Tattva-viveka
Every tradition has their problems..
Prema-bhakti - May 21, 2008 7:39 pm
as we have been discussing recently. The Buddhists are no exception. Rathi Krsna sent me this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/garden/1...amp;oref=slogin
Syama Gopala Dasa - May 21, 2008 7:42 pm
yeah saw that article too. Very strange.
Syamasundara - May 22, 2008 12:20 am
Well, I want to give them some credit, why not?
At the same time... what a waste of time!!! 
Serve.... the world?
Submit your will to that... of another?
And all that tapasya to control anger?
We may be imperfect, and I actually commend them for their effort and whatever achievements, but I'm glad we are judged by our ideal, because ours is so splendid, and I'm sorry, but theirs seems to fall so very short.
Gaura Krsna Dasa - May 23, 2008 4:40 pm
Interesting that his fellow monks think he's wack.
I spent a bit of time with Tibetan Buddhist monks in earlier years and I have to say that as a group they're pretty sensible and astute (matters of philosophy aside). They also have a long and well understood tradition of unorthodoxy. So........if they think he's crazy...........chances are......
Prema-bhakti - May 23, 2008 7:02 pm
Interesting that his fellow monks think he's wack.
Yes, it is. It is also interesting to note that they don't mess around when it comes to making their official opinion known by bringing in the big guns to denounce him. They have their PR down to an art, I'd say.
Zvonimir Tosic - May 24, 2008 1:57 pm
... They have their PR down to an art, I'd say.
It's easier to objectivise nothing or close to nothing than something. Nothing is of common understanding to all of us and all people will agree what it means (or what it doesn't mean actually). Yet we all have different views on something. So it's easier to tailor official views and PR from the Buddhist's point of view than it is for Gaudiya Vaisnavism, which is about absolute something viewed from so many different, perplexing perspectives. Frankly, it's impossible to tailor an official PR for Gaudiya Vaisnavism because someone will always disapprove something about it.
We can compare this with the world or art. Why is the abstract and semi-abstract art so popular today? Because abstract art fits easier in our modern homes and modern architecture. An abstract piece by, say Miró, can often be moved from bedroom into a hallway (to leave the place for a new painting) and will look quite allright there too, with perhaps just minor modifications: a new vase will do it. Abstract art doesn't scream for a complete refurbishing of our modern homes: it blends in easily.
But a highly realistic piece of art can't sit everywhere. A bigger piece by Raphael really needs a dedicated place; proper lighting, suitable drapery, compatible frame, enough space around it, high ceiling, furniture, chandeliers and carpet of right colour and patterns to match it. Proper flower shapes and vases too. A high level of personal admiration for the piece and a thick skin are required as well because such art simply draws people's opinions and diverse comments.
Everyone seems to be an expert on commenting realistic art (although in its true nature is rather elusive and very complex). In that same sense, everyone seems to be an expert on commenting other people's devotional life and what it takes to make it picture perfect. Those who are used to see the painting in a certain environment will insist to see it everywhere in the same fashion. In a similar way, in order to be successful on a devotional path you need to follow a certain codex and interior design guide or otherwise you won't fit in within the group of admirers.
Unfortunately, in Gaudiya Vaisnavism today it is usual to experience just that. There's no easy way to blend Gaudiya Vaisnavism in our modern lives without a complete overhaul of our homes, without turning our lives upside down. Whilst Buddhism requires little or nothing extra to be applied in certain spheres of our life, Gaudiya Vaisnavism as prescribed today isn't anything like it. If someone tries to embrace it slowly or in a different way, he or she have to rather not talk about it loudly, because it will draw everyone's attention. Such people are not feeling comfortable in front of others because they can't make their whole home perfectly fit for the painting, so they usually invite dear guests .. well .. in the guest room with the painting officially presented, keeping them away from cupboards, studies and bedrooms.
And if they succeed in their endeavour of refurbishing, what their homes turn into? Into those same environments prescribed for the picture perfect -- the museums for renaissance art. Or in our case, into temples. A good Vaisnava's home looks exactly like a temple and whilst it draws smiles of appreciation of admirers, all others are simply scared. Well, at least they don't need turn their homes into museums of modern art just because they want to hang few abstracts ..
That's where Vaisnavism unfortunately came short; it never did and for some reason it resists to fit into our everyday lives easily. It was and it remains to be the business of people in saffron. It has an all or nothing attitude and a knack for adding guilt into everything, thus making every little problem or misunderstanding even worse. It's like a specimen plant which never leaves the nursery and temple glasshouses and it never gets enough strength to spread its roots in our home gardens, playgrounds and parks. Those who want to plant it there somehow are not encouraged or helped, but are rather often judged -- if not openly, then subtly. Vaisnavism, it seems, always asks for enormous sacrifices and wrestling against the current, thus consuming its own strength and its future in the process.
Let's us go back to the art of PR. Buddhism doesn't need specialised PR departments today at all because TV and press already work for it. Why? People in press already know much about Buddhism so they can write eloquently about its matters, and reflect upon it. Like an abstract art in today's modern homes, people accept it readily because it fits nicely without much ado. Buddhism has its Richards Geres and other ambassadors in every walk of life -- people not wrapped up in saffron at all and to whom world listens to although they don't have some exotic names and don't speak Sanskrit. And Buddhist monks don't condemn them or find them faulty or inadequate as a favour. Also, current socio-environmental consciousness seems to embrace their views better than of others: because Buddhism doesn't call for fight but rather for understanding, it doesn't preach zealously and it doesn't condemn everything like many others do.
Simply put, it fits in our lives easier. And thus public and media appreciate it, they're open to it and are ready to understand it much better -- provide support without even realising it.
Gaura Krsna Dasa - May 24, 2008 6:55 pm
Zvonimir,
I hear your point and feel your frustration but it's important to remember that sympathy or respect for a tradition is not the same as being as a surrendered follower of it.
I have friends who tell me they're "kind of Buddhist," emphasis on "kind of." When I say "Cool, how so?" it comes out that really they just believe in the doctrine of karma and reincarnation and they sense that if -IF- they were to sit down and meditate they could become "enlightened." They usually cannot explain the first thing about Buddhist thinking, let alone how it applies to their subjective experience. A lot of people seem to respect Buddhism -and that's a good thing- but I wonder how many are really prepared to "take refuge in the three jewels of the Buddha, the Dharma, and the excellent sanga."
It's a fact that if you actually want to BE a Buddhist (and I'm speaking here of Tibetan Buddhism because that's what I know) you have to find a guru and follow his or her instructions. You have to get up every day and meditate, meditate, meditate. They may let you drink coffee and eat carne asada but you still have to rearrange your life, study, serve your sanga, contribute, submit your ego and all the rest. Most of the actual Western Buddhists I have known are just as intense as any devotee.
Buddhism is able to address social, psychological, and environmental issues in a way that the public appreciates but I think this has been due to the work of it's modern, mainly Western followers. This is content that's been brought out and developed from the tradition in the same way that progressive devotees are doing in GV now. They're just further ahead than us. A big difference though is that we are still working out our internal affairs as our house has be transplanted from a very different culture. We can't really make a huge contribution to the environmental movement quite yet because we are still trying to get our house in order.
Also seems worth mentioning that Buddhism is a vast world with many contingencies. Big gun Buddhist preachers like HH the Dalia Lama ARE fully aware of PR considerations. Like any intelligent leader, he must always be diplomatic and suite his words to his audience. When he speaks to a stadium of Westerners he speaks very differently than to a room of Tibetan monks. His message to the West is very generic. I heard him speak in India to a crowd of mainly Tibetans, and although in essentially the same spirit, he was quite a bit harder and aggressive. At one point he was actually talking about various sexual acts (sorry to bring up the topic again), saying "you can do this and this, but not that or that." His Western followers present were just as horrified and disturbed as any new devotee reading through Prabhupada's Bhagavatam purports. Also, during the same trip I met a couple of young Tibetans in a coffee house that were trying to get into Western universities to study public relations related disciplines to better serve their people. More power to them. The Tibetans as a people need all the help they can get.
I used to feel a little envious of the Buddhists' success but now I think that success is maybe more superficial that I first realized.
Swami - May 24, 2008 9:23 pm
Zvonimir,
I hear your point and feel your frustration but it's important to remember that sympathy or respect for a tradition is not the same as being as a surrendered follower of it.
I have friends who tell me they're "kind of Buddhist," emphasis on "kind of." When I say "Cool, how so?" it comes out that really they just believe in the doctrine of karma and reincarnation and they sense that if -IF- they were to sit down and meditate they could become "enlightened." They usually cannot explain the first thing about Buddhist thinking, let alone how it applies to their subjective experience. A lot of people seem to respect Buddhism -and that's a good thing- but I wonder how many are really prepared to "take refuge in the three jewels of the Buddha, the Dharma, and the excellent sanga."
It's a fact that if you actually want to BE a Buddhist (and I'm speaking here of Tibetan Buddhism because that's what I know) you have to find a guru and follow his or her instructions. You have to get up every day and meditate, meditate, meditate. They may let you drink coffee and eat carne asada but you still have to rearrange your life, study, serve your sanga, contribute, submit your ego and all the rest. Most of the actual Western Buddhists I have known are just as intense as any devotee.
Buddhism is able to address social, psychological, and environmental issues in a way that the public appreciates but I think this has been due to the work of it's modern, mainly Western followers. This is content that's been brought out and developed from the tradition in the same way that progressive devotees are doing in GV now. They're just further ahead than us. A big difference though is that we are still working out our internal affairs as our house has be transplanted from a very different culture. We can't really make a huge contribution to the environmental movement quite yet because we are still trying to get our house in order.
Also seems worth mentioning that Buddhism is a vast world with many contingencies. Big gun Buddhist preachers like HH the Dalia Lama ARE fully aware of PR considerations. Like any intelligent leader, he must always be diplomatic and suite his words to his audience. When he speaks to a stadium of Westerners he speaks very differently than to a room of Tibetan monks. His message to the West is very generic. I heard him speak in India to a crowd of mainly Tibetans, and although in essentially the same spirit, he was quite a bit harder and aggressive. At one point he was actually talking about various sexual acts (sorry to bring up the topic again), saying "you can do this and this, but not that or that." His Western followers present were just as horrified and disturbed as any new devotee reading through Prabhupada's Bhagavatam purports. Also, during the same trip I met a couple of young Tibetans in a coffee house that were trying to get into Western universities to study public relations related disciplines to better serve their people. More power to them. The Tibetans as a people need all the help they can get.
I used to feel a little envious of the Buddhists' success but now I think that success is maybe more superficial that I first realized.
Well said.
Vamsidhari Dasa - May 25, 2008 2:08 am
It's like a specimen plant which never leaves the nursery and temple glasshouses and it never gets enough strength to spread its roots in our home gardens, playgrounds and parks. Those who want to plant it there somehow are not encouraged or helped, but are rather often judged -- if not openly, then subtly. Vaisnavism, it seems, always asks for enormous sacrifices and wrestling against the current, thus consuming its own strength and its future in the process.
WE ARE THE PLANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!
(and really happy in my little pot I might add)
I think the guy is a kind of funny quack, but what ever. Thanks for posting it.
Zvonimir Tosic - May 25, 2008 3:46 am
...I used to feel a little envious of the Buddhists' success but now I think that success is maybe more superficial that I first realized.
Dear Gaura Krishna, thank you for your nice reply.
Well, I was reminded to Swami's lesson about "being like water", and at the moment it seemed that Buddhism in the West understands that point. I'm not at all envious at their genuine or superficial success, or apparent lack of ours, but I was rather putting different paintings into a modern context and tried to illustrate challenges we everyday people face.
GV indeed behaves like it's all or nothing when it comes to devotional life and it says that statement without a smile on the face. It's always dead serious and always some guilt vibrates in the air*, to remind us how unworthy and fallen we are. Or if there's a smile, I know from the experience there'll be some whispers behind the curtains when the happy crowd goes home. There are always programs for us and them. There's lack of real open, sincere, intermediate ground. There's always some "yes, but ..." at the end of every conversation.
I'd like to see some understanding of people's lives in modern perspectives, not ancient ones. Creation of some new grounds for understanding. In all honesty, I can't do anything about things that happened in India ages ago, but I'm interested in today and tomorrow of the rest of the world and I'd like to see GV there too. If the plant is to be moved into new grounds, it inevitably has to adapt itself or it won't survive. But it seems to me that some people are artificially creating a replica of what is believed to be sustainable environment for their specimen and not letting it adapt by itself.
I can see that fear in Buddhism too or otherwise HH Dalai Lama wouldn't have had different approaches for different people. He's afraid too of losing his ground, because it's inevitable. Modern times do challenge everyone, and the end of the day time challenges us -- our minds and souls -- because it's people's lives and beliefs behind all "isms". Few people will indeed dance like Lord Krishna on the heads of the giant serpent, apparently losing and then again getting their feet on the firm surface, effortlessly and playfully, without any fear, charming everyone with their pure innocence and sincerity.
- -
(*) There is no problem so awful that you can't add some guilt to it and make it even worse. (Calvin and Hobbes)
Syamasundara - May 25, 2008 5:58 pm
GV indeed behaves like it's all or nothing when it comes to devotional life and it says that statement without a smile on the face.
Well, I beg to differ:
BG 12.8: Just fix your mind upon Me, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and engage all your intelligence in Me. Thus you will live in Me always, without a doubt.
BG 12.9: My dear Arjuna, O winner of wealth, if you cannot fix your mind upon Me without deviation, then follow the regulative principles of bhakti-yoga. In this way develop a desire to attain Me.
BG 12.10: If you cannot practice the regulations of bhakti-yoga, then just try to work for Me, because by working for Me you will come to the perfect stage.
BG 12.11: If, however, you are unable to work in this consciousness of Me, then try to act giving up all results of your work and try to be self-situated.
BG 12.12: If you cannot take to this practice, then engage yourself in the cultivation of knowledge. Better than knowledge, however, is meditation, and better than meditation is renunciation of the fruits of action, for by such renunciation one can attain peace of mind.
GV doesn't behave like it's all or nothing, but like "it's all", and it says that with a huge smile and a huge instruction manual on an outreaching hand that is full of catchy slogans like sarva kalau idam brahma, visvam purnam sukhayate, etc.
I would agree with you if you had said "Most Gaudiya Vaisnavas behave like that", which is probably the kind you have hung out with. That is true, but Gaudiya Vaisnavism is different.
Gaura Krsna Dasa - May 25, 2008 6:08 pm
Zvonimir,
Your sentiment is completely understandable if bitter like an orange rind. I used to chew on the same rind. Then I learned to peel the fruit. I can explain.
Also, please indulge me the opportunity to say right here that I am not saying this so that I can be right; so that I can have the last word, or whatever. You're completely entitled to feel however you like. It's just that I remember feeling a similar way until I realized there's a better way. Being angry with the crazy, crazy devotees was not productive or fun for me and so I had to move past that.
Here's a possible way past. You said:
GV indeed behaves like it's all or nothing when it comes to devotional life and it says that statement without a smile on the face.
I no longer see GV as a person. It's not an entity such as a lumbering animal. As such I don't really have to deal with it as an "other.," as a thing that will impose "it's" will on me. It's a thing, but more like a vibration than an object. More like a song than a building. People are either inside or outside a building; they're either in or out. But any number of people can sing the same song in any number of ways in any number of places. You can sing loud or silently; in time, off key, beautifully, poorly, with passion, with total lack of any artfulness. You can sing all the words or just some of them. With others or by yourself. Some may try to sing over the tops of others and some prefer to listen to others' singing more than their own. No matter how it's sung however, everyone sings their own rendition of the same song even when we sing in chorus. "The" song becomes "my" song. My version may suck and invite all kinds of comments, but it's my singing that matters. The more I do it, the better it becomes until eventually others will feel inspired to sing as well.
Because for me Gv is singing a song (in concert with other better singers), I'm mostly aware of it as an activity. I don't feel I have to wrestle with this monstrous person. If I can't hear the song I move to a different part of the kirtan. My issue isn't with the kirtan because the kirtan isn't a person for me. It's a matter of being in tune or not. The kirtan isn't an institution, it's a vibration. Vibration carries feeling. It's art but not object.
This isn't to say there isn't an institutional level of GV that has to been dealt with, but just that all that is peripheral. The heart of the matter is very, very personal.
Swami - May 25, 2008 7:43 pm
ye yatah mam prapadyante . . .
Citta Hari Dasa - May 26, 2008 5:37 pm
Well said again, Gaura Krsna! I loved your analogies of the rind and the fruit, and of GV as a song. I also agree completely that Gaudiya Vaisnavism is a vibration, a feeling (which Guru Maharaja has said often, but is really easy to misunderstand). And we, with our limited free will, are free to tune in to whatever we choose. We can tune in to matter or to spirit, and that determines our experience.
Zvonimir,
If we are experiencing ugliness or bitterness, guilt and distrust in our practice and in our interactions with other practitioners then we need to shift our perspective. If we genuinely tune in to Sri Guru and pray sincerely for help, it will come, I assure you of that.
As Guru Maharaja quoted above from Sri Gita, Krsna says "as you approach me I reciprocate accordingly." In the same way, how we approach Gaudiya Vaisnavism determines our experience of it. As Gaura Krsna said, there does exist an institutional level of Gaudiya Vaisnavism that needs to be transformed. But it's up to us which aspect we will tune in to: the faults, since everything in the realm of matter is mixed with some fault (sarvarambhah hi dosena--Bg. 18.48), or the essential aspects. If we choose to focus on the external faults we need to realize that it is our own impurities that are making us do so, and so it is far more important to deal with our own impurities than to dwell on the impurities of others. By dealing with our own impurities our experience of reality will change radically, and we will cease to be able to find fault; rather we will be spontaneously drawn to glorify bhakti and the devotees, and in fact everything, seeing them to be all Krsna's saktis and as such venerable by us.
With regard to institutions, there will always be a vast gradation of realization among the members of a given path, and behaviors to match. As we become more pure ourselves we will naturally begin to resonate with those who are of a similar nature, which is of course why we are advised to keep the company of those who are more advanced than us. As our association changes so does our experience.
Zvonimir,
Your sentiment is completely understandable if bitter like an orange rind. I used to chew on the same rind. Then I learned to peel the fruit. I can explain.
Also, please indulge me the opportunity to say right here that I am not saying this so that I can be right; so that I can have the last word, or whatever. You're completely entitled to feel however you like. It's just that I remember feeling a similar way until I realized there's a better way. Being angry with the crazy, crazy devotees was not productive or fun for me and so I had to move past that.
Here's a possible way past. You said:
I no longer see GV as a person. It's not an entity such as a lumbering animal. As such I don't really have to deal with it as an "other.," as a thing that will impose "it's" will on me. It's a thing, but more like a vibration than an object. More like a song than a building. People are either inside or outside a building; they're either in or out. But any number of people can sing the same song in any number of ways in any number of places. You can sing loud or silently; in time, off key, beautifully, poorly, with passion, with total lack of any artfulness. You can sing all the words or just some of them. With others or by yourself. Some may try to sing over the tops of others and some prefer to listen to others' singing more than their own. No matter how it's sung however, everyone sings their own rendition of the same song even when we sing in chorus. "The" song becomes "my" song. My version may suck and invite all kinds of comments, but it's my singing that matters. The more I do it, the better it becomes until eventually others will feel inspired to sing as well.
Because for me Gv is singing a song (in concert with other better singers), I'm mostly aware of it as an activity. I don't feel I have to wrestle with this monstrous person. If I can't hear the song I move to a different part of the kirtan. My issue isn't with the kirtan because the kirtan isn't a person for me. It's a matter of being in tune or not. The kirtan isn't an institution, it's a vibration. Vibration carries feeling. It's art but not object.
This isn't to say there isn't an institutional level of GV that has to been dealt with, but just that all that is peripheral. The heart of the matter is very, very personal.
Zvonimir Tosic - May 27, 2008 2:46 am
With regard to institutions, there will always be a vast gradation of realization among the members of a given path, and behaviors to match. As we become more pure ourselves we will naturally begin to resonate with those who are of a similar nature, which is of course why we are advised to keep the company of those who are more advanced than us. As our association changes so does our experience.
Dear Citta Hari
I really appreciate your nice reflection. In my lengthy (sorry for that) observations I express my concerns and some ideas as well, because I want to share them with family here and I know I'll get a fulfilling answer. Sometimes a quite unexpected one, yes.
Being a parent myself, I know how's valuable to let the young ones talk and query about just anything. And often is not just an exact answer that will fulfill them, but the sound of and feeling in your voice too.
I often find myself bewildered by a child's question; it seems they challenge our answers and world views. Why something has to be like it is? Of importance is that why. What I've learned is that in child's world many things are possible and they do ask a valid question for a very good reason; they're neutral observers and they see some other scenarios possible and valid and are wondering why we "oldies" have decided upon certain ways, or habits, and made them "official". Can we change something? Can we add? Aren't there some other good options too, but we don't have time to consider them?
I have learned to love such perspective. When it comes to spiritual world and its matters, many things are possible there too. It's the very nature of bhakti that makes many impossible things possible. I hope you agree with that. At the end of a busy day I'm thankful to my son for asking me all those impossible questions because I know they're expression of his love and confidence in me. Otherwise, I'd be worried if he keeps silent and avoids my company.