Tattva-viveka
Are we like Mormons?
Vamsidhari Dasa - February 4, 2008 4:47 pm
I was just watching a program about Mormon faith. I realized they have the same "regulatory" principles and that many things they say are so strikingluy similar to at least official ISCKON policy. So I know our group differs in many ways but I could not help but wonder if Srila Prabhupada might adopted some of His tenants form some Mormons? Perhaps, the "mormonism" infiltrated itself in the main streat ISCKON culture after SP left the world. All of this left me feeling a bit uneasy for its cultish and sectarian outlook. The only difference I saw was in dress. I got kind of shaky I dont want to be a Mormon!!!!!!! 
:Nail Biting: :Nail Biting: :Nail Biting: :Nail Biting:
Tadiya Dasi - February 4, 2008 5:22 pm
Hmmm...well, at least theologically speaking, Gaudiya vaishnavism and the Mormon faith are worlds apart. You might be placing too much emphasis on the outer layer of these religions, when it should be the essence (the heart of the faith) under scrutiny here. Is being Krishna consciousness simply following the 4 regs.? Wearing a saffron cloth?
It is up to us - as followers of Mahaprabhu - to make sure that we present our tradition for the beautiful, generous, soft-hearted path that it can be - that's our task. We should be asking ourselves: Am I catching Mahaprabhu's "audarya" spirit, and Guru Maharaja's for that matter? Am I solely focused on the outer stuff of the tradition - or do I have some idea of the essence too?
As far as ISKCON goes...well...you could argue that it has a lot of similarities with all the other fundamental Christian -groups too. Not just the Mormons. Fundamental, close-minded, "sectarian" groups tend to operate alike - regardless of the underlying faith tradition.
And to answer your question: No, I don't think we're Mormons :Nail Biting:
Braja-sundari Dasi - February 4, 2008 5:41 pm
And to answer your question: No, I don't think we're Mormons
Their ultimate goal is to become Brahma as they believe that after death they will get their own universe to create.
Syamasundara - February 4, 2008 5:53 pm
Vamsi... what are you talking about?
You must have been kidding, with all the classes you attended.
At any rate, the 4 regs have more to do with the four legs of dharma (cleanliness, truthfulness, austerity, and mercy) than with Mormon doctrine.
Believe me, I had an encounter with the Mormons during my civil service, in the name of congregational glorification, and not only when I said I thought they were vegetarians they reacted like I asked "Do you have to wear mickey mouse ears?", but they began by asking me if I accepted Jesus is my only savior. I gave them the pure devotee spiel, but they were NOT there to listen, they actually thought Moses was doomed as he came before Jesus time.
They had no concept of rasa, nor were they interested. What was I thinking, myself??
Syamasundara - February 4, 2008 5:57 pm
Also, we stink at MultiLevel Market, and they don't have rasgulla.
Once, when I was enthusiastically and fanatically preaching to my sister, she said: "My friend Daniela is also a vegetarian, she won't smoke or dirnk anything, and she is not a Hare Krsna." Back then I had no argument to that!
Jiva-daya Dasa - February 4, 2008 6:28 pm
I have had many Mormon friends while growing up and one difference (among many) that stands out for me is that their religion is not as bound to a cultural context (for example India) as Vaisnavism. I remember talking to Hridayananda Swami about the Festival of India and how the cultural components of Vaisnava practice can seem very exclusive to curious outsiders who are attracted but don't proceed because they are not, and don't want to become, Indian.
Like Syamasundara has said, not for the multi-level market, but certainly worth recognizing and discussing.
Vamsidhari Dasa - February 5, 2008 2:43 am
Thanks for your comments. I am aware of the internal differences in feeling and theology I was wondering about the external presentation, emphasis on that rather then how we wre different. I am more interested how we appear the same.
"Am I catching Mahaprabhu's "audarya" spirit, and Guru Maharaja's for that matter?"
this is a great question I never forget to ask it, but thanks for reminding me what is important.
Tadiya Dasi - February 5, 2008 2:35 pm
I just realized that one of the candidates for the U.S election is a Mormon - Mitt Romney. Just FYI 
And, if you want to "compare" groups - with the 4 regs. etc. in mind - then I think that the 7th day adventists are actually much more alike us than the Mormons.
Vamsidhari Dasa - February 5, 2008 3:38 pm
OMG 
What are the 7th day adventists?
Again, I was more interested from an outside point of view how these regs came about in groups that are separated not only by the vastness of space and time but by difference in culture. The sociologist who commented on the program I saw, said that these regulatory principles, in essence, serve to discourage individuality and enforce control and conformity that is common to religious cults. Even though this is NOT the case with our group we are a minority and we do come from a tradition that, like it or not does that. So, I just wanted to see what people had to say on the subject. I think that, perhaps, my conflict was in having thought that there reg principles are embedded in the Indian culture and in essence I respected them as such, but to find such striking, albeit, external similarities between groups like Mormons and 7th day adventists who are SO DIFFERENT was a bit disturbing to me.
Syamasundara - February 5, 2008 4:25 pm
Yes, the 7th days adventists are vegetarian, right?
Organized religions are what they are, but to say that to encourage people not to kill unnecessarily, or take substances that alter your perception of reality is just to curb people's individuality and not spiritual sensibility is just ludicrous, and stated by someone who doesn't seem to have much of a clue.
Spiritual education is so limping these days, that people are not led to think in those terms, they just apply their material frame of reference, and end up saying (once again) that religions just take all the pleasures in lifea way from us.
We as Gaudiyas have a very clear goal in mind, and naturally take all the due steps toward that goal, like someone who wants to save for the vacation of his life and naturally stops spending $ X a day for cigarettes, or using the car when he can take the bus; or an environmentalist who stops using the car for his cause. In Europe they are being much more sensitive to the environmental situation now, so every commercial and news cast give a slightly preachy message along those lines, and sensible people say: "Yes, I oughta use the bike and dry my clothes on the line." They don't say, Hey, what is this imposition coming from above to curb my individuality?
Babhru Das - February 5, 2008 5:21 pm
The sociologist who commented on the program I saw, said that these regulatory principles, in essence, serve to discourage individuality and enforce control and conformity that is common to religious cults. Even though this is NOT the case with our group we are a minority and we do come from a tradition that, like it or not does that.
Whereas there's some tendency toward social order, our tradition, Gaudiya vaishnavism, doesn't really enforce conformity and control beyond that. There has always been a great deal of individual integrity. We see that even in Sri Chaitanya-charitamrita, where Kaviraja Goswami honors devotees as varied as Pundarika Vidyanidhi, Suhklambhara Brahmachari, Das Goswami, Murari Gupta, etc.
Indian culture and in essence I respected them as such, but to find such striking, albeit, external similarities between groups like Mormons and 7th day adventists who are SO DIFFERENT was a bit disturbing to me.
I've always found it somewhat interesting, but never disturbing. 30-odd years ago, I met a cool Adventist preacher on the Big Island. He and I shared our understandings of spiritual life with each other, as well as several books. I read several of Ellen G. White's books, and it seemed to me that she somehow had some insights worth respecting.
Audarya-lila Dasa - February 5, 2008 5:29 pm
While we don't emphasize these 'rules' per say as a group, it is nonetheless true that tasting the essence of the tradition will not come if one is still stuck externally. It is a slight of hand to think one is on a 'higher' level when still very much attached to sense pleasure. I believe that is why Srila Prabhupada stressed the 'regulative principles' so heavily. He saw that westerners were very much attached to sinful practices and that those habits would impede their spiritual progress and keep them from actually getting a true taste of spiritual life.
Think about it - if one isn't clean, truthful, austere and merciful how much are they really tasting bhakti? Our focus is on bhakti and the natrual transformative nature of deeply practicing - but still we should look honestly at ourselves and see how much transformation is really taking place.
Zvonimir Tosic - February 5, 2008 10:04 pm
He saw that westerners were very much attached to sinful practices ...
Dear Audarya-lila
can you please put few more words so I can understand it better
What is a sin?
And, from your statement, why it is so endemic in the west only?
I'm not certain about this, why it always appears that everyone blames west and its sinful countries, so they become western sinful traditions and their impure societies made of cats and dogs.
Those words are coming from everywhere else, even from those highly elevated countries where is a custom (coming from a thousands of years old tradition) that some people are just property, where children are treated as slaves, girls are meant to give birth at 12 and forget their own self, then in countries where husband drags his wife around the house by pulling her hair and splashes acid in her face because, well, she's sinful. By her nature. She is also less intelligent (as the old wise pundits say) and enjoys being raped too. Same as west.
Ys,
Babhru Das - February 5, 2008 10:34 pm
While we don't emphasize these 'rules' per say as a group, it is nonetheless true that tasting the essence of the tradition will not come if one is still stuck externally. It is a slight of hand to think one is on a 'higher' level when still very much attached to sense pleasure. I believe that is why Srila Prabhupada stressed the 'regulative principles' so heavily. He saw that westerners were very much attached to sinful practices and that those habits would impede their spiritual progress and keep them from actually getting a true taste of spiritual life.
Think about it - if one isn't clean, truthful, austere and merciful how much are they really tasting bhakti? Our focus is on bhakti and the natrual transformative nature of deeply practicing - but still we should look honestly at ourselves and see how much transformation is really taking place.
Oh, please don't misunderstand: the regulative principles are essential to advancement for neophytes and second nature, I suppose, for those more advanced. And I'll tell you, one of the things that attracted me about Srila Prabhupada's presentation in the first canto of Srimad Bhagavatam was the idea of a society based on cleanliness, austerity, mercy, and truthfulness. As soon as I read that, I realized that I had found the revolution we all hankered for back then. The point I meant to make is that no one imposes these "rules" on us; we accept them voluntarily. That's why SB 11.3.21 begins with tasmat: "therefore." Those who can see that happiness is not possible for those bound by the modes of material nature and who want genuine happiness must submit to a bona fide spiritual master. That was my approach from the beginning. When I came to Srila Prabhupada's mission, I was 22, had been to college, and was a Navy veteran. I worked when I needed money and surfed when there were waves. I had no interest in joining anything, and I had less interest in finding anyone to tell me what I could and could not do. But I had a sense of the value of what Srila Prabhupada offered and decided to do what I had to to get it. Over the last 38 years, I've never said that I could not drink, smoke, or eat non-vegetarian foods, etc. I have consistently said I don't do so, and it has always been my choice.
Syamasundara - February 6, 2008 4:29 am
Well said, I also react every time I hear that vegetarians can't eat this or that.
I am also always intrigued by the word and concept of sin.
I think the series of verses in the Gita where Krsna says if you can't do this, do that, summarize a lot the Vedic approach to things. You can't do this? Then you are not on this platform, but on that. The slogan is "Know where you are at, man!", there is so much beauty in that; or as Krsna says elsewhere in the Gita, act according to your dharma.
Sacred threads can be bought at Loi Bazar for a few cents, but as Maharaja Yudhisthira says, it's not birth or erudition that make a brahmana, but his or her conduct.
Ultimately it's all in our hands, we couldn't be freer. I guess in the West the same emphasis is not there, but rather one on some force or person punishing us if we do certain things, whether we understand them or not, that are sinful.
I heard sraddha translated as positivity; I am curious what other meanings and applications the word papa has in Sanskrit. GM has translated it in dynamic ways according to the text in his edition of the BG.
Audarya-lila Dasa - February 6, 2008 8:12 am
In a very general way, not specific, because there are always exceptions and therefore generalities are always fraught with problems - my comment about the west being filled with people engaged in sinful acts is a reflection on what Srila Prabhupada himself wrote upon his arrival in Boston. He said to Krsna 'otherwise, why would you bring me to such a terrible place?'
Meat eating and animal slaughter is totally mainstream in western society. Intoxication is accepted on all levels. In the sixties when Srila Prabhupada arrived in the U.S. it was a time characterized at the time of the sexual revolution. He lived on the bowery where he saw drug use and open engagement in sexual activity all around him. I would have thought my comment would be obvious without need of any further clarification. His stress on the 'four regulative principles of freedom' seem to me to be a natural consequence of the situation he found himself in and the society in which he sought to spread the message of Mahaprabhu.
The concept of sin is not only a western concept. It would be good to look at the term papa and how it is used by our acharyas. Take a look at Srila Prabhupada's books and see how he uses the term throughout the literatures he provided to us.
Why do you suppose that Srila Prabhupada liked the idea of the lame man (India) being carried on the blind man's (America/western civilization) shoulders so that together they could progress?
Zvonimir, you may not like the characterization, but the history seems clear enough in terms of Srila Prabhupada's impressions and thoughts on the matter at the time. That is, afterall, what I was commenting on. Not that I mind responding, but if you had read my comment more carefully I think it would have been clearer to you.
Jananivasdas - February 6, 2008 2:38 pm
(this little offtopic sorry)
oh...i first read "are we like morons!"
Vamsidhari Dasa - February 6, 2008 5:21 pm
yes, thank you the question was are we like Mormons (not morons) and not are we like Hippies! It is time to let it go prabhus! I know that "you cant fool the children of the revolution" but the Sixties are sooooo over. Sorry if this will be too hard to hear.
I also dont like hearing how the West is all bad and the East all good and clean. I mean Ive been to India and almost passed out on the street of Delhi due to their cleanliness. Again, I think that it is not a question of whether or not we should have regulated lives it is more about how that kind of "regulation" from the out side puts us in the same category as Mormons or others. If you could hear the conviction and the "certainly of faith" that these people had. I mean every answer they had was "because the prophet said so." The only difference I saw between them and some exponents of ISCKON was in dress. What they pride themselves in is how they are all the same, how they know everything, and how only they know God.
PS I want to know form Zvonimir who is this Jesus-Jedi-knight-Vaisnav of his profile picture???????????
Syamasundara - February 6, 2008 5:31 pm
I think both Zvonimir and Audarya lila have a bit of a point. In one sense it's true, if we compare India and America in the 60s, India was much more virtuous, mostly because of its predominant rural population; country people are tendentially simple, both in the good and bad sense. If on top of it you add the Vedic cultural heritage, the contrast with America is even more evident. What is the cultural heritage of the USA? There are so many religions, traditions, etc. People are not always following the same behavioral code, so it's easier to "transgress" the rules. There is just a vague sense of what is humanly right, or virtuous, or civic, but nothing like the Manu-samhita, or the concept of spiritual life as the goal or the means.
In India, to kiss on the street is considered sex. In SP's time in the US, to have sex on the street was considered normal, at least by the people involved.
However, as Zvonimir says, one thing is to compare the cultural heritage of a country, one thing is the actual things that go on. Now things are a bit reversed, because in India there are so many uncultured people who ignore or disregard any Vedic injunction, or sometimes they misapply them, hence the widows' plight in Vrndavana, kids treated like cattle or manpower, etc, whereas in America, although nobody follows the same religion, if any at all, they have a general, generic sense of what is right or wrong, courteousness, human rights, etc.
I am still curious about the concept of sin, more at the root.
When the British colonized India there was quite a cultural clash. The British were seeing people going around half-naked, eating with their fingers on the ground, marking their faces with colors, going barefoot, worshiping immoral gods, headed by that Krsna that... let's not even talk about him.
The Hindus were seeing people who eat animals, have no concept of cleanliness, etc.
"Proper" is such an overused word by the British even now, and yet, such a Vedic concept, too, but it can be all so relative.
Syamasundara - February 6, 2008 5:38 pm
The only difference I saw between them and some exponents of ISCKON was in dress.
I think we should re-center (says the potter guy) and maybe rename this topic: "Are the ISKCON devotees like the Mormons?" Cuz otherwise, I don't see the point.
Syamasundara - February 6, 2008 5:46 pm
No seriously, GM every once in a while snaps and says things like "Who cares about Iskcon? I've been trying to distinguish myself from them for almost 30 years, and my disciples are always looking at what they say and do."
It's true that the behavior of some ISKCON members may backfire and affect us, too, as far as reputation and what not, but do you guys know how many brands of orthodox Jews are there? And do you know how many care or know about them?
Iskcon is more like the orthodox Gaudiya Vaishnavas, in that sometimes they are a little rigid and reluctant to change and adjust in the name of preaching (what kind of Gaudiya Vaishnava is that in the first place? Anyway...).
But we are more orthodox, because we stick to the real gaudiya tradition (as in: white bead bag always, standing during the jaya dhvani, not accepting rtvik ideas, or jiva falls, etc) while being the most innovative.
However, for the world at large, we are all just Hare Krsnas.
Audarya-lila Dasa - February 6, 2008 7:56 pm
That is actually quite a good point Syamasundara (about the thread name). We are not Iskcon and our emphasis is totally different. We are not stuck in the past. We are moving forward.
Syamasundara - February 6, 2008 8:05 pm
Yes, if someone asked me what are you people about, to me, and I guess everyone else here, it would never occur to say, Well we don't do this, we don't eat that, etc...
However, I was surprised last summer, while socializing with all my fellow pedicabbers from Turkey, because, whenever we would talk about religion, they would say that the most important thing was no pork and alcohol! Granted, they were no religionists, but clueless young students, but that's the aspect of their religion that trickles down to everyone in their society.
Vivek - February 7, 2008 2:51 am
sometimes the emphasis on dress overburdens us. but anyway maybe we can move afterwards to gosvami style dress.
Zvonimir Tosic - February 7, 2008 3:34 am
PS I want to know form Zvonimir who is this Jesus-Jedi-knight-Vaisnav of his profile picture???????????
Ah, just a little joke, nothing serious. It's Obi Wan with a tilak
I had some great fun with different creative concepts lately. I do it all the time at work in the studio and also at home.
I've showed some to Gurunistha.
The idea is this: if I'm to design a poster about Bhagavad-gita, or design a postcard invitation to a Gaudiya Vaisnava programme, how could I design something that looks both interesting, but modern too, moving and thought provoking ...?
I'll post some ideas later on so you can be my critics.
Guru-nistha Das - February 7, 2008 4:47 am
Let's talk more about the concept of sin, I find it very interesting. Here's a definition of sin from the HIndu perspective from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin#Hindu_views_of_sin
I'll write some thoughts tomorrow, it's too late now.
Zvonimir Tosic - February 7, 2008 5:02 am
Zvonimir, you may not like the characterization, but the history seems clear enough in terms of Srila Prabhupada's impressions and thoughts on the matter at the time. That is, afterall, what I was commenting on. Not that I mind responding, but if you had read my comment more carefully I think it would have been clearer to you.
Actually, I loved your reply because it was inspiring to go further, and has also brought forward one more question (I live with it for some time already) and I'd like to ask more about it. Maybe in another thread.
Thanks a lot!
Vamsidhari Dasa - February 7, 2008 5:31 pm
Let's talk more about the concept of sin, I find it very interesting. Here's a definition of sin from the HIndu perspective from Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin#Hindu_views_of_sin
I'll write some thoughts tomorrow, it's too late now.
wow this wikipedia sound like it was written by a devotee. A good description however it is a bit skewed. Lets find some definitions in real dictionaries.
BTW, I thought to ask how is ISCKON like Mormons but I puposefully did not do so even though I am straring the conversation that way. So yes, I also strive to distance myself form ISCKON due to inceredible sense of imbaressmant that takes me over when I think of them. But that is the "tradition" we come from, like it or not.
As for the the concept of sin I must leave that discussion to you since I am "sin-less" 
I might just want to say that the concept of sin and morality is also culturally bound. What was sinful 50 years ago might no longer be. What is sinful for one group is not for another (e.g. women showing hair or ankles). So as such these definitions can also be seen as a form of control and excersizing of power over certain social groups. It only makes sense to talk about sin in modern society if one a priori asusmes that there is an absolute arbitrer of behavior. But in these times of post modernisam it just does not make sense to do that. This is not to say that there is no right or wrong or that there aren't behaviors that are bad for you or good for you. The moral and ethical principles change through time and circumstances because we change as well.
It is amazing woh GM got this so clearly when he curtails our sadhana according to the individual circumstances and needs. He does not invoke the laws of Manu or the norms of the Vedic society ( ). Even though it is much harder to go on like this when the locus of control is internal. It is easy to know everything, to have absolute rules and to be above every one else. I think that the biggest point of karma is that behavior has consequences, and that is what it means to be an adult as well. It is very simple: One has the freedom to act but the acted upon reacts with equal freedom and force. 
I must have had too much coffee........
Zvonimir Tosic - February 7, 2008 8:05 pm
Thanks Vamsi. Just a few quotes to underscore some of your thoughts:
.I might just want to say that the concept of sin and morality is also culturally bound. ... The moral and ethical changes through time and circumstances because we change as well.
Sin has been made not only ugly, but passé.
People are not longer sinful, they are immature or underprivileged or frightened or, more particularly, sick.
- Phyllis McGinley, American writer and poet
I think that the biggest point of karma is that behavior has consequences and that is what it means to be an adult as well. It is very simple.
The seven deadly sins are:
Politics without principle; Wealth without work; Commerce without morality; Pleasure without conscience; Education without character; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice.
- Mahatma Gandhi
It's interesting to see how Gandhi observes society as a whole, and all the affairs that help society organise itself and grow can have negative consequences if not done in the best interest of all.
Seven deadly sins originating from Judeo-Christian heritage many observe as the sins of the individual: Luxuria (lust), Gula (gluttony), Avaritia (greed), Acedia (sloth), Ira (anger), Invidia (envy) and Superbia (pride), but they can transposed to the society as a whole. For example, isn't gluttony today just an over-consumption of limited resources? Greed is also obvious too, for it's a common denominator in many political and military conquests. However, few are harder to distinguish in a society as a whole (say envy), because same as gunas, different behaviours are often mingled together.
Seven deadly sins are, of course, opposed to seven virtues: chastity, abstinence, temperance, diligence, patience, kindness, and humility. We can see they're all archetypal qualities, common to many cultures, no matter where and when.
Also, compare this with Krishna's words in Bhagavad-gita about lust and deterioration of character (Ch. 3), and also with his explanations of good qualities (Ch. 18) and you will find many parallels. Krishna also observes lust from the universal perspective (the all-devouring, sinful enemy of this world). For me, the beauty of this universal thought is that it says our interaction with nature and with other individuals is the underlying principle of our existence. If interaction heads in wrong direction (driven by selfishness), it produces grief and sin. However, we cannot experience divine love without interaction as well (driven by selflessness). Without interaction there's no sin, but also there's no love either.
Dante's Divine Comedy is also a highly recommended reading in this regard. Masterfully and with some subtle humour he observes pits and heights of humanity, expressed through a very complex metaphorical and poetical language that I find sometimes echoing Sukadeva's.
Audarya-lila Dasa - February 8, 2008 1:13 am
A simple definintion of sin I often use in discussing these types of issues with those outside the tradition is that you can categorize all thoughts, words, actions that take a person away from God as sin. I know it's a simple definition but it makes fairly good sense and is easy to get your mind around. It moves the discusson away from social norms and such things to a very personal level of whether or not whatver one does thinks or feels brings one closer to God or distances them from Him. It goes along the lines of what has previously been metioned with regards to selfishness and selflessness.
Guru-nistha Das - February 8, 2008 4:51 am
I like Audarya-lila's definition. Although a problem arises when the means to come closer to God in one cultural context is a deadly sin in another (like the religious slaughter of cows in the Islamic traditions for example).
I would say that the external definition of sin changes according to the cultural context, but on the plane of motivation we can have a universal yard stick to measure if something is sinful or not. The same act might be sinful to one and not sinful to another.
I do believe that on a collective level there are differences of purity between different cultures (what an un-pc thing to say in these postmodern times! Who cares), but on an individual level it's your motivation that counts.
Zvonimir Tosic - February 8, 2008 6:31 am
If we follow the evolution of thought in Bhagavad-gita, we can also see the evolution of ourselves. From chapter one, where the stage was set, then through chapter two, three and so forth, the eternal journey of ourselves was described. Firstly Krishna describes us as spiritual souls, then in the next chapter we flow through explanations how that spiritual entity -- ourselves -- has entangled itself into suffering, why it commits sin, and then, through further chapters it shows the ways how we can establish ourselves in our original state.
The story culminates in the last chapter, where the very concept of dharma was rejected. Only after that point, I believe, sin is no longer committed and stays behind us, because the sin is a necessary by-product of the dualities of this world and the by-product of dharma as well.
So even in the world of dharma, where people believe in God and try to worship him, the sin is still present and committed. We can see it from our past -- many dreadful things were done in the name of God and dharma (religion).
But in the world where we actually forget about the concept of God -- as seen in the gradation of our spiritual evolution in verses 18.65-18.66, where individual grows from someone interested in God, then becoming a worshipper, then devotee and then finally becoming his dear friend, we see how we move forward, and the God concept finally falls behind us. Krishna finally becomes our friend. God has been forgotten finally and our dearmost friend finally found.
And with the fall of the concept of God all dharma falls as well, all illusion (to think that God was all-in-all concept, beyond which there's nothing else) disappears and the worldly stage is finally left behind. And also the world of sin.
The concept of God, Krishna as God, or whichever other idea of Godhood we believe in, still cannot distance us from the dualities of this world and the world of dharma and sin.
So, in addition to Audarya-lila's explanation, I'd like to say that by coming closer to Krishna, our best friend -- where we grasp him as such only by forgetting his Godhood completely -- will finally distance us from sin. In Bg 18.66 we can also feel Krishna's eagerness, excitement and his longing for that moment too. By concluding so many statements with words "do not fear", he also says that we shouldn't be afraid to think about him as our dear, beloved, intimate friend.
Vamsidhari Dasa - February 8, 2008 6:40 am
I do believe that on a collective level there are differences of purity between different cultures (what an un-pc thing to say in these postmodern times! Who cares), but on an individual level it's your motivation that counts.
It is not un-PC it is just plain wrong. It is just like that from your point of view, but there is nothing universal or collective about it. From someone else's point of view, lets take Mormons for example, we are sinners because we do not recognize or accept Jesus. So, you can say that because of your belief and faith you came to accept certain things to be sinful and others not. But you cannot impose them on someone with different belief structure. The Christians feels completely justified to kill animals because it is said in the scriptures that God created the Earth and everything in it for men (not the women mind you). Post modern means that there are no absolutes that the "truth" is socially and culturally constructed. It does not man that there are no truths. It does not mean that one has to be PC. What it actually allows for is to have an "individual motivation" as you say, to be an arbiter of right and wrong.
It is very hard to live by absolutes (because they are artificial) or without them (because they are comforting). For example, you might want to say that to kill another human is universally accepted as a sin or at least against the law in every society. But actually as we very well know, there are instances in which it is acceptable to kill another human and is not considered a sin or illegal, on the contrary, it is seen as desirable (self defense, wars religious or otherwise, for example).
Post modernism comes as an intellectual response to moralizing fanaticism, thank God no one here is guilty of that. Simply there are no universal yardsticks and we have to tolerate that and maintain our faith and morality in the face of absence of such comforting certainty.
Syamasundara - February 8, 2008 7:37 am
If we follow the evolution of thought in Bhagavad-gita, we can also see the evolution of ourselves. From chapter one, where the stage was set, then through chapter two, three and so forth, the eternal journey of ourselves was described. Firstly Krishna describes us as spiritual souls, then in the next chapter we flow through explanations how that spiritual entity -- ourselves -- has entangled itself into suffering, why it commits sin, and then, through further chapters it shows the ways how we can establish ourselves in our original state.
The story culminates in the last chapter, where the very concept of dharma was rejected. Only after that point, I believe, sin is no longer committed and stays behind us, because the sin is the necessary by-product of the dualities of this world and the by-product of dharma as well.
So even in the world of dharma, where people believe in God and try to worship him, the sin is still present and committed. We can see it from our past -- many dreadful things were done in the name of God and dharma (religion).
But in the world where we actually forget about the concept of God -- as seen in the gradation of our evolution in verses 18.65-18.66, where individual grows from someone interested in God, then becoming a worshipper, then devotee and then finally becoming a friend, we see how we move forward, and the God concept finally falls behind us. Krishna finally becomes our friend. God has been forgotten finally and our dearmost friend finally found.
And with the fall of the concept of God all dharma falls as well, all illusion disappears and the worldly stage is finally left behind. And also the world of sin.
So, in addition to Audarya-lila's explanation, I'd like to say that by coming closer to Krishna, our best friend -- where we grasp him as such only by forgetting his Godhood completely -- will actually distance us from sin.
The concept of God, Krishna as God, or whichever other idea of Godhood we believe in, still cannot distance us from the dualities of this world and the world of dharma and sin.
Well, mark this on the calendar, I finally agree with you in toto. 
"Go beyond God and go beyond dharma", I like (to be reminded of) that.
Syamasundara - February 8, 2008 7:48 am
No, wait, take it back. What do you mean by: "And with the fall of the concept of God all dharma falls as well, all illusion disappears and the worldly stage is finally left behind."
God is not an illusion. The dharmic God, who is the judge of us, the creator of us, etc., is an expansion of svayam bhagavan, but by no means illusory. This is important to understand.
Nor dharma is an illusion. If we take dharma to be whatever is hari-tosana, or gives satisfaction to Hari, then we are talking about his internal pleasure potency. So there you have them, the two most real concepts you can think of.
Like God, the expressions of dharma can also gradate from being a good wife, to leaving your husband in the dead of night to follow the sound of Krsna's flute, but they are not illusory, they are actually the only two real things that transfer us from the illusion of Maha-maya to the sweet illusion of Yoga-maya.
Stay high forever.
Zvonimir Tosic - February 8, 2008 7:57 am
Well, mark this on the calendar, I finally agree with you in toto."Go beyond God and go beyond dharma", I like (to be reminded of) that.
My dear Syamasundara 
Zvonimir Tosic - February 8, 2008 8:24 am
No, wait, take it back. ..God is not an illusion. ..
It was late at work, I was so excited when I was writing those words above so I didn't clarify my thought enough. I didn't mean that this world or God was an illusion or that it was all false. I've meant that it was an illusion to think that God was all-in-all concept, beyond which there's nothing else. But there is more.
Hope this helps.
Syamasundara - February 8, 2008 9:29 am
Hope this helps.
It does, but actually I'm happy when you "trigger" me because I find out and think of things I didn't even know (that I knew).
I hope you can put up with my sharp, smart-ass tongue sometimes.
Guru-nistha Das - February 8, 2008 5:01 pm
It is not un-PC it is just plain wrong.
Hahaa, did you realize that you contradicted yourself in the very first sentence? How can you say I'm wrong if there are no universal yardsticks? That's the problem with post-modernism, it's a self-defeating concept. It proposes there are no all-encompassing world explanations, but gives one itself in a reverse form. Why should we believe that one?
To say that everything is subjective and there can only be right and wrong within your own value system is also a comfortable position (because it gives more freedom), just like that of absolutes. I think reality is somewhere in between. Post-modernism seems more like a reaction than a long-lasting principle to me, it is a natural product of the social climate that it came about in (after the second world war). Or maybe I don't fully understand the concept.
Audarya-lila Dasa - February 8, 2008 5:26 pm
There are so many gradations in the spiritual world, which is of course beyond the world of sin. It is not true that only by forgetting the Godhood of God that one becomes free from duality and beyond sin. If that were true then only Vraja bhakti would grant one entrance to the spritual world and liberation from duality. It was poetically wriitten and speaks to the heart of a GV, but from the point of view of siddhanta, it is quite incorrect.
I like Syamasundara's point about what is Hari tosana is certainly liberating and beyond sin even if it appears otherwise from within a cultural/religious context. Of course that is a very high level of devotion and left to the average conditioned soul one can envision so many acts that are not Hari tosana being justified as being so based on this type of reasoning. It is really a 'secret' affair and not one that can be widely broadcast becasuse a conditioned sould will inevitably misunderstand what is being said and find a convenient justification for engaging in selfish acts in the name of selflessness. That is why dharma is important and why there are some standards which are universal and beyond simple traditions or social considerations.
Zvonimir Tosic - February 8, 2008 9:40 pm
There are so many gradations in the spiritual world, which is of course beyond the world of sin. It is not true that only by forgetting the Godhood of God that one becomes free from duality and beyond sin. If that were true then only Vraja bhakti would grant one entrance to the spritual world and liberation from duality. It was poetically wriitten and speaks to the heart of a GV, but from the point of view of siddhanta, it is quite incorrect.
There is indeed many gradations of friendship with the Absolute, but nonetheless, there must be some window of intimacy and friendship opened in order to overcome dharma. If there's is no such window, we still live in the world of strict reverence and religion.
Of course this means those lucky inhabitants of Vaikuntha are also experiencing intimacy, friendship with the Absolute, and they also understand he's a God too. They perceive his Godhood from a different perspective than we entangled in prakriti. For us God is something fearful, above us, outside of this world and us and we feel separated from him. However, for them God is something next to them, within them, a dear part of them. They enjoy an instant experience of God and his friendship. Thus for us, for our perspective, Krishna says "do not fear". The fear of God is the axiom found in many religions but is non-existent in spiritual world.
Krishna also says "priyo si me". We translate "priyo" as "a friend" and many of us involved in Gaudiya Vaisnavism almost instantly think about sakhyas. As you said, that's sweet, but also inaccurate from some objective viewpoint. Friendships can be various. For example, I might be an old friend of the president of some powerful country. When we meet together, although I'm aware he's a president, we can still feel certain intimacy between us and we'll smile and laugh together, touch each other's arms, talk about things not necessarily connected with his job. But someone from the outside of that circle of friendship, say someone who asks for visa to enter the country because he has heard the president is all merciful and the land all beautiful, cannot approach and talk to him in such a way, because there's no friendship, no intimacy established yet. From the spiritual world's perspective, that person is still within dharma.
In my language "priyo" means "prijatelj"(*) (translated in English as "a friend"). You see, Sanskrit is very similar in so many ways to my mother tongue. The root of the word is same, it comes from Sanskrit and "prijatelj" is a general term which describes all sorts of friends, but not necessarily a very intimate friend. For those very dear, intimate friends we have different sweet words, same as for Krishna's intimate friends in his own Goloka.
However, we can also use the ordinary term "a friend" to cover our true feelings. Krishna can certainly do that too -- he's a master of disguise. If I want to hide a fact that someone is a very dear, intimate friend of mine, I can cover it by calling him or her with just "a friend". But I can give some subtle hints, by using words with double meaning, accentuate differently, use body language or similar devices to those who observe keenly and lovingly, and I can covertly say that he or she is much more than that. That's what's also going on in Bg 18.65-66, as Sridhara Maharaja masterfully hinted, and Swami included in his Bhagavad-gita. Krishna pertains the reality of surrender on so many levels at the same time.
- -
* In my language, the root "prij" is pronounced as priy. Exactly the same (j is pronounced as y in English). Instead of "prijatelj" I can also use shorter "prijo", which also means a friend. More exactly it means a friend I knew from long ago, but we meet occasionally. "Prija" means a female friend. You can also find root "prij" in many words that describe pleasure and pleasing circumstances.
Syamasundara - February 9, 2008 6:58 am
And how do you bring that home to the topic of sin?
By the way, talk about God and Vaikuntha, an impersonalist can be absolutely free of sin and absorbed in Brahman. Brahman realization is authorized and doesn't mean mayavada. One just ceases to act, so he or she naturally can't commit any sin, but they have no devotion, so how hari-tosana is that?
I guess at their level of purity, the egoism characterized by jñana or the lack of service attitude is itself the only, but biggest sin.
Zvonimir Tosic - February 9, 2008 11:59 am
And how do you bring that home to the topic of sin?
By the way, talk about God and Vaikuntha, an impersonalist can be absolutely free of sin and absorbed in Brahman. Brahman realization is authorized and doesn't mean mayavada. One just ceases to act, so he or she naturally can't commit any sin, but they have no devotion, so how hari-tosana is that? I guess at their level of purity, the egoism characterized by jñana or the lack of service attitude is itself the only, but biggest sin.
Yes, I also think we should explore this subject matter further.
When I was reading your thoughts, Jaya and Vijaya came to my mind, the Kumara brothers and the incident at the Vaikuntha gate.
Maybe we can explore that episode in great detail, because I feel it can give us many unexpected answers.
As for start, I believe that story is highly metaphorical too and we can try to disassemble its poetical language.
Kumaras were very learned and they've reached realisation of Brahman. So they wanted more than that, obviously? Or someone else has ignited that wish in their hearts and they didn't recognise it at the first?
How can someone come at the doorways of Vaikuntha? Vaikuntha is a spiritual world -- what it actually takes to get there, and what it takes to enter there? Why Jaya and Viyaja reacted like they did? And above all, what Jaya and Vijaya actually represent -- are they just keepers of the gate or their role is a symbol for something else too? Are they embodiment of certain qualities? Were Jaya and Vijaya mistaken in their action or Kumaras actually never deserved to enter Vaikuntha?
One is certain -- Kumaras didn't taste the love of God before that accident. After that, their hearts have changed. Bhagavatam describes that transformation with sublimely beautiful language and the beautiful description of God's personal form.
So something has happened there, in that episode, that has started a chain reaction: of God's descends into this world, his numerous avataras and prakrita lilas, which liberated innumerable souls from this world and brought them back to Godhead. (Am I right in summarising it in this way?) Also, it was said that Laksmi has foretold that accident will occur; is there something behind her wish? What she actually wanted and why?
Hundreds of questions
Thank you very much for continuing exploring this subject. I'll also try my best and please, forgive me if I try to explore some answers in both poetical and analytical ways.
Ys,
Vamsidhari Dasa - February 10, 2008 11:51 pm
Or maybe I don't fully understand the concept.
No, you haven't a clue! Thats exactly what I was trying to say in my first sentence (but you missed that one too). I guess between two foreigners we cannot really communicate.
In essence Post-modernism is a way of looking at the world that says that the Truth is constructed by social, cultural, historical agreement. It claims that there are no Universal Truths just mutually agreed upon truth (between two people or groups of people). It is not a concept it is a form of analysis, a way of thinking. It is not a dictum. I don't know why you are so adverse to this kind of analysis it really does not take away anything from people like yourself.
You don't have to believe in it, it is a way in which people think today in the academic and intellectual world. It is also a pervading form of thinking that is in the fabric of modern society. It really does not presuppose to talk about the nature of Ultimate reality, but it is it offers understanding how we acquire knowledge and think. It says that the way people think, and values they hold is embedded in a social-political-historical context and that it cannot be independent from it. So the concept of sin, I would surmise, is equally embedded in that context and is relative to the context from which it originated. It is not to say that there is no sin, but to say that what is sin for us might not be a sin for someone else in a different context and with different belief system. It does not say that there is one belief system that is superior to others but that they are equally valid for those people who share the same socio-political-historical context.
The bedrock of modern thought is that there is no bedrock. That we construct it and de-construct it as we go along and that the nature of values and morality is changing. Why is that a problem? I dont want to be some Hindu from 5000 years ago nor form 150 years ago. I dont even want to be some Hippi from 40 years ago. I cannot be that even if I want it. I have to be and exists in this world which is today in this context.
So any way I am tired to be an "exponent" of "post-modernism" here. I know what I know and thats enough for me.
Vamsidhari Dasa - February 11, 2008 12:19 am
That is why dharma is important and why there are some standards which are universal and beyond simple traditions or social considerations.
LIKE WHAT??????????
Vivek - February 11, 2008 2:39 am
Yes I agree with Vamsidhari on the there being no absolutes in post modern times. It is stalemate between science and religion or for that matter all opposing belief systems. Such position can be compared in one sense to Sophists in the era of Socrates who also didn't believe that any belief system is absolute and human existence is meant for cultural sophistication and enjoyment.
And Kant also had reached the conclusion of Absolute being unknown by reason in his "critique of pure reason". hence we have to make our best jugdgment on the ethics to follow. He mainly points to the fact that we have to work selflessly even though we cannot prove univeral absolute truths. We can for our ownprivate world have some philosophy of Absolute but cannot impose it on others according to Kant as that reality is subjective.
These things keep on happening regularly in history.
Citta Hari Dasa - February 11, 2008 3:32 am
Another level of consideration on the topic of sin seems to be that of adhikara. Even within our tradition things that would be sinful for the kanistha adhikari (tasting the bhoga before it's offered, for example) would not be for the advanced bhakta. So motivation or intent have something to do with it. One question that comes to mind is, are there actions that can be considered sinful regardless of one's intent or degree of purity?
Zvonimir Tosic - February 11, 2008 5:39 am
Another level of consideration on the topic of sin seems to be that of adhikara. Even within our tradition things that would be sinful for the kanistha adhikari (tasting the bhoga before it's offered, for example) would not be for the advanced bhakta.
Interesting thought ...
Adhikara also means ranking -- who is to determine adhikara in every one of us?
Krishna says it's his job to award accordingly (Bg 4.11), he didn't say it's ours.
Furthermore, Krishna wants to lift us up, help us and others, and yet we keep imposing relative adhikara views, because it's obviously much easier for us. It's easier to think about people within groups and walls and their merits than to be equal to everybody -- because that would require significant, positive character shift in us.
Syamasundara - February 11, 2008 7:03 am
Like the fashionable svami from Hinduism today said (quoted on wikipedia), sin is rendered in Sanskrit as papa, aparadha, etc., and they are not the same concept, or let's say, there are a few slight differences.
For example, I forgot which of the 6 gosvami, but once he was absorbed in krsna-lila (not exactly the prerogative of a sinful person), so much so that at some point Krsna did something funny, and the gosvami in his sadhaka deha chuckled. However, another pure vaisnava was passing by his bhajan kutir right then, and he felt a little uneasy because he was a cripple and thought the gosvami was laughing at the way he walked. Immediately the gosvami came out of his dhyana and was unable to regain that level. I forgot how he figured out what happened, but the point is that even if a pure devotee is offended by another pure devotee who doesn't even intend to commit aparadha, Krsna takes it seriously and personally, true to what he states all the time about his love for his devotees.
I think what Audarya lila meant by universal is that principles like truthfulness, austerity, cleanliness and mercy are found in every religion or human context. The very 7 virtues of Christianity mentioned above are very similar, although the Christians may expand a few concepts, or skip some but elaborate on them in another context.
The convenience of religions is that everything is codified, whereas an atheist society will recognize the value of compassion, humility etc, but only in a vague sense.
It's like mrdanga mantras or dance steps. Instead of saying "That beat where you simultaneously hit the big head with the heel of your left hand, the tip of your middle finger, slight forward and hit the small head with the index finger" you just say "ghin" (or whatever it's called).
Guru-nistha Das - February 11, 2008 5:36 pm
No, you haven't a clue! Thats exactly what I was trying to say in my first sentence (but you missed that one too). I guess between two foreigners we cannot really communicate.In essence Post-modernism is a way of looking at the world that says that the Truth is constructed by social, cultural, historical agreement. It claims that there are no Universal Truths just mutually agreed upon truth (between two people or groups of people). It is not a concept it is a form of analysis, a way of thinking. It is not a dictum. I don't know why you are so adverse to this kind of analysis it really does not take away anything from people like yourself.
You don't have to believe in it, it is a way in which people think today in the academic and intellectual world. It is also a pervading form of thinking that is in the fabric of modern society. It really does not presuppose to talk about the nature of Ultimate reality, but it is it offers understanding how we acquire knowledge and think. It says that the way people think, and values they hold is embedded in a social-political-historical context and that it cannot be independent from it. So the concept of sin, I would surmise, is equally embedded in that context and is relative to the context from which it originated. It is not to say that there is no sin, but to say that what is sin for us might not be a sin for someone else in a different context and with different belief system. It does not say that there is one belief system that is superior to others but that they are equally valid for those people who share the same socio-political-historical context.
The bedrock of modern thought is that there is no bedrock. That we construct it and de-construct it as we go along and that the nature of values and morality is changing. Why is that a problem? I dont want to be some Hindu from 5000 years ago nor form 150 years ago. I dont even want to be some Hippi from 40 years ago. I cannot be that even if I want it. I have to be and exists in this world which is today in this context.
So any way I am tired to be an "exponent" of "post-modernism" here. I know what I know and thats enough for me.
Breathe deep Vamsi, I'm not trying to sweep the rug under hundreds of years of evolution of philosophical thought. I understand the necessity of Post-modern thought for the pluralistic and globally connected world.
It totally makes sense in the context of how we perceive reality through our mind and senses, but I think that's only one plane of existence. Like Kant for example, he thought that knowledge is only coherent information on our perception of reality, whereas the actual reality is always separate and unapproachable by us. What would a post-modernist think of Kant's Critical Idealism?
Here's what I think: we have to talk about spiritual matters with words, think about them with our minds and intellect and all those things are biased and subjective. That's like the lower level of Krsna consciousness: something that we can grasp onto theoretically. Then there's the plane of pure experience, Krsna Cosciousness proper, that strips of us every single material designation, thought, identity, cultural context etc. The problem arises when conditioned practitioners try to impose the supramundane experience onto the relative plane of experience. But it seems to me like you don't believe in the latter type of Krsna consciousness, Vamsi. Am I right?
Vivek - February 11, 2008 7:08 pm
But I think most practitioners in GV do bring the cultural norms along with the tradition. Therefore BVT said that even great sages are baised towards their culture.
Even in the ultimate sense when one is beyond the realm of senses and intellect still the reality is subjective: Krsna appears differently according to the mood of the devotee. So subjectivity is inevitable.
Hegel tried to put individual ideas just as one part of the infinite Absolute mind. Similarly Jung tried to say that the individual unconscious has some connection with the collective unconscious(aka paramatma) and from that connection he gains some access to reality. But is upto colletive unconcious to decide how much access to give to each individual.
In our philosophy Absolute itself doesn't understand himself completly: he comes as Chaitanaya to exprerience he own love. What to speak of individual souls.
Obviously this is not a great thing to know for most people who want rigid deterministic framework to completly confine the Absolute.
Vamsidhari Dasa - February 11, 2008 10:00 pm
Here's what I think: we have to talk about spiritual matters with words, think about them with our minds and intellect and all those things are biased and subjective. That's like the lower level of Krsna consciousness: something that we can grasp onto theoretically. Then there's the plane of pure experience, Krsna Cosciousness proper, that strips of us every single material designation, thought, identity, cultural context etc. The problem arises when conditioned practitioners try to impose the supramundane experience onto the relative plane of experience. But it seems to me like you don't believe in the latter type of Krsna consciousness, Vamsi. Am I right?
you are so right. i do not. and i was just so moved to read this. It is very true. But I was just trying to apply the post-modern analysis to a concept of sin, sinful, sinister. All very relative.
The problem is in language and it is very limited, tricky, and maleable. Take Wittgeinstain for example and what he says about language and its uses.
cheers thanks a lot
Zvonimir Tosic - February 11, 2008 11:13 pm
. I forgot how he figured out what happened, but the point is that even if a pure devotee is offended by another pure devotee who doesn't even intend to commit aparadha, Krsna takes it seriously and personally ...
I always liked that story. But let's observe it from another perspective.
No aparadha perspective
Rupa Goswami was enjoying his svarupa deha lila and Krishna saw that a poor cripple Vaishnava needed some encouragement and a friendly touch. Thus he made Rupa Goswami awake from his meditation and, instead of enjoying the internal lila just by himself, he inspired him in a unique way to give up his meditation and embrace the poor Vaisnava in need. Thus he gave Krishna even greater pleasure.
As far as I know Krishna , Krishna is best expressed when there is a company and union of devotees eagerly and lovingly thinking, talking about him and supporting each other.
What I wanted to achieve is to observe this story and forget about aparadha perspective, because there's no aparadha involved -- but just pure need to satisfy poor Vaisnava and to give Krishna even greater pleasure in their union. Krishna has found Rupa Goswami to be perfect to comfort that poor soul in need and to shed some light on his true nature, to show us where is hidden his real satisfaction.
So, when there's need for help, when we're asked to serve Krishna and his beloved friends in a more dynamic and selfless way, even our solitary siddha deha lila is an obstacle. For me, that's the beauty of Krishna Consciousness. You can observe every story about sin or aparadha from some different perspective and it can transform itself into liberating, soothing experience.
Syamasundara - February 12, 2008 3:24 am
You might be surprised, but I beg to differ on a couple of points.
Once again, don't take it as a personal attack, I am just reacting to what I read, and I'll try to keep a very neutral, non-sarcastic tone.
Firstly, there is no question of enjoying Krsna-lila, while absorbed in one's own siddha-deha, not in the sense you seem to mean, i.e. selfish enjoyment while a poor cripple is passing by. Enjoyment may be there, but it's a side effect. Rupa Goswami had no idea the crippled Vaisnava was passing by, nor was the cripple in any need, let alone the need for Rupa Goswami to break his dhyana on Krsna to go hug him.
Meditating on one's siddha deha, may look like a solitary affair, but it actually means living in and experiencing a dimension of transcendental relationships. It takes two to lila, in the very least. Lila means play, game. I don't think it's proper to equate the meditative state of a gaudiya sadhu with the dhyana of a jñani.
Secondly, I don't know where you got that the cripple was in any need (other than the need to go from where he was coming to where he was going), or that he was in a conditioned state of consciousness. Vaisnavera kriya mudra vijñe na bhujaya: it's not so easy to understand the behavior of a Vaisnava. Maybe he just became a little morose because the revered Rupa Gosvami was laughing at him for something, because he had so much respect for him and his position that any behavior of his mattered. It doesn't mean he took offense because he was identified with his crippled body, nor that he thought Rupa Gosvami was on the bodily platform. It's true that I have never actually read the story, but it appears to me that you are commenting on my version only, which has no finale.
Over all, your rendition totally kills the purport of the story, which is not that Rupa Gosvami is a selfish aparadhi, but that whenever a pure Vaisnava is wronged, no matter whether unwillingly, or by another pure Vaisnava who is 100% absorbed in Krsna-lila, Krsna takes the matter seriously and intervenes personally and without exception.
It's laudable to keep an open and alert mind, while exposed to everything Krsna-related. Reality exists on so many levels, and it's a shame to miss most of them, especially the higher ones. However, it takes realization, association, and experience to do so. We can't just apply any interpretation; rather, we can, but the outcome may be uncertain.
Syamasundara - February 12, 2008 3:54 am
There, found it. Should have done this earlier, I guess.
The Laughter of Srila Rupa Goswami
From Srila Narahari Chakravarti’s Sri Bhakti-ratnakara, fifth wave
bhakta-sthane sabadhana habe sarva-mate
yena kona akausala nahe tan’ra cite
Always be careful in your dealings with devotees and never create any ill feelings in their hearts.
akausala ha-ile saba haya antaraya
prasanga paiya kichu kahiye ethaya
Creating ill feelings with the devotees will create impediments on one’s path. I will relate a story to reveal this truth.
One day in Vrindavan Srila Rupa Goswami Prabhupada sat rapt in meditation, feeling great bliss in his heart. While he was sitting in his samadhi he observed a wonderful pastime. The gopis were decorating Srimati Radharani while Krishna stood behind Her watching. Krishna revealed His presence to the sakhis, bringing an increasing festival of joy to their hearts, but Radharani was unaware that He was there. In many wonderful ways the gopis braided and decorated Radha’s hair. Then they placed a mirror before Her. As She gazed at the beauty of Her own face, Radharani also saw Sri Krishna’s moonlike face in the mirror. Radha became very shy and quickly covered Herself with Her cloth. The gopis happily laughed at this, and Srila Rupa Goswami also joined in their laughter.
Just at that moment a vaisnava arrived who was very eager to see Rupa Goswami. Seeing Rupa laughing, the vaisnava did not say anything, but feeling very sorrowful in his heart he went to see Srila Sanatan Goswami. [According to the tradition in Vrindavan, this vaisnava was a famous devotee named Krishnadas. It is said that Krishnadas was lame and unable to walk and that when Rupa Goswami laughed, Krishnadas thought that he was laughing at his disability.]
The vaisnava told Sanatan, “I went to see Sri Rupa, but when he saw me he suddenly burst into laughter. My heart filled with sorrow! I don’t know why he acted in that way. I didn’t say anything, but came to ask you about it.” Sri Sanatan then explained the true reason for Rupa Goswami’s laughter. Hearing this, the vaisnava became repentant at heart. Lamenting greatly, the vaisnava said, “Why did I approach him at that moment? Not understanding his heart, I have offended him.” The vaisnava became very agitated. Sanatan Goswami pacified him and made him peaceful again.
Meanwhile, when the vaisnava had felt offended, Srila Rupa Goswami suddenly lost his vision of the Lord’s pastimes. He became very disturbed and looked everywhere. Considering the situation carefully, he concluded that someone must have come to see him while he was absorbed in seeing Krishna’s pastimes. “I did not honor the person that came, and thereby I committed an offense.” Thinking in this way, Rupa also went to Sanatan Goswami’s place.
When he saw Prabhupada Srila Rupa Goswami coming, that vaisnava approached him. Falling on the ground, he offered his respects. With great humility he told Rupa, “O great soul, I have committed an offense to you. Please forgive me. Previously when I went to see you I did not understand that you were rapt in meditation.” Standing before Srila Rupa Goswami, the vaisnava prayed, “Please be kind and forgive me for my offense. If you are merciful to me, only then can my heart become peaceful.”
When he heard these words, Srila Rupa Goswami became very agitated at heart. Falling to the ground, he offered respectful obeisances to that vaisnava. Folding his hands, he said, “I have no power to say how great was the offense that I committed to you. Please kindly forgive me.”
Both devotees were very humble and both were filled with bhakti-rasa. Forgiving each other, they both became peaceful. The two of them then went to Srila Sanatan Goswami. For a long time they all plunged into relishing nectarean topics of Lord Krishna. When everyone heard about this incident they all became filled with wonder.
Concluding this story, Srila Narahari Chakravarti cautions everyone:
ohe bhai vaisnavete sabadhana habe
pranapana kari’ aparadha ksamaibe
O my brothers, please be very careful in dealing with the vaisnavas. Beg their forgiveness for any offense with your heart and soul.
vaisnavera dosa-drste habe sabadhana
nirantara karibe vaisnavera guna-gana
Be careful not to see a vaisnava’s faults, and always sing their glories.
purva purva bhagavata-gana ei kaya
vaisnavera kriya-mudra vijne na bujhaya
All of the previous great devotees have said, “No one can understand the behavior of a vaisnava.”
sri-krsna-caitanya prabhu priya-bhakta-dvare
anyere dilena siksa ei ta’ prakare
Although Srila Rupa Goswami is a highly elevated devotee very dear to Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, the Lord used him to teach all of us of the dangers of vaisnava aparadha.
bhakta-.-padma dhari’ mastaka-upara
bhakti-rasa-sayare dubaha nirantara
Hold the devotees’ lotus feet to your head and always dive in the nectar of pure devotional service.
Zvonimir Tosic - February 12, 2008 1:45 pm
Over all, your rendition totally kills the purport of the story, which is not that Rupa Gosvami is a selfish aparadhi, but that whenever a pure Vaisnava is wronged, no matter whether unwillingly, or by another pure Vaisnava who is 100% absorbed in Krsna-lila, Krsna takes the matter seriously and intervenes personally and without exception. ... It's laudable to keep an open and alert mind, while exposed to everything Krsna-related. Reality exists on so many levels, and it's a shame to miss most of them, especially the higher ones. However, it takes realization, association, and experience to do so. We can't just apply any interpretation; rather, we can, but the outcome may be uncertain.
Well, dear Syamasundara, please, let us not take this into extremes. I never said Rupa Goswami was wrong or that he was selfishly indulging in his personal lila. Not at all. I wanted to say that this story is indeed important and that it could be observed from a slightly different perspective and still teach us a lesson or two. I actually wanted to emphasise the beauty of this story.
Same as you, I'm also familiar with this perspective of the danger of committing aparadha, but I was also trying to understand: why such a strange setup of all things and happenings inside this story? It's very unusual. Maybe that's my problem. I always keep asking myself, no matter what I see: Why this has happened? Why this person did that, what is the real motive? What caused such behaviour and such words? Is there anything else hidden I can't see now?
Say, if something bad or negative happens to me or to someone, I'm trying to find is there anything positive about it. For me it was unimaginable that Rupa Goswami had committed an aparadha. I simply couldn't live with such a thought. And then I was observing the embrace at the end of this story, where they were joyous and indulging in Krishna smarana, laughing together ... that moment was really significant to me.
- -
But I also wonder one thing .. I was trying to avoid aparadha perspective, but the original purport of the story says it's an aparadha issue. How would you, or anyone else here, react to my conclusion if the purport said something like I said (by avoiding aparadha altogether) and that I alone proclaimed boldly what this purport now says: that Rupa Goswami -- Rupa Manjari -- actually committed an aparadha?
- -
Thank you for your patience and your help. I very much appreciate your thoughts and always take them close to me.
Syamasundara - February 12, 2008 3:22 pm
OK, that's what you thought before writing that analysis, and what caused you to write it, but have you understood the purport of the story now?
Vivek - February 12, 2008 3:52 pm
It is alright but sometimes if some people offend SSM or GM you have to speak up even though they may be senior and what will you do then syamu? Every person who is a madhyama will commit aparadha as he is finding fault with devotees.
Syamasundara - February 12, 2008 4:57 pm
Can you explain yourself? What are you referring to?
Audarya-lila Dasa - February 12, 2008 9:52 pm
Vivek,
It is not an offense to defend your Guru or your Guru varga. To point out an offense does not fall into the category of being offensive, unless that is how you behave/feel. It is really an offense to not speak up or to stay in the company of those who are offending such devotees. Guru Maharaja is teaching us all proper vaishnava behavior, including how to deal with those who are offensive.
On a completely different note - getting back to an earlier part of the discussion - I don't at all agree with the idea that right and wrong is totally relative and that there are no absolutes in terms of proper conduct. There are obviously socially biased views that have been pushed forward as 'absolutes' which could certainly be pointed out as the cause of relativising everything - but I say we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. Our job is to try to ascertain the truth.
Can anyone who advocates that good/bad or righteous/sinful thoughts and behaviors are all relative tell me under what circumstances they could see raping a child (for instance) as anything other than sinful behavior? How about stealing property from others? How about torturing an innocent living being to derive some sort of sadistic pleasure? There are so many obvious examples of universal principles when it comes to dharmic and adharmic behavior.
I think the real point is that we stress engagement in bhakti as the only remedy to all ills and we stress on that point. Why? Because all that troubles the heart and mind will be removed by proper engagement in bhakti - in other words, sinful thoughts and deeds will automatically go away. But we don't stress this point and at the same time do away with standards of dharmic behavior. I don't know that anyone has gone that far with this relative idea, but that would certainly fall into the category of apasiddhanta. There are behavioral standards and there are thoughts and actions that will continue to impede our progress. We should know what they are, both in a relative way and, as far as possible, in an absolute way as well.
Zvonimir Tosic - February 12, 2008 10:43 pm
OK, that's what you thought before writing that analysis, and what caused you to write it, but have you understood the purport of the story now?
Yes, thanks, I have. Three different purports come to my mind now.
But I'm so interested, if you can answer my last question from above -- if the official purport was not about aparadha at all, how would you react if I brought forward a novel conclusion that Rupa Goswami, in his spiritual body, committed an aparadha?
Would you crucify me here officially or praise my insight?
What others say? .. Gurunistha? Audarya-lila? Vamsi? ...
A little birdie tells me your answers will constitute a very important purport in this thread. 
Vivek - February 12, 2008 11:42 pm
I wanted to say the same thing Audarya Lila that sometime devotees push us the defend GM and I cannot do much about it. I cannot tolerate when people blaspheme SSM and I cannot do anything about it.
Audarya-lila Dasa - February 13, 2008 5:41 am
This board was established to allow devotees who are either under the direct guidance of Guru Maharaja or those who sincerely appreciate his devotional contributions to come together and discuss topics about Krsna and his devotees. We are trying to discern the truth and learn Gaudiya siddhanta and this is a place where we can share our thoughts and views and seek either corroboration of realizations, or correction from those more advanced or more learned than ourselves. It is not a place where devotees attack or 'crucify' others for expressing themselves.
That doesn't mean that we should not expect our views or posts to be challenged. But those challenges are always in the spirit of love and affection, not in the spirit of crucifiction.
I can't really comment on the theorhetical situation you have described Zvonimir, because it is too vague. In the case under discussion after Syamasundara posted the full text of the story, it is clear from beginning to end that the story being told was done so for the purpose of instructing devotees to be cautious in their dealings with with each other. The author starts the story explaining the reason for it and ends it with several verses expanding on the basic idea. That doesn't mean that other lessons can't be learned from the story, but the direct message and purpose is quite clear.
It is good to think deeply on scriptural texts but we should all be aware that stalwart devotees like Sridhara Maharaja and our Guru Maharaja are extremely well read and that they are totally absorbed in Krsna consciousness and that is why they can shed meaningful light for others. It is really by deep devotion and engagement in devotional service that we can come to understand scripture and find hidden treasures that will enhance the lives of all devotees. This is not the realm of the intellect, but rather of the deep absorption ans surrender.
I'm not saying that we should only parrot what we hear, or that we shouldn't think deeply about scripture to find meaning. What I am saying is that in the neophyte stage we should expect that some of our realizations, or thoughts about scripture, will be tainted by our conditioned mind and that what we feel is a new and novel way of looking at a scriptural text is not in line with our acharyas or the revealed truth. We should be open to being corrected and not consider it a personal attack.
It is easy to speak and write but it is not always easy to speak and write the proper siddhanta. That is what we are trying to learn - how to properly represent our Guru Maharaja and this wonderful lineage that we have taken shelter of.
Vivek,
I'm not sure why you feel powerless to defend Guru Maharaja or Sridhara Maharaja. You should read more and pray deeply for the insight to be able to defend them when needed. If you can't do that then you should remove yourself from those who are venturing to offend them.
Vivek - February 13, 2008 3:20 pm
I don't feel powerless; I meant I have to defend GM and SSM even though other people think that it is offensive to do that.
Also I agree audarya lila about some fundamental ground of good ethics but it is hard to for all people to accept an absolute philosophy, theology and metaphysical reality. There are people who are atheists who are able to follow the basic ethic you are talking about and there are believers who don't follow any ethic.
Audarya-lila Dasa - February 13, 2008 5:33 pm
I don't feel powerless; I meant I have to defend GM and SSM even though other people think that it is offensive to do that.Also I agree audarya lila about some fundamental ground of good ethics but it is hard to for all people to accept an absolute philosophy, theology and metaphysical reality. There are people who are atheists who are able to follow the basic ethic you are talking about and there are believers who don't follow any ethic.
Right - not all people agree that Krsna exists, but his existence isn't dependent on their belief or disbelief. My point about some universal principles of dharma doesn't say anythng about who adheres to them or who doesn't. Saying 'I believe' doesn't make it so. That is why actions always speak louder than words. We are our faith means that our actions follow our faith. In the neophyte stage we have some faith, but it is weak and ill informed. Also, we follow the path and have 'faith' but we still have many habitual tendencies and much conditioning which takes time to come out from under. We have faith that in time, through dedicated practice our actions will follow our true hearts and that our hearts will be cleared of hyocritical tendencies. It takes time.....
Zvonimir Tosic - February 14, 2008 12:20 am
We should be open to being corrected and not consider it a personal attack.
Your explanation was nice as always, dear Audarya-lila. Thank you.
Don't worry, I didn't take anything personally. That's why I've put emoticons My friend Syamasundara challenged me and I've challenged him too. It's a friendly sport between us, I like it.
My brief thought from above removed the guilt of committing the aparadha from both parties because in my heart I felt that was impossible and out of question. Although the outward result of the actions can be interpreted as such, in my heart Rupa Manjari in Radha's company simply couldn't commit aparadha and the purpose of the whole story must have had additional meaning.
Actually, this story shows that Rupa Goswami is a devotee par excellence, and that he cannot commit aparadha. He cannot do anything wrongly consciously, he's just perfect. Rupa Manjari is perfect. To think about her committing an aparadha really hurts; it cannot be true. Only by throwing Rupa Goswami in an impossible and absurd situation, and completely unconscious about his environment, it can appear he has committed an aparadha, although he has not. This is all Krishna's illusion; it's the only thing he can do to fool his devotees -- make them unconscious. Otherwise, he can't do anything. Here Krishna acknowledges his defeat.
So, in my eyes, this whole impossible situation screams for a closer look. Every nice music piece has a kontrapunkt (counterpoint), a score running in parallel with the main melody line, that adds richness and subtlety. I think the same is with this story. Rupa and Sanatana were our acaryas who wrote extensively for people on the path, us, whose life is ruled by different regulations. So I don't doubt they've presented this story in such a way.
Syamasundara - February 14, 2008 9:46 pm
My brief thought from above removed the guilt of committing the aparadha from both parties because in my heart I felt that was impossible and out of question.
Vrndavana is the land of impossible, in the heart of maha-vaikuntha, absolutely limitless and perfectly harmonized.
Rupa Manjari is perfect. To think about her committing an aparadha really hurts; it cannot be true.
And what about Krsna's aparadha when he killed a calf (vatsasura)? Or his friends' when they beat him? Or Saci's offense to Advaita acarya?
I don't see why the dramatic take. Aparadha means "that which takes away from worship". Not a very good idea in general, but in some specific cases, like this, it takes a little further away, to bring even closer later, like when you take a few steps back before leaping over a tiny creek.
So yes, Rupa gosvami had committed an aparadha, and the main purport of the story is already glorious as it is.
It means that whenever a Vaisnava is wronged, even if the Vaisnava doesn't care, even if the offender has no idea he committed an aparadha, Krsna can't tolerate it, and has to take action, with no exception.
It's a law Acyuta will never break, it makes you want to have him as a friend, and never break that law yourself, but rather keep alert, and wonder: "Have I committed some aparadha unwillingly?" and keep our consciousness, humility, meditation honed and sharp.
Also, this lila seemed to have the purpose of bringing out the glories of Rupa Gosvami once again, his humility and level of purity, and again this is there in the lila without imagining that Krsna wanted Rupa to hug a poor cripple.
So yes, the story is about aparadha, not about Sri Rupa being an aparadhi.
Zvonimir Tosic - February 16, 2008 1:31 am
Also, this lila seemed to have the purpose of bringing out the glories of Rupa Gosvami once again, his humility and level of purity, and again this is there in the lila without imagining that Krsna wanted Rupa to hug a poor cripple. So yes, the story is about aparadha, not about Sri Rupa being an aparadhi.
The story has both prakrita and aprakrita elements, mixed together. On one side there's Rupa Goswami in the company of poor cripple Vaisnava, and on the other side Rupa Manjari in the company of Radha. It is very complex environment. The way story is conducted, it's clear that Rupa Manjari cannot commit an aparadha consciously. Well, at least to me.
If Rupa Manjari had really committed an aparadha, that conclusion brings forth more questions. Anyone acquainted with our philosophy can impose multiple challenges. For example: Is spiritual world of Gaudiya Vaisnavas really spiritual and perfect as Krishna himself says? Or it is just an imagination they try to live with? If people can commit an aparadha in such a world, how it can be spiritual, free of illusion? Can those guys accept something without feeling hurt? Where aparadha world finally ends, for heaven's sake? And hundreds of other questions just follow those. Everything suddenly start to sound odd and weird. How will our faith answer all that?
So I hope you see that I didn't start all this just because I begged to be different. For me this needed some observation. We needed to introduce something else too.
I don't know if you are a fan of mathematics, but for example, many everyday problems in mathematics can be solved using Natural numbers only (N). Simple addition, multiplication, such things. However, there are problems we can solve only if we start using Rational numbers (Q). Say, how shall I divide 5 apples between my son and daughter and keep them both happy? 
But that's all simple still. However, there are so many problems and highly complex challenges which can be solved only by using Real numbers and Imaginary numbers mathematics. And so on.
Each consecutive set of numbers contains the previous set as a full subset and adds more. In Natural set of numbers, 2 + 2 = 4. However, I can say the same thing using Real numbers, but it may look something like this: 8/4 + 14/7 = 4.0. Or, sqrt(4) + sqrt(4) = 4. Although results look same, important thing is, in Natural set I cannot use division or square rooting and many, many wonderful mathematical ideas.
I find Gaudiya Vaisnavism to be similar to mathematics and often I'm faced with challenges that raise a wall in front of me. Answers provided in one set are not good enough. They might be okay for some purpose, but I'm not perfectly happy with them. Then, it's obvious to me, I'm required to start transposing the whole equation into some new set of numbers. It's natural
Vivek - February 16, 2008 4:15 am
I agree with you Zvonimir and can exactly relate to what you said. Sometimes the ISKCON view on the jiva issue will become more prominent if we keep on talking about aparadhas in spiritual world. It is like how tulasi was cursed to take birth in material world due to an offense. That is how an ISKCON devotee justifies how a jiva can fall from spiritual world.
Like prabhupada said ," It is not that once you become president you don't fall. You still have chance of falling down."
All these things like the story of Rupa Gosvami have to be understood seeing the overall Gaudiya Siddhanta and not by drawing extreme conclusions from one incident.
Syamasundara - February 16, 2008 7:09 am
I had no doubt you two would agree , but what are you talking about??
No, actually Vivek has a point, but in a very generic sense. As far as this (sub)thread, who ever said that Rupa Manjari committed an offense? She was just laughing at Krsna being funny. If anybody, Rupa Gosvami is the one who hurt the other Vaisnava and committed this so-called aparadha, which may happen to a sadhaka, and he handled it like a perfect sadhaka. So, again, all the glory and the purport of this lila is in its face aspect (mukhya-vrtti), and I'm not going to change my mind until proven wrong by somebody else, provided someone other than the three of us is still reading this thread.
Unfortunately mathematics really escape me; I am more of a language buff.
It doesn't mean I didn't grasp your analogy, but my mind dwells more on words, their meaning, consecutio temporis, etc. and I freak out when words and concepts get shuffled around like this.
The pattern seems to be that statement A is made, you make statement B, I usually say: "Look, it's more like C actually" and then you come up and say, actually I said B because of what was said in A, but this last A is actually A1, some kind of parallel thing, that looks like the original statement, but it really isn't.
So, I say it's got nothing to do with having to hug the poor cripple who passed by, I give you the story as it is, you tell me what you "used" to think, I ask you if you have understood the actual purport now, which is the one I've been repeating all throughout, you say you did, and here we are, talking about looking deeper, because Rupa Manjari can't make offenses?
And before more words get shuffled around:
A. I have nothing against hugging devotees (by the way, watch out everyone next month).
B. I never said it's wrong to keep an open mind and keep alert for the various layers reality can be read from.
C. I have nothing against anyone in particular; I am just reacting to what's beings said, taken back, tweaked etc.
I do apologize for my tone, though. I could have toned it down, but I am as challenged as you by this conversation and to keep a diplomatic language and tone while getting my points across would cost me 3 times the effort.
Audarya-lila Dasa - February 16, 2008 4:16 pm
I'm still reading
I have a couple of things to say about the last few posts.
First - here is how the story was started:
"Always be careful in your dealings with devotees and never create any ill feelings in their hearts'.
When Rupa Goswami laughed he unknowingly created ill feelings in the vaishnavas heart who had come to see him.
Second, this 'offense' did not occur in the spiritual world so whatever was said in that regard is irrelevant and doesn't speak to the actual story at hand.
I find in this story the occurances of everyday life. I have found this particular prevelant when those with different cultural backgrounds interact. What one person finds completely normal and socially acceptable another person finds offense and totally unacceptable. Ill feelings are stirred up often in this type of interaction quite unknowingly. What I gather from this story is that we have to be very introspective and also pay close attention to our environment and all those around us. The example shows an instance where one devotee is disturbed at heart and the other devotee has an immediate impediment in their own devotion. Not many of us are that observant in our own spiritual practice to even notice such a thing and if we did, how many of us would look for a disturbance to a vaishnavas feelings caused by ourselves as the root cause? I see this as a very practical example of how to practice spiritual life and quickly deal with impediments that arise along the path.
Zvonimir Tosic - February 17, 2008 12:16 am
I do apologize for my tone, though. I could have toned it down, but I am as challenged as you by this conversation and to keep a diplomatic language and tone while getting my points across would cost me 3 times the effort.
I think you're doing just great.
I love the tone of your voice, I love your thoughts and (I can't tell about others, but) this topic, for example, has brought me many wonderful insights on how precious this company of yours, and all others Tattva Vivekis, actually is. Hey, we're talking about things others would start wars over and over again.
Zvonimir Tosic - February 17, 2008 12:27 am
Second, this 'offense' did not occur in the spiritual world so whatever was said in that regard is irrelevant and doesn't speak to the actual story at hand.
I think this is very important. Thank you.
As an art history lover, I also find very significant Radha's mirror in this story.
A mirror has been used extensively in art though centuries. Mirror usually introduces elements from the outside world into the composition that are otherwise impossible to include. In such way the mirror extends the narrative of the frame into the wider canvas of the world behind the frame, in front of the frame and around it.
Often it reflects invisible elements inside of painting, especially hidden emotional world of the characters, their loves and concerns that, in turn, reveal a whole new dimension to the image. We actually begin to understand who these people are. Those are all accomplishments of great art and great artists indeed.
So she's holding a mirror and sees Krishna reflected in it. As she is saying to us: Please stop for a moment and hold the mirrors in your hearts when you're dwelling into this story. For you shall see things not visible and a lot larger environment, an all new background to this story which is not obvious at the first sight.