>>intercourse be confined to marriage."
>>
>>If sex is natural, so is having children.
>>
>>On the other hand, I don't see condoms growing on trees.
>
>Huh ??
>
>What does "natural" have to do with this??
It's quite simple. The HT group sanctions sex within marriage, because they
assume that it is inevitable. That is fine, but there is no reason why they
should not have spoken out agains contraceptive devices. Krishna says in the
Gita that lust is the all-devouring enemy of worlds. He later mentions "sex
that is not contradictory to religious principles," which refers to
procreation.
Sex with contraceptives is an attempt by people to enjoy material pleasures
without taking responsibility for them. The Lord gives the institution of
marriage so that people can satisfy their material desires while
simultaneously serving the Lord, namely by having children for Him.
Contraceptive devices are cheating, because they encourage sex outside of
procreation. The sexual act itself makes one identify with the body, so it
must be regulated by using it for procreation only.
>
>>>Furthermore, your paraphrasing above is incorrect, as the quote
>>>specifically refers to Saiva Siddhanta NOT Hinduism in general.
>>
>>I don't remember the quote saying anything about Saiva Siddhanta. What I
>>remember it saying was "Hinduism takes a liberated view towards
>>sexuality...." with no indication that he was referring to a specific sect.
>
>Talk about going out on a limb ! Without a copy of the book ! :-)
>
Yes, I don't *currently* have a copy of the book with me, but I have seen it
before.
>"liberated view" occurs nowhere in the book and is 100% your
>interpretation of what you read, which actually was:
>
[sigh] Ken, go to the back of the book, and look up "sex" under the
glossary, and give their definition word-for-word here. At least do that
before you presume to know what I am talking about.
>>>Again, you should recognize that what is preached to newcomers is not
>>>the same as what is preached to committed devotees.
>>
>>I do recognize that, but I am talking about the presence of numerous
>>long-standing followers of a particular group who never adopt certain moral
>>standards. Clearly, the fault is in the teachers.
>
>Well, there probably are groups with teachers who are lax about
>teaching morality to their disciples.
>
>However, I also know at least one major group where there are a few
>long-standing followers who are simply very slow learners ("wet
>logs"), the teacher is well aware of what they do, but the alternative
>would simply alienate them and they would leave the group.
In other words, don't give them the moral regs so you can still get their
paycheck.
I posted an excerpt from Your Ever Well Wisher on SRV that talked about how
Srila Prabhupada would preach the moral regulations even when he knew that
some members of his audience would not like it. Of course, he no doubt tried
to present them logically, with an idea of encouraging his guests to follow
them (as opposed to a fire-and-brimstone approach that Christian
fundamentalists use). This particular excerpt concerned some local
celebrities who made a living out of singing sexually-stilted songs. There
was also Steve Goldsmith, a very powerful and influential friend of ISKCON.
Both had very "liberated" views towards sexuality, but still Srila
Prabhupada would not change the philosophy for them. He very clearly told
them what the standards were, and left it to them to follow.
If a person is not willing to follow moral regulations, then there is very
little one can do for them spiritually outside of engaging them in
devotional service and hoping that they can find the inspiration to adopt a
more serious attitude. Srila Prabhupada did accept service from nondevotees,
but he still did not accept their attitude towards spiritual life and
encouraged them to be more austere.
Consider the following example: A person with cancer goes to the doctor for
treatment. But instead of giving treatment, the doctor simply says, "oh, you
don't have cancer. You're fine. Go home and enjoy life. No medicine is
necessary." If the person thinks, "oh, what a great doctor. He cured me."
would he not be a 1st-class fool? Obviously so. But this is exactly the
mentality that has become too prevalent in today's society. When people hear
some swamiji talking philosophy but not preaching morality, they think, "oh
what a great devotee. Let me give him some donation." They will think like
this as long as they are not asked to follow moral regulations.
>>>I've never said this. I said all religions bring one to God.
>>
>>So, if "all religions bring one to God," then that means the religion of
>>Satanism, which requires animal sacrifices and devil-worship also brings one
>>to God. And fundamentalist Islam, which involves terrorism, hostage-taking,
>>and torture of Jews, also brings one to God.
>
>Well, I've never seen Satanism considered a religion. Religion is
>worship of God. Satanism specifically recognizes God (Jehovah/Yahweh
>of Judaism & Christianity) and then specifically rejects Him in favor
>of Satan.
Okay, so in that case, Buddhism is not a religion in your definition, since
most Buddhists don't recognize God and do not worship Him. Also, advaitists
don't worship God. They believe worship to be a prerequisite to jnaana. So,
according to your own definition, advaita really is not a religion.
>
>Most of the other Vaishnavas on the net consider "fundamentalist" to
>be a positive term. Fundamentalism involves the same strict
>adherence to morality that you strongly advocate.
What Vaishnava said that? I find the term "fundamentalist" to have
uncomfortable connotations, esp considering the attitudes of the "burn in
hell" born again Christians. Sure, Vaishnavas are fundamental in the sense
that they believe in following the regulations given in scripture. They are
so fanatical that they believe that 1) if a given text comes from God, then
2) it should be followed as is, and not simply ignored whenever and wherever
it becomes inconvenient. On the other hand, the attitude of most Hindu
groups is 1) Krishna is God, and Bhagavad-Gita is spoken by Him, then 2) But
nevertheless we have to make up our own interpretations, and these are okay
even if they are contradicted by the Gita. This latter group considers it
fundamentalist to follow God's instructions as is, but frankly, I find it to
be hypocrisy to call something a scripture from God and then superimpose
one's own ideas on top of it.
>
>Within Islam there are groups that advocate actions that are
>considered, by the majority of Moslems, to be against the Koran.
>
So, then you agree that scripture has to be the basis for determining a
genuine religion vs. a false religion.
>There are, of course, plenty of despicable actions committed by those
>who call themselves Hindus as well.
>
So, what is the standard for determining what interpretations are genuine
and what are not in Hinduism (according to you)? After all, you don't accept
the statements of the acaryas on who is and isn't genuine, and you don't
accept the Puranas. So then what?
>>Ken, you seem really confused. This verse supports what I have been saying
>>all along. Lord Krishna served Sandipani with devotion to set the example
>>that we should also accept and serve a genuine guru with similar reverence.
>>So, if Lord Siva is worshipping Vishnu to set an example, then does that not
>>mean that we should all also worship Vishnu?
>
>Absolutely !
>
If you really believe that, then we can stop the discussion here. Siva
worships Vishnu. Therefore we should all worship Vishnu. That means even the
Shaivites should become Vaishnavites, since Siva himself is a Vaishnavite.
>>Ken, I didn't say that it was contradictory for the Supreme Being to be
>>devoted to someone else. I said that it was contradictory for Siva to be
>>God, and also to *WORSHIP* Vishnu as God.
>
>If they are both God, then why would it be contradictory for each to
>see God in the other and to thus feel worshipful?
Let's consider the facts here:
1) Vishnu lives in great opulence and majesty
2) Siva is an ascetic, chanting Vishnu's names on his japa beads
3) Siva worships Vishnu even when Vishnu is not personally present before him
4) There is a verse quoted by Srila Prabhupada in which Lord Siva clearly
states that he does not give liberation, and one must worship Vishnu in
order to get liberation.
Now, assuming I find the verse in #4, where does that leave you? Siva is a
devotee of Vishnu, which you accept, and he does not give liberation. So how
can you say that he is God? If Siva is God, then there would be no need for
him to be constantly engaged in ascetic practices. That by itself shows that
he is subordinate to Vishnu. On the other hand, all depictions of Narayana
show Him to be living in great opulence, not performing yogic practices.
>
>What would happen if Krishna and Rama were to meet?
I don't believe in mental speculation, so I can't say.
>
>>Chanting on japa beads and
>>meditation are indications that one is trying to achieve a higher platform
>>of consciousness.
>
>OR else it is an indication, of -- to quote you:
>
> >to set the example that we should also.....
So in that case, everyone should become a Vaishnava and chant His holy
names. If Siva does japa to set the example, then Shaivites should follow
suit and also become devotees of Vishnu.
So either way, you run into problems, because you would have us believe that
it is just as okay to remain a Shaivite.
>
>>Thus far, you have not been able to explain how it is that Siva can be God,
>>and yet worship someone else as God.
>
>And you have been unable to give a convincing reason why not....
See the above. The fact that Siva is worshipping Vishnu is convincing
enough. Other demigods (like Ganesha and Parvathi) also worship Vishnu, but
you don't say that they are also God. So why do you say Siva is God?
>In the same way that Krishna and Ram are different, yet both are
>Vishnu.
But Krishna and Rama are traditionally held to be the same as Vishnu. On the
other hand, this idea that Siva is also Vishnu is relatively new. It took
some modern day Hindu groups to convince people of that. Prior to that, we
can observe that in stories like Krishna-lila, Siva, along with the other
demigods, would travel to Vaikuntha to pray for the Lord's descent on Earth.
>>Yes, everything is contiguous with Lord Vishnu's energies. In that sense
>>only, can you say things like vaasudeva sarvam iti. But God is also the
>>source of all energies. He is janmady asya yataH (SB 1.1.1): that from which
>>all else is emanated, maintained, and destroyed. So, what you are saying is
>>that everything is the source of everything, and naturally it makes no sense.
>
>And this "no sense" is exactly the basis of the Bengal School of
>Vaishnavism, namely Acintya-bhedabheda "Inconceivable
>Identity-in-difference".
>
Not at all. All the Vaishnavas have some understanding of oneness and
difference.
>What is occurring here is that your own "common sense" puts you far
>away from Gaudiya Vaishnavism, into a sort of extreme Sri Madhvacarya
>Dvaita with no reference to Sri Ramanuja, Sri Vallbhacarya, or Sri
>Krishna Caitanya at all.
That's so absurd it's almost funny. Perhaps what you meant to say is, "your
own common sense puts you far away from *MY INTERPRETATION* of Gaudiya
Vaishnavaism..."
Lord Caitanya has stated that it is an offense to consider the name of Lord
Siva to be equal to Lord Vishnu. He has also stated in CC that the
presentation of other demigods as supreme is merely given as a temporary
understanding. No Gaudiya Vaishnava accepts that Siva is exactly identical
to Vishnu; Siva is always seen as subordinate to Vishnu. How he is different
and nondifferent from Vishnu is described in Brahma-samhita, and is exactly
the point I was going to make about how to resolve the different
understandings of Siva. Although Siva is not a jiva like the other demigods,
he is nevertheless not on the same platform as Vishnu.
Now, you may not like that idea. But don't try to reinterpret Gaudiya
Vaishnavism to your satisfaction.
>
>>Here is another understanding. God is the source of all energies, and
>>everything we see is a result of God's energies. Therefore, they are the
>>same in the sense that the product has the quality of its source, but they
>>are distinct in the sense that the energy is different from the energetic.
>>
>>I will leave it to intelligent netters to decide which of these two seems
>>more sensible.
>
>They are certainly *both* true representations of reality.
This argument of yours is truly useless. If all you are going to do when
presented with a contradictory idea is say that both ideas are the same,
then we may as well stop here. Perhaps the fault is mine for expecting
others to adhere to a higher standard of reasoning. Simply saying that two
contradictory things are both true is an unscholarly way of making a point.
>>I note also that you use jivas in the plural sense. And this too, after
>>trying to convince me in a previous post that there was no plurality of the
>>jivas, but instead only one being inhabiting many different bodies (and
>>idols, and temples, and TV sets, etc.).
>
>There is a plurality of jivas.
There is a plurality of jivas. And there is not a plurality of jivas. And
both are true representations of the reality, right?
>
>AND there is only one being inhabiting many different bodies.
That being is Paramatma, the expansion of the Lord dwelling in the hearts of
all living beings, accompanying the individual jiva.
>
>This is THE TEACHING OF THE VEDAS.
>
>Ramanuja frequently quoted from the Antaryami Brahmana of the
>Brhadaranyaka Upanishad (3.7):
>
>"... He who dwells in all beings but is within them, whom none of the
>beings knows, whose body is all beings, and who controls all beings
>from within, is the inner controller, your own self,and immortal... He
>is never seen but is the Seer, He is never heard, but is the
>Hearer..."
Yes, that is most likely the Paramatma. This does not say that Jivatama and
Paramatma are the same.
>
>Okay -- are you ready now, here it comes.... (B.U. 3.7 cont'd):
>
>"There is no other Seer than He, there is no other hearer than He,
>there is no other thinker than He, there is no other knower than He.
>He is the Inner Controller -- of our self and immortal. All else but
>He is perishable."
>
>SO, no eternal jivatmas. Just He and perishable jivas.
That's mental speculation on your part. It's not what Ramanuja teaches.
Furthermore, Gita 2.12 says that the living entities are NOT perishable, but
are eternal.
Besides, using your own verse, let's look at this again. The first part
clearly stated that the other living entities don't see Him or know Him. So
when the second part says that there is no other Seer that He, etc. it can't
be taken to mean there are no eternal jivas. All it appears to mean is that
God is the only one who truly sees things as they are; all others are
bewildered by His various maya-saktis as confirmed in the Gita.
>
>OR you can say that there are eternal jivatmas -- but in that case,
>they MUST also be "He".
If the eternal jivatma was also God, then there would no possibility of him
falling under the illusion of maya and being bewildered.
Oh wait, I can already anticipate your response: "The living entity is under
maya, and he is not under maya. And both of these are equally true..."
>
>And actually there is a perspective from which both of those are the
>same.
>
>For example, let's say one has an ice cube.
>
>From one perspective, the ice cube is perishable -- a short time at
>room temperature and no more ice cube.
>
>But from another perspective, the ice cube is still there, it has just
>changed state from solid to liquid.
>
>So, it depends what you mean by "ice cube".
Ken, are you aware that NO MAJOR SCHOOL OF VEDANTA accepts the idea that
Brahman can change? Your theories require a changing Brahman, and simply
from that perspective alone they should be completely rejected.
I suggest you speak to some of the visistaadvaitins on the net to find out
what visistaadvaita really is.
>
>>>I also think there is a slight difference in the usage of the word
>>>God, between you and those people who say that everyone is already
>>>God. They are not saying "everyone is already The Supreme Personality
>>>of Godhead".
>>
>>Why don't you try distinguishing between the two, and I will work with your
>>definitions.
>
>In this case, they are not my own definitions, rather they are (like
>"Hindu") the common usage, like "Self" [which I've never liked as a
>word] for atman.
>
>I think we mean the same thing when we say the Supreme Personality of
>Godhead.
>
>However, God is usually used these days by spiritually inclined people
>to mean "the substance of divinity". The next paragraph makes this
>more comprehensible......
>
I have no idea what "the substance of divinty" means. God is taken by most
people to mean the Supreme Absolute Truth.
>"Everyone is already God" is meant in the same sense as Srila
>Prahbupada's statement:
>
>"It is, however, understood here that the living entity,
>being the fragmental part and parcel of the Supreme Lord, is
>qualitatively one with the Lord, just as the parts and parcels of gold
>are also gold."
>
But they are quantitatively different, as Srila Prabhupada was also fond of
saying.
So, if being God to you means simply being of the same spiritual nature as
God (but quantitatively different) then several problems arise:
1) If the jivas are God, or in other words, they are spiritual, then they
CAN'T be perishable. The distinction between spiritual and material things
is that the latter is temporary but the former is eternal. Therefore all
such nonsense theories that state that the jivas have individual existence
for only a certain period of time must be rejected.
2) The advaitin yogis, who are ever so popular in the Kali Yuga, don't
define God in this way. To them, God is the highest, and everyone is capable
of reaching that highest platform. Therefore, your attempt to reinterpret
their teachings to your satisfaction must also be rejected.
-- HKS
