Hinduism and other Faiths

mmm...I also don't like when ISKCONers tell me that Krishna said, this and that in the Vedas....correct me if I'm wrong...but was Krishna even in the 4 Vedas?

I don't know.... I don't mind ISKCONers (I hang on the George Harrison message boards and they're all over them)...I just don't like being preached to (by anyone for that matter...)...if you want to share...that's nice....but converting people....not nice.

 

heh, We all preach a little though, I dont know why but I have been feeling like a hipocrite lately. But really, you saying "I don't like being preached to" implies that somehow the act of preaching is a negative thing and should not be undertaken, but the funny thing is, this statement itself is preaching people that they should not preach. lol
The fact that I am telling you this , implies that I am preaching to you to not do it, or finding a way to criticize you and in effect somehow preach to you.

Is there a way out of this maya? I don't think so, hari om hari om .

 

yeah, it's hard to state something you strongly believe without preaching. that's (obviously) one of my main obstacles. i think, though, that feeling like a hypocrit (spelling?) is probably a good sign. at least you can sense your hypocracy.

 

In terms of language, preaching is to me a fairly neutral term, simply meaning propogation or explanation of religious doctrine...add the adjectives aggressive or obnoxious and you've got something which means violating another's psychological boundaries or "head space"...not good at all.

ISKCON has indeed been conspicuous in this regard.

Bhaskar...thanks for good personal word...respect is mutual.

Regarding Srila Prabhupada, he did take a conservative and literalist position. This has always been a bit of a puzzle to me, especially in light of his predecessor-acharya Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura's (actually the father of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, SP's spiritual master) much more liberal attitude and published works regarding science, scriptural literacy, etc. I can refer you to some sources if you're interested.

As we've all agreed here, the proof's in the pudding. Without our own realizations we're just blowing wind, whatever path we follow.

 

Sorry guys...I meant the crazy soap box kind of preaching... I had something specific in mind.... you know...I don't know....ahhhh lol. I know what I want to say but its not coming out right...so I'm going to take this one from the Beatles and just "let it be"

 

Nicole: I think Vedic has evolved into a catch-all term to refer to Indian scripture...the four Vedas were the earliest, followed by the Upanishads...and so on.

From my understanding, Krishna appears in the Bhagavat-purana or Srimad-Bhagavatam and the Mahabharata, both later works than the Vedas and Upanishads. The Bhagavad-Gita is a part of the Mahabharata but is world-reknowned and reproduced in many versions as a stand-alone scripture.

These are all later works than the Vedas and Upanishads.

Anyone who knows better, please correct me....I still haven't gotten the chronology and complete body of Indian scripture straight ...makes the Bible look simple!

Bhaskar: As we've discussed before, you and I come from very different backgrounds....Prabhupada came to know his preaching field well during his first months in the USA and he enabled persons such as myself, who grew up steeped in Christianity or Judaism, to easily grasp the essential concepts of sanatana-dharma...a certain amount of simplification went a long way and opened the doors to a new and infinite world. Yes, SP was a fundamentalist by personal nature and in his presentation of Caitanyaite Krishna-bhakti as the superior theology. He truly and passionately felt that to deny or minimize Krishna as the ultimate source was to deny God himself...therefore his heavy criticism of other teachers.

I've always been more moderate...I honor SP so much because he did open the doors, and ISKCON is my spiritual home, in spite of all its problems...but my general attitude is that anyone who is making an honest spiritual endeavor is doing OK, whatever their path.

BG As It Is, 4:11: "As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. *Everyone follows my path in all respects (whether they know it or not), o son of Prtha."

*italics and words in parentheses mine.

 

It isn't as black and white as that. First of all the upanishads are a part of the vedas. Each veda has four sections: Mantra, Bramhana, Aranyaka and Upanishad.
Although Krishna is not mentioned by that name in the vedic literature names like Narayana and Vishnu, and even the more personal Vaasudeva, , etc. do occur often in the vedas.

I am all for simplification. What bothers me is distortion.

Another ISKCON thing I dislike is their constant claim of following of Sri Chaitanya mahaprabhu, while his philosophy of achintya bhedabheda has been all but completely disregarded by Prabhupada.

First of all, even the most superficial examination would show that no school of Hindu thought was ever denying God. It does not take a scholar or an enlightened being to see that.
Criticism is one thing. I have no problem with that, I am doing it right now. But personal attacks and resorting to mere vulgar name calling is distasteful to me, and hurtful to a majority of Hindus who hold these people in high regard. Philosophical differences can be handled through debate and resoning, which he seldom seems to do. It is always total dismissal - they are rascals.

Which is why I say that you are the only person within the structure of ISKCON that I've come across who was not a programmed fundie.

Beautiful words. Wish people would live them.

 

I am aware of his works, and that of Sri Jiva Goswami, who I admire greatly. I really have no problem with thevaishnavites as such, I study and deeply relish their works. It is the harshness in Prabhupada that really puts me off. And the generation of hardliners he spawned.

 

Once again, I regret that many people have come away carrying negative perceptions as result of encounters with members and aspects of ISKCON. All I can do is live my spiritual life as a devotee as the person I am, and hope that by doing so people I encounter will perceive the society and its teachings positively.

 

thank you spook, its the same for me too.

 

you know, i am beginning to feel that it may be benificial for me to study more of these older forms of organized thought.i have spent much of my energy focusing on my own realizations, which i still feel is more important than study. the only systems i have actually studied are the bible, eastern/western/new age philosophy, tao and kundalini. my knowledge of these systems is adequate, but not really up to par. i have never actually studied literal vedic writings. i have had them interpreted to me by a very good friend, who is very much in love with the system. i see this as an opportunity to improve my ability to communicate with people such as yourselves. if anyone could toss me an online resource, i would very much appreciate it. i apologise if i sounded judgmental in one of my earlier posts. it still seems to me that words should not be taken so seriously, but i can see now that it is vital to have an understanding of terms if one wants to give or receive information.

 

:cheers: to Jedi!

 

By golly - I thought Vaishanvas were tea total!

 

It is very difficult to direct you to an online rescource because really, there is no such thing as 'Hinduism'.
Different schools have very different philosophies, as is pretty clear probably from this thread.

In general, if you are starting on Indian scriptures or shastras, the best course is to look at a good traslation of the Bhagavad Gita and perhaps also the Upanishads, although they are harder to penetrate.

BTW - you didn't come on a s judgemental. In many schools of Indian thought, as well as many other mystical and magical systems, the need to transcend mere words is axiomatic.

 

in the tantrica sahajiya vaisnava schools, there is meat and wine

also, many friends of krishna who are considered great exalted souls such as Bhima ate meat... he drank too

the royal family of yadu of whom krishna was at the head, got drunk on a little too much rice wine and they all killed each in a drunken frenzy

many of the provisions of classical vaisnavism is believed to have come from jain influences of which even krishna worship itself mutated from a much earlier form of kali worship

 

any sites where i could read these writings for free? school is taking up all of the money i have and more.

 

Yes , that cheers he did was with prasadham .

 

For this, there is a little quote of Adi Shankara that fits in perfectly

maayaamayam idam akhilaM hitvaa
brahmapadaM tvaM pravisha viditvaa
bhaja govindaM bhaja govindaM
govindaM bhaja *muuDhamate* :jester:
Translation:
Free yourself from the illusion of the world of Maya and attain the timeless Truth. Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda. Oh fool !

 

Ah well - even back then alcohol was linked to violence - domestic violence even. They'd have been better off on cannabis. And let's face it, there would be no shortage of that herb in India.

Probably, all later religions derive from goddess worship in one form or another.

 

canabis is for the saints and sages... the yadus were ksatriyas... warriors and kings and princes and so they drank