Krishna's successors are deviants?
Just guessing here but ..
Probably not!
PADA: Wow. So are you telling me Krishna Kshetra swami (Kenneth R. Valpey) was in charge of the deity program of ISKCON, when Harikesha was lecturing that gurus can wear condoms, and his photos were still on the altars? Dr. Valpey evidently does not know that we cannot place such odious photos on the altars at Krishna's feet?
I don't know for sure, but yeah, when I protested Harikesha photos I was told to consult the deity program leader, and you are telling me -- it was this Dr. Valpey guy at the time? And he does not know who should be on the altar at Krishna's feet? But yeah, I heard that they recently had a big B.I program in Alachua where all the condom pada messiah's club / anal reconstructive surgery epidemic messiah's club folks had a get together.
And the Oxford center for Hindu studies also believes that Krishna's successors are often found "engaged in illicit sex with men, women and children"? I dunno. Ask them.
But at least some of Krishna Kshetra swami's messiahs are using condoms, so they won't be making more varna sankara, and I guess that would make their used condoms some kind of maha worshipable items in his religion. Hee hee.
Yeah I agree, people who are promoting worship of folks like condom pada are probably going to hell, or they are already there and just don't know it yet. And lest we forget, his program mass molested probably thousands of children while Krishna Kshetra was trying to figure out if condom pada was bona fide. ys pd
angel108b@yahoo.com
==============
MORAL THESIS UNRAVELLED
By Danavir Goswami
It is astonishing to see how Sanskrit scholarship and intellectual reasoning can be used, supposedly for the good of ISKCON, to advocate things which contradict the explicit words of ISKCON’s founder-acarya and the injunctions of Vedic sastra. Recently a paper by the title “Vaisnava Moral Theology and the Homosexual Issue” (hereafter Moral Thesis) appeared on a public internet news forum frequented by ISKCON devotees and followers.
The title itself reveals that the thesis has opened more than a debate over sexual
preferences - ISKCON now faces a deliberate challenge to the implicit faith it places in its founder - acarya and Vaisnava scriptures. A weakening of that faith will act like a broadside to the ship so carefully constructed and guided by His Divine Grace. Along with marginalization of guru-mukha-padma-vakya cittete kariya aikya comes normalization of adharma
(irreligious behavior).
PADA: OK so the GBC's gurus are speaking bogus apa-siddhanta / pasandi vada / adharma, according to, the GBC's gurus. That makes a lot of sense. We have made someone a guru, but that someone is an aparadhi, an offender and an adharmi. How can he be a guru then? So this is the problem with people like Danavir. His program makes a guru, he is equal to God in purity, therefore he is an aparadhi -- because God is quality the same as an aparadhi. What is this?
Quite frankly, we didn’t find any Vaisnava theology within the paper nor anything of value for the Vaisnava community. In a previous work entitled “Chaste Harlots” I have comprehensively responded to the “Homosexual Issue” brought forward in the Moral Thesis, thus I will not do so again here. In our present paper, we will attempt to analyze and unravel, if you will, the rather protracted Moral Thesis considering the paper’s assumptions and their implications for ISKCON.
preferences - ISKCON now faces a deliberate challenge to the implicit faith it places in its founder - acarya and Vaisnava scriptures. A weakening of that faith will act like a broadside to the ship so carefully constructed and guided by His Divine Grace. Along with marginalization of guru-mukha-padma-vakya cittete kariya aikya comes normalization of adharma
(irreligious behavior).
PADA: OK so the GBC's gurus are speaking bogus apa-siddhanta / pasandi vada / adharma, according to, the GBC's gurus. That makes a lot of sense. We have made someone a guru, but that someone is an aparadhi, an offender and an adharmi. How can he be a guru then? So this is the problem with people like Danavir. His program makes a guru, he is equal to God in purity, therefore he is an aparadhi -- because God is quality the same as an aparadhi. What is this?
Quite frankly, we didn’t find any Vaisnava theology within the paper nor anything of value for the Vaisnava community. In a previous work entitled “Chaste Harlots” I have comprehensively responded to the “Homosexual Issue” brought forward in the Moral Thesis, thus I will not do so again here. In our present paper, we will attempt to analyze and unravel, if you will, the rather protracted Moral Thesis considering the paper’s assumptions and their implications for ISKCON.
The Moral Thesis is designed to make its readers think that superseding the explicit instructions of guru, sadhu and sastra is possible by moral reasoning according to fashionable social mores. The Krishna consciousness movement should not be overly influenced by popular opinion lest it abandons its foundational tenets. We know that scholars, anti-cultists, governments and others are putting pressure on ISKCON to conform to their ideas.
PADA: OK but how can a person who is overcome by mundane moral reasoning to the point he denies the Vedas, be a guru?
In fact some members of the academic community cry that unless ISKCON gives up its literal interpretation of the scriptures the organization will become irrelevant to scholars. This is totally untrue. Just the opposite is true. If ISKCON compromises its pure position to cater to modern whimsical trends the institution will become rubbish.
PADA: Right, if we follow the GBC's gurus, we will become rubbish. How are these people gurus if they are spreading rubbish?
The tendency to compromise in the place of preaching should not be indulged. The Moral Thesis employs suspicious scholarship — at times quoting His Divine Grace when convenient and at other times totally ignoring his statements. Although the Moral Thesis presents several scriptural stories and references, its shocking conclusions place the devotee-reader, in the most unenviable position of having to accept several premises.
PADA: Listening to GBC gurus speak their nonsense is shocking. OK how are they gurus?
PREMISE #1: Sastric Ambiguity
The Moral Thesis:
“Prabhupada states in his Bhagavatam purport to 3.20.26: ‘It appears here that the homosexual appetite of males for each other is created in this episode of the creation of the demons by Brahma.’ Although homosexuality is said to have existed since the dawn of creation, the Bhagavatam does not explicitly describe nor proscribe it.”
Firstly, by saying “said to have existed” the Moral Thesis makes it sound as if the Bhagavatam’s statement may not be accurate. The Srimad Bhagavatam is accepted as the topmost trusted scripture and its statements are held above
all others by Vaisnava acaryas such as Sridhara Svami, Ramanujacarya and
Vallabhacarya. Srila Vyasadeva also confirms this: srimad-bhagavate maha - muni - krte kim va parair isvarah.
PADA: Listening to GBC gurus speak their nonsense is shocking. OK how are they gurus?
PREMISE #1: Sastric Ambiguity
The Moral Thesis:
“Prabhupada states in his Bhagavatam purport to 3.20.26: ‘It appears here that the homosexual appetite of males for each other is created in this episode of the creation of the demons by Brahma.’ Although homosexuality is said to have existed since the dawn of creation, the Bhagavatam does not explicitly describe nor proscribe it.”
Firstly, by saying “said to have existed” the Moral Thesis makes it sound as if the Bhagavatam’s statement may not be accurate. The Srimad Bhagavatam is accepted as the topmost trusted scripture and its statements are held above
all others by Vaisnava acaryas such as Sridhara Svami, Ramanujacarya and
Vallabhacarya. Srila Vyasadeva also confirms this: srimad-bhagavate maha - muni - krte kim va parair isvarah.
“This beautiful Bhagavatam, compiled by the great sage Vyasadeva [in his maturity], is sufficient in itself for God realization. What is the need of any other scripture?” Srila Jiva Gosvami explains in his Sandarbha that even if there are some paradoxical statements between scriptures, Bhagavata Purana is to be taken as the final decision. Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu too accepted Srimad Bhagavatam as the spotless Vedic authority.
Secondly, how can the Moral Thesis say that the Bhagavatam does not explicitly describe homosexuality when we have a graphic case of it in the very verse under discussion (3.20.26)?
Lord Brahma, approaching the Lord, addressed Him thus: My Lord, please protect me from these sinful demons, who were created by me under Your order. They are infuriated by an appetite for sex and have come to attack me.
The Sanskrit indicates that the men created by Brahma (tah imah) were approaching (upakramanti) him (mam) [brahma]) for sex (yabhitum). Three texts prior in verse 23 the Bhagavatam also discloses that they (te) approached (abhipedire) Brahma for copulation (maithunaya). The topic of these verses is clearly a case of persons of one sex (male) approaching another person of the same sex (male) for sex-there is no ambiguity here.
Secondly, how can the Moral Thesis say that the Bhagavatam does not explicitly describe homosexuality when we have a graphic case of it in the very verse under discussion (3.20.26)?
Lord Brahma, approaching the Lord, addressed Him thus: My Lord, please protect me from these sinful demons, who were created by me under Your order. They are infuriated by an appetite for sex and have come to attack me.
The Sanskrit indicates that the men created by Brahma (tah imah) were approaching (upakramanti) him (mam) [brahma]) for sex (yabhitum). Three texts prior in verse 23 the Bhagavatam also discloses that they (te) approached (abhipedire) Brahma for copulation (maithunaya). The topic of these verses is clearly a case of persons of one sex (male) approaching another person of the same sex (male) for sex-there is no ambiguity here.
In fact, considering the attempted homosexual encounter, Srila Prabhupada could
not have translated the verses more literally.
Thirdly, it is untrue that Srimad Bhagavatam does not explicitly proscribe
homosexuality. The word proscribe is defined: “To condemn or to prohibit.” In general the Srimad Bhagavatam condemns and prohibits sinful activity of all kinds. The persons involved in the attempted sinful act are termed “demons” (adevan) in verse 23 indicating the ungodly or those who oppose the demigods and Lord Visnu. Verse 26 refers to those persons as “sinful demons” (papah). How could the behavior of persons characterized as “demons” and “sinful demons” not be proscribed by the scripture in which such descriptions appear?
not have translated the verses more literally.
Thirdly, it is untrue that Srimad Bhagavatam does not explicitly proscribe
homosexuality. The word proscribe is defined: “To condemn or to prohibit.” In general the Srimad Bhagavatam condemns and prohibits sinful activity of all kinds. The persons involved in the attempted sinful act are termed “demons” (adevan) in verse 23 indicating the ungodly or those who oppose the demigods and Lord Visnu. Verse 26 refers to those persons as “sinful demons” (papah). How could the behavior of persons characterized as “demons” and “sinful demons” not be proscribed by the scripture in which such descriptions appear?
Demoniac behavior is most assuredly condemned in the Srimad Bhagavatam and other Vedic literature exemplified by the hordes of demons killed by the Lord Himself. In particular, the Bhagavatam is described as the very source of religious principles for the age of Kali.
krsne sva-dhamopagate
dharma-jnanadibhih saha
kalau nasta-drsam esa
puranarko ‘dhunoditah
This Bhagavata Purana is as brilliant as the sun, and it has arisen just after the departure of Lord Krsna to His own abode, accompanied by religion, knowledge, etc. Persons who have lost their vision due to the dense darkness of ignorance in the age of Kali shall get light from this Purana.
One of the expressed purposes of the Lord’s descent upon this material world is to annihilate the miscreants who do not care for Krsna consciousness. In the Bhagavad-gita the Supreme Lord eternally prohibits such demons by threatening to personally annihilate them (vinasaya ca duskrtam). If one argues that the Lord only personally appears to annihilate big demons and not the ordinary small sinful persons-it can be seen that the Lord also denounces such small sinful persons in the Bhagavad-gita:
He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination.(16.23)
PADA: Hmmm, so we have ISKCON's gurus, who discard the scriptures. And therefore they [and their misguided followers] cannot attain Krishna. So, how are they gurus?
Furthermore the Lord condemns such persons by casting (ksipami) them (dvisatah kruran) “into the ocean of material existence, into various demoniac species of life.”
PADA: Oh boy, here we go. They are gurus, and therefore they will be cast into various demoniac species. I forgot to ask, how are they gurus?
Aside from this, we find in the episode under discussion, sinful demons directly attacking Brahma, or Vidhi the father of all religious principles. What could be more condemned or proscribed?
PREMISE #2: Poor Sanskrit Scholarship or Homophobia
krsne sva-dhamopagate
dharma-jnanadibhih saha
kalau nasta-drsam esa
puranarko ‘dhunoditah
This Bhagavata Purana is as brilliant as the sun, and it has arisen just after the departure of Lord Krsna to His own abode, accompanied by religion, knowledge, etc. Persons who have lost their vision due to the dense darkness of ignorance in the age of Kali shall get light from this Purana.
One of the expressed purposes of the Lord’s descent upon this material world is to annihilate the miscreants who do not care for Krsna consciousness. In the Bhagavad-gita the Supreme Lord eternally prohibits such demons by threatening to personally annihilate them (vinasaya ca duskrtam). If one argues that the Lord only personally appears to annihilate big demons and not the ordinary small sinful persons-it can be seen that the Lord also denounces such small sinful persons in the Bhagavad-gita:
He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination.(16.23)
PADA: Hmmm, so we have ISKCON's gurus, who discard the scriptures. And therefore they [and their misguided followers] cannot attain Krishna. So, how are they gurus?
Furthermore the Lord condemns such persons by casting (ksipami) them (dvisatah kruran) “into the ocean of material existence, into various demoniac species of life.”
PADA: Oh boy, here we go. They are gurus, and therefore they will be cast into various demoniac species. I forgot to ask, how are they gurus?
Aside from this, we find in the episode under discussion, sinful demons directly attacking Brahma, or Vidhi the father of all religious principles. What could be more condemned or proscribed?
PREMISE #2: Poor Sanskrit Scholarship or Homophobia
The Moral Thesis:
“The story does not describe mutually consensual homosexuality, since Brahma
fled the lusty demons.”
By use of the term “mutually consensual homosexuality”, the Moral Thesis wishes to make a distinction between the demoniac homosexual and the attackers of Brahma and modern gay partners. The nature of the Brahma-attacking demons’ sexual attraction was confirmed above, now we will address the terms mutually consensual.
“The story does not describe mutually consensual homosexuality, since Brahma
fled the lusty demons.”
By use of the term “mutually consensual homosexuality”, the Moral Thesis wishes to make a distinction between the demoniac homosexual and the attackers of Brahma and modern gay partners. The nature of the Brahma-attacking demons’ sexual attraction was confirmed above, now we will address the terms mutually consensual.
The Moral Thesis contends that the demons attacking Brahma were wicked primarily because they attempted to force their lusty desires upon another unwilling person-whereas typical gay behavior taking place between willing adults cannot be considered to be in the same category.
Such guesswork is reminiscent of some dead so - called scholars who accused Bhaktivedanta publications of inconsummate Sanskrit scholarship arising from an overzealous preacher. How lamentable it is that “Vaisnavas” are joining the group of mundane scholars who oppose the pure devotee’s writings because, unbeknownst to them, the subject matter is transcendental to their understanding.
PADA: They are gurus, and therefore, they are joining with the mundane speculating scholars who are accusing the shastra of being false renderings of the sanskrit.
Moral Thesis:
“We must search the most important Vaishnava scriptures presented by Srila
Prabhupada, the Bhagavad-gita and the Srimad-bhagavatam, for specific, explicit, unambiguous scriptural statements about homosexuality. The result? There are none. Remarkably, neither the Gita nor the Bhagavatam gives a single explicit reference to mutually consensual homosexuality.”
“The story does not give any rule, injunction, or prohibition regarding homosexuality. Indeed the very word homosexuality does not appear in the Bhagavatam.”
“Since we do not find a specific, explicit, unambiguous set of rules for dealing with homosexuality, we must engage in spiritual reasoning about it.”
A good friend of mine wondered out loud whether to credit such ludicrous statements to poor research, inanity, intelligence stolen by illusion
(mayayapahrta-jnana) and / or an attempt to beguile. The very word zoo-philia
also does not appear in the Bhagavatam — does that mean sex with animals is
acceptable?
PADA: They are gurus, who make ludicrous statements, do poor research, have their intelligence stolen by illusion, and they are generally fools, and that is why they are equals to God! Who knew!
Lord Krishna states that He is sex life which does not violate religious principles (dharmaviruddho bhutesu kamo ‘smi). [bhagavad-gita 7.11] What constitutes religious principles with regard to sex indulgence is clearly enunciated throughout the Srimad Bhagavatam.
PADA: Right, and that is why Danavir's messiahs are found engaged in illicit sex with men, women and children, which is the highest religion principle in the universe. I mean, at the bottom of the universe, hee hee.
So, getting back to the claim that: “neither the Gita nor the Bhagavatam gives a single explicit reference to mutually consensual homosexuality,”-it must be soberly pointed out that indeed mutually consensual homosexuality is included in the multitudes of types of prohibited illicit sex indulgence because it falls outside of Srimad Bhagavatam’s accepted criterion for religious sex.
PADA: OK now we are arguing if homosexuality is prohibited illicit sex or not? And this is what acharyas have to debate on such topics nowadays?
Consensuality is by no means a saving grace for homosexuality according to
Vaisnava scripture.
PADA: But why would any acharya claim that consensual illicit sex is bona fide in the first place, whether homosexual, heterosexual or otherwise? That would make almost all illicit sex bona fide.
PADA: But why would any acharya claim that consensual illicit sex is bona fide in the first place, whether homosexual, heterosexual or otherwise? That would make almost all illicit sex bona fide.
Fortunately, we have His Divine Grace to clarify exactly what is meant by Bhagavatam stories so we don’t need to speculate and come to perverse
conclusions.
PADA: I forgot, the acharyas are coming up with perverse conclusions these days. The acharya speaks as Krishna dictates, and Krishna is dictating perverse nonsense.
conclusions.
PADA: I forgot, the acharyas are coming up with perverse conclusions these days. The acharya speaks as Krishna dictates, and Krishna is dictating perverse nonsense.
Similarly, according to scriptures (sastra caksus) the aggressive homosexual attack and the commonplace consensual homosexual relationships found today are both immoral and condemned. Devotional service encompasses the highest reason because it has been decided by superior authorities. When the founder-acarya has given his verdict on an issue, it is offensive to bring that same issue up to the open forum for debate.
PADA: But Danavir is allowed to say acharyas like Hrdayananda make bogus statements in a public forum? If the acharyas are speaking as Krishna dictates, and they are speaking nonsence, then Danavir is saying Krishna is a nonsense.
It is disturbing and unethical the way that the Moral Thesis disregards certain statements of Srila Prabhupada entirely and yet uses other statements out of context.
PADA: The acharyas are unethical, and quoting shastra out of context. Then why would anyone want to follow any of the acharyas?
The “easier rule” fallacy is definitely not a rule for Vaisnavas because it was not given by sastra, previous acaryas nor by Srila Prabhupada. The Moral Thesis fabricates an “easier rule” on the basis of its own concocted “lesser of the two evils” reasoning. Such a proposition is as foolish as the atheistic slogan yata mata tata patha-“all ways lead to the Truth.” We cannot manufacture our own way of understanding devotional service for it is not that everything one manufactures or concocts will lead to understanding God.
PADA: Yep, it gets worse, acharyas are foolish and atheistic.
“Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.” (18.66)
An ordinary person cannot invoke such indemnity by his would-be desire to
become a social reformer. For example, an ordinary soul should not recommend
casting aside Vedic morality for the sake of supposedly appeasing the minds
of those unable to follow standard religious principles.
PADA: An acharya is casting aside Vedic morality.
It may also be aptly questioned why the Moral Thesis includes episodes from Mahabharata to support its own purposes while privately considering the book corrupt. To make matters worse, the Thesis chooses to quote from a Sanskrit edition of the work produced by scholars who reject as spurious, certain portions of the Mahabharata such as the attempted disrobing of Draupadi. The Moral Thesis’s curving thread running through all these stories is that human reasoning surpasses dharma, scriptural injunctions, the words of the Supreme Lord and the spiritual master.
PADA: Oh so the acharyas are citing spurious commentaries, and worse, they are writing commentaries on ISKCON's books.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Dharma is not achieved by adharma. Inventing a so-called religious principle based on an insane society’s mores is like cleaning a wine-stained pot with Academian Wine. The process of trying to understand scriptures by use of logic and argument goes on unsuccessfully for millions of lifetimes-vedesu durlabham adurlabham atma-bhaktau.
Dharma is not achieved by adharma. Inventing a so-called religious principle based on an insane society’s mores is like cleaning a wine-stained pot with Academian Wine. The process of trying to understand scriptures by use of logic and argument goes on unsuccessfully for millions of lifetimes-vedesu durlabham adurlabham atma-bhaktau.
PADA: Sounds great. Let us follow an acharya who will lead us to millions of more lifetimes, including as insects and beasts, and in hell etc. in the material world. Where do I sign up? Why does Danavir think these people are gurus?
A similar phenomenon befell Western society at large when in the beginning of the 20th century Sigmund Freud introduced an atheistic, decadent paradigm of pseudo science and rhetoric. Hopefully, the Vaisnava community will stand
its ground against the “Moral Thesis” which ostensibly appears as a scholarly Vaisnava reassessment of preaching strategy.
its ground against the “Moral Thesis” which ostensibly appears as a scholarly Vaisnava reassessment of preaching strategy.
PADA: But how can an acharya make an atheistic, decadent paradigm of pseudo science?
ISKCON accepts its founder-acarya as a prominent mahajana and agrees to follow his conclusions without wrangling new interpretations to suit the current social trends-but the Moral Thesis dares to differ. Ignoring the founder-acarya’s explicit directives on the subject, the Moral Thesis produces four papers of twenty pages and displays them eagerly.
PADA: But why is the Danavir program still promoting Hrdayananda's writings anywhere if this is the case?
In Sri Isopanisad we learn that the culture of so-called knowledge is worse than
the culture of nescient activities and Canakya Pandita compares misused
education to a jewel on a serpent’s hood.
education to a jewel on a serpent’s hood.
PADA: Oh goody, he is an acharya -- who is like a serpent with a jewel on his head, with a poisonous bite. And that is because, he is equal to God in purity. See what they are doing?
The danger is that sometimes a student gains a little bit of learning and thinks himself qualified to dispute the real teacher. The result of this is that the student becomes a mouse again (punar musiko bhava).
PADA: But Hrdayananda has not been promoted as a student, but as Krishna's messiah?
PADA: But Hrdayananda has not been promoted as a student, but as Krishna's messiah?
Social reasoning may be popular with ordinary society but a devotee prefers to please the real acarya and Krsna. Those who wander off into the realm of mundane wrangling and speculation (mano dharma) forgetting the simplicity of
accepting the words of the spiritual master as one’s life and soul also lose
their status as advanced devotees.
PADA: Another thing I forgot, the acharya engages in mundane wrangling. And Danavir wants us to share this. OK, we are. ys pd
accepting the words of the spiritual master as one’s life and soul also lose
their status as advanced devotees.
PADA: Another thing I forgot, the acharya engages in mundane wrangling. And Danavir wants us to share this. OK, we are. ys pd
angel108b@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.