sheer stupidity, bizarre GV beliefs Options

[Maryada]

Perhaps I've missed something... Maybe I just don't get it?

Kali, you apparently did miss something. Here's a summary:

I posted a list of funny stuff (#110) that fits this topic: "sheer stupidity, bizarre GV beliefs."

Gerard felt it necessary to basically categorize a broad group of us as stupid. I've tried to explain why I don't see myself as such, after which he felt I was still supposed to feel a least a bit stupid.

I tried to defuse the matter somewhat in #125 and I think that it at least that put the "stupid" stuff to rest.

I think we've honestly addressed his questions about why we don't think esoteric/mystic/whatever interpretations of scripture are any better than literal interpretations.

I am trying hard to understand how Gerard's postings here, concerning the meaning of esotericism and his explorations into Steiner's Bhagavatam interpretations, have become the focus of such incredulity and marginalization by so many.

It hasn't. He brought that up for the first time in #141, which I answer with my opinion (uhm, am I entitled to one?). The only other person addressing that directly is Dhyana in #147, which Gerard ignored.

That's 2 texts on the Steiner thing, Kali.

The rest is nitpicking on dictionary meanings about esoteric approaches in general, which had already been addressed earlier.

Please let's not turn this into a gang-up, because it's not. Gerard hands out as well as he receives.

[Dhyana]

He brought that up for the first time in #141, which I answer with my opinion (uhm, am I entitled to one?). The only other person addressing that directly is Dhyana in #147, which Gerard ignored.

I cannot be sure, since he doesn't quote me, but I think that Gerard's short text further below was his response to mine (immediately below).

(Dhyana)

I have read your text again and again, and I still cannot sort it out: is your above presentation ("the second way") something you are bringing up as an example of an esoteric perspective, or is it something you yourself regard as possibly true?
I am sorry, it is very hard for me to imagine what it would take to believe something like this. I don't know what to say.

(Gerard)

I don't know anything either, I was just spitballing here. Sorry to have wasted your time.

Kalisurfer,

I think I understand how this entire discussion reads to you. But can we prevent situations where one person expresses a view that several others question? Everybody has responsibility for keeping their own texts civil, decent and to the point, that should be enough.

[Gerard]

What I have gathered from this discussion is

1) there are HKs who did take a look into possible other interpretations of for instance the Bhagavatam other than the literal, although I have never noticed that, and

2) those HKs are not interested in what they found. And that was news to me.


So that seems the end of that discussion and this thread can return - after my hijacking - to its original theme of mocking sacred books.


Thanks for your post, Kali, you're a pal.

Dhyana, you read me right.

Maryada, yes, I hand out as I receive, I think, I hope anyway... I try, what more can I do?

[Homer]

So that seems the end of that discussion and this thread can return - after my hijacking - to its original theme of mocking sacred books.

I have no doubt that there are hidden truths to be found among the cultural meanderings in sacred books. For myself, the declaration of a book as being sacred is a red flag that makes me curious how this evaluation was arrived at. Where does one draw the line between sacred books and books that exist in order to assure a race of people that they are superior to all the other peoples in the entire three universes and everything in between? From the Talmud to the Bhagavatam the story is remarkably similar and equally reprehensible, in my eyes. Of course, that does not necessarily imply that there is no truth to be found within these weighty tomes. I have noticed that 'truth' has a way of finding me rather than me finding it.

[Homer]

Let's make this completely clear...

Homer, how unimaginative...

Wasn't it clear that I have redefined spitballing into something mysterious? After all, the word spitballing consist of two words, "spitba" and "lling." What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is spitballing.

I'm not the only one with deep thoughts like this.

The odd thing about the definitions I posted is that the literal meaning of spitballing has been excluded. Spitballing is when a baseball player, usually the pitcher, hocks a lugy and deposits it onto a baseball which causes the ball to fly erratically and unpredictably in order to disadvantage one's opponent.

[Kalisurfer]

Kali, you apparently did miss something. Here's a summary:

I posted a list of funny stuff (#110) that fits this topic: "sheer stupidity, bizarre GV beliefs."

Gerard felt it necessary to basically categorize a broad group of us as stupid. I've tried to explain why I don't see myself as such, after which he felt I was still supposed to feel a least a bit stupid.

I tried to defuse the matter somewhat in #125 and I think that it at least that put the "stupid" stuff to rest.

I think we've honestly addressed his questions about why we don't think esoteric/mystic/whatever interpretations of scripture are any better than literal interpretations.

Thanks for the summary of the discussion Maryada, concerning the esoteric versus literal interpretations of scripture and all the other various roads it all took with Gerard and others here, going back to post #110. I realize that Gerard's statement concerning anyone here being categorized as stupid is challenging and was ripe for a strong response. I am not taking sides in the argument's content, for it was a great discussion, just how it seemed to eventually evolved into laughing off a minority viewpoint.

I loved how you ended post #125, it's a description that very much defines my own personal realizations and perceptions; "In the end the only thing we can count on for sure is our own perception of the world we live in and its associated realizations. They may not always be right, but at least they can be corrected and adjusted to our own ongoing growth. Institutionalized spirituality is regressive and stagnating, while a personal, realization-driven (even scientific) approach is progressive. Some even take it so far as to state that any form of spirituality is a waste of time. To each their own, for individuals is all we are. It is what sets us free. Volatante te salutant!"

Kalisurfer-
I am trying hard to understand how Gerard's postings here, concerning the meaning of esotericism and his explorations into Steiner's Bhagavatam interpretations, have become the focus of such incredulity and marginalization by so many.

Maryada-
It hasn't. He brought that up for the first time in #141, which I answer with my opinion (uhm, am I entitled to one?). The only other person addressing that directly is Dhyana in #147, which Gerard ignored.

That's 2 texts on the Steiner thing, Kali.

The rest is nitpicking on dictionary meanings about esoteric approaches in general, which had already been addressed earlier.

Please let's not turn this into a gang-up, because it's not. Gerard hands out as well as he receives.

I never questioned your entitlement to have an opinion Maryada, for of course you are. I was not just referring to Gerard's two posting about Steiner Bhagavatam interpretations, but his overall viewpoint that includes the non-literal esoteric understanding of GV scriptures and theology that seemed to be up for deconstruction and eventual humorous marginalization ... something I was questioning and trying to understand.

I was not trying to redefine the discussion and turn it into gang-up scenario, for that would imply that I knew better and was trying to change (turn) the direction or accuse people unfairly or wrongly, for I was just questioning the direction it was taking and asking for clarification if possible.

It was unusual to see one long termed member being put on the spot like Gerard was, I mean it has happened in the past with devotee preachers who came here to save the fallen or with fake or untruthful members who eventually exposed their agenda and were outed and dealt with by members. We have a small active membership here, so those who post regularly seem to know each other well, and to disagree and debate is great, its the possible laughing at another's belief and worldview that bothers me, for humorously marginalizing someone with minority viewpoints can be devastating in some cases, not that it was here, but to see this possibly happening to someone who is a long standing member stirred my reaction and questions.

Thanks for helping me clarify things concerning where the discussion was possibly going.

[Maryada]

The odd thing about the definitions I posted is that the literal meaning of spitballing has been excluded.

When first used here, I took it in the sense of "aggravating for no particular purpose other than to elicit a reaction," like is done by those who shoot spit balls at others in a juvinile class room setting.

I had hoped my re-entry here after all these years to be a bit smoother.

Oh well. Lessons learned.

[Homer]

" like is done by those who shoot spit balls at others in a juvinile class room setting.

Those are technically spitwads. To make a proper spitwad you take a bit of paper and chew it like a cud until it becomes a slimy mass. This is either shot through a straw or flung using an improvised catapult.

Don't worry about smooth re-entries. The best re-entries are the ones that are not boring. Although, we need to avoid emulating the space shuttle Columbia.

[Kalisurfer]

Kalisurfer,

I think I understand how this entire discussion reads to you. But can we prevent situations where one person expresses a view that several others question? Everybody has responsibility for keeping their own texts civil, decent and to the point, that should be enough.

Dhyana, I don't question any expression of viewpoints being stated here, be it the majority agreeing or disagreeing with a minority, even if that minority is one person. I just get a little queasy when the disagreement turns into possibly laughing at the minority viewpoint, a powerful way to marginalize an idea or belief.

This may reflect the changing nature of the membership here, perhaps we now have a majority that not takes a more rational scientific view of spiritual belief systems versus those who are still open to mystical, esoteric point of views. It's natural for us here to deconstruct Gaudiya Vaisnavism and be critical of it due to our shared past, but does this mean that everyone will take the same approach and understandings toward all faith, spiritual or mystical systems and approaches? I think there are still enough differing individuals here to agree on many things as well as disagree, but there we find the many against one. Having disagreements is actually what makes a forum hum and be interesting, a great way to learn things. We well may have too few minority antagonist viewpoints here, so in a way, Gerard was playing that role in disagreeing with some of the statements that recounted the sheer stupidity of many GV beliefs and practices that looking back, can be very surreal in nature.

I like the idea that we are all responsible for our own texts being civil, and I think everyone here does a great job of doing that overall. Like I described to Maryada before this post, I was just concerned that there was a possibility of humorous marginalization, not that I was accusing anyone of that, just questioning the possibility of it and was seeking clarification for my own peace of mind and for the possibility of how it may be effecting a friend.

I would do the same for anyone here was taking a rational scientific view that I perceived as was being marginalized through humor by spiritual esotericists, so it must be something in my nature to do such things, always being sensitive to minority viewpoints that may not be so accepted or considered viable by the majority.

[Brainiac]

It's been rightly said that we are a relatively small community who know each other and who get along reasonably well, and I think we'd all step in to calm things down if it was really a gang-up scenario. Perhaps it just looks like that because Gerard is the only one putting forward his views and other participants mainly disagree with it and question it.

To be honest I was really looking forward to the great discussion that this could have been, probably starting with a response to the points raised in #142 and #147. Presumably Gerard believes in the veracity of the 'descending process' so it seems reasonable to expect that he might be interested in defending that position or at least provide reasons for why that position is believable and/or should be taken seriously enough as an 'alternative' explanation. Even though I'm being frank about my own position of not giving much credit to scriptural matters at all, I'm curious and interested to hear how symbolic/metaphorical interpretations of the Bhagavat would improve upon and provide more insight than a literal approach. Or at least, how people who prefer the symbolic/metaphorical approach gain more insight from such texts.

I'm not so familiar with Steiner, so if these views are drawn from Steiner then it might be good to provide a little introduction into his views as well?

[zanardi]

I'm curious and interested to hear how symbolic/metaphorical interpretations of the Bhagavat would improve upon and provide more insight than a literal approach. Or at least, how people who prefer the symbolic/metaphorical approach gain more insight from such texts.

A friend of mine once explained what Bhaktivinoda Thakuras approach to this subject was. At first the symbolic/metaphorical explanation was to be used, in order to make it more digestable to the intelligent people. Once they had increased their faith enough, they could go to the literal approach. Thus the wise scholar explained.

The question was, how should one do that? "Ha haa, finally you are able to understand things correctly, because the faith is there!" "Now we do not have to trick you anymore, your faith allows you to take the hard core stuff and thus understand things properly".

So if that is possible, I suppose it can go the other way round too.

[Gerard]

Presumably Gerard believes in the veracity of the 'descending process' so it seems reasonable to expect that he might be interested in defending that position or at least provide reasons for why that position is believable and/or should be taken seriously enough as an 'alternative' explanation.

I just like to explore different views, that doesn't mean I believe in them. Besides I don't like to defend a position in an environment that is obviously not interested in the subject & I don't like to become a study object myself.



But anyway, as quoted in post #141, I said:

"The first way is the evolution theory as an ascending process: Big Bang – expansion and later condensation of matter – forming of stars and planets – primeval soup – lighting and other coincidental factors – amino acids – proteins – unicellar life - amoebe – monkeys – human beings.
That's Darwin and that's what most people believe. So do I with one difference. I replace the coincidental factors with Bhagavan and His little helpers, the devas & devis to oversee all those processes (and perhaps are those processes)."

So at the moment I am with the ascending people not the descending. And as such a variation on a (non-christian) Intelligent Design theme.


For a good overview of the descending line I can recommend, if you can get it, Mario Schoenmaker, A Short Occult History of the World, which is close to Steiner's worldview. Only 100 pages or so.

[Brainiac]

So I was flicking through the Nectar of Devotion for some inspiration and I came across this:

In the Varāha Purāṇa there is a statement praising the seeing of the Deity of Śrī Kṛṣṇa in the temple. A devotee says there, "My dear Vasundharā, any person who goes to Vṛndāvana and sees the Deity of Govindadeva is free from the courthouse of Yamarāja and is allowed to enter into the highest planetary system, in which reside the demigods." This means that even an ordinary person who goes to Vṛndāvana out of inquisitiveness and by chance sees the temple, especially that of Govindadeva, even if he is not elevated to the spiritual kingdom, is still assured promotion to the higher planetary systems. This means that simply by visiting the Deity of Govinda in Vṛndāvana one becomes highly elevated in pious life.

Yes, well, all it shows is that this Varaha Purana is less than 500 years old if it describes a temple and deity installed by Rupa Gosvami in Vrindavan.

[Dhyana]

Good catch!!

[ePiTau]

So I was flicking through the Nectar of Devotion for some inspiration and I came across this:

In the Varāha Purāṇa there is a statement praising the seeing of the Deity of Śrī Kṛṣṇa in the temple. A devotee says there, "My dear Vasundharā, any person who goes to Vṛndāvana and sees the Deity of Govindadeva is free from the courthouse of Yamarāja and is allowed to enter into the highest planetary system, in which reside the demigods." This means that even an ordinary person who goes to Vṛndāvana out of inquisitiveness and by chance sees the temple, especially that of Govindadeva, even if he is not elevated to the spiritual kingdom, is still assured promotion to the higher planetary systems. This means that simply by visiting the Deity of Govinda in Vṛndāvana one becomes highly elevated in pious life.

Yes, well, all it shows is that this Varaha Purana is less than 500 years old if it describes a temple and deity installed by Rupa Gosvami in Vrindavan.

Hahaha, Varāha-Purāṇa! Such a handsome scripture, and of course the attractive amphibious beast after which it was named:

 thepig01.jpg ( 188.73K ) Number of downloads: 0

I have a couple of those in my possession. The verse is really there. I first looked it up in the printed Sanskrit text of the Bhaktirasamrta-Sindhu, where I found it at 1.2.166:

vṛndāvane tu govindaṃ ye paśyanti vasundhare /
na te yamapuraṃ yānti yānti punyakṛtāṃ gatim //

I was sure the old Prabhu De wasn't capable of faking scriptures. Fallen as he might have been, he didn't stoop as low as Madhvacarya and Bhaktivinode, who faked scriptures and quoted their own forgeries as coming from known sources.

The Varāha-Purāṇa has a Mathurāmāhātmya, and that is where this verse is found.
In my edition it is chapter 153 mathurā-tīrtha-māhātmya, verse 40.
It is very slightly-minutely different from the printed BRS version:

vṛndāvane ca govindaṃ ye paśyanti vasundhare |
na te yamapure yānti yānti punyakṛtāṃ gatim ||

Some more Puranic pics for the connoisseurs:

 thepig03.jpg ( 269.03K ) Number of downloads: 1
 thepig04.jpg ( 305.69K ) Number of downloads: 1

[Brainiac]

Such a handsome scripture, and of course the attractive amphibious beast after which it was named:

Did you ever come across a BTG article entitled "The Beauty of Lord Boar" or something? I thought that was funny, a whole article about how difficult it was to abide by SP's instruction to paint a boar as 'beautiful'.

I was sure the old Prabhu De wasn't capable of faking scriptures. Fallen as he might have been, he didn't stoop as low as Madhvacarya and Bhaktivinode, who faked scriptures and quoted their own forgeries as coming from known sources. The Varāha-Purāṇa has a Mathurāmāhātmya, and that is where this verse is found.

The author and text of Varaha Purana/Mathuramahatmya was then likely known to Rupa Goswami? It must be, for him to "quote" a verse from it in his BRS. Maybe they even worked on their books together.

[Brainiac]

(Something I found)

Sectarian Intolerance within Hinduism

Shaivites and Vaishnavites are the two major sects under the umbrella name 'Hinduism', takinng Shiva and Vishnu respectively as the chief objects of their worship. Srimad Bhagvata Purana is a Vaishnava scripture. Concerning Shiva Bhaktas (devotees) it says,

भवव्रतधरा ये च ये च तान् समनुव्रताः

पाखंडिनस्ते भवन्तु सच्छास्त्रपरिपन्थि

मुमुक्षवो घोररूपान् हित्वा भूतपतीनथ ,

नारायणकलाः शान्ताः भजन्तीत्यनसूयवः

"One who takes a vow to satisfy Shiva or who follows such principles will certainly become an atheist and be diverted from transcendental scriptural injunctions. Those who vow to worship Shiva are so foolish that they imitate him by keeping long hair on their heads. When initiated into worship of Lord Śiva, they prefer to live on wine, flesh and other such things." [Bhagvatapuran 4/2/28-29]

On the other hand the Shaivite scripture Saur purana has this response to give to the Vaishnavites

चतुर्दशविद्यासु गीयते चन्द्रशेखरः

तेन तुल्यो यदा विष्णुः ब्रह्मा वा यदि गद्यते

षष्टिवर्षसहस्राणि विष्ठायां जायते कृमिः

"Fourteen sciences sing the praises of Shiva. A person who puts Brahma or Vishnu on an equal level to Shiva, it incurs him a grievous sin on account of which he will suffer for 60,000 years as an insect." [Saur Puran 40/15,17]

Continuing the tirade, Padma Puran says,

तस्माद् विष्णोः प्रसादो वै सेवितव्यो द्विजन्मना,

इतरेषां देवानां निमल्यिं गर्हितं भवेत् .

सकृदेव हि योsश्नाति ब्राह्मणो ज्ञानदुर्बलः

निर्मल्यिं शंकरा दीनां स चांडालो भवेद ध्रुवं

"Dwijas (Brahmin, Khatriya, Vaishya) should only eat the Prasad offered to Vishnu, not of any other deity. If any foolish Brahmin, even once, will consume the prasad of Shiva, it is certain that he will be born as a Chandal (outcaste)."

विष्णुदर्शनमात्रेण शिवद्रोहः प्रजायते ,

शिवद्रोहान्न संदेहो नरकं याति दांरूणम्

Even having a glimpse of Vishnu, is tantamount to being a traitor to Shiva and such a person will be cast into hell.

[ras]

(Something I found)

Sectarian Intolerance within Hinduism

Shaivites and Vaishnavites are the two major sects under the umbrella name 'Hinduism', takinng Shiva and Vishnu respectively as the chief objects of their worship. Srimad Bhagvata Purana is a Vaishnava scripture. Concerning Shiva Bhaktas (devotees) it says,

भवव्रतधरा ये च ये च तान् समनुव्रताः

पाखंडिनस्ते भवन्तु सच्छास्त्रपरिपन्थि

मुमुक्षवो घोररूपान् हित्वा भूतपतीनथ ,

नारायणकलाः शान्ताः भजन्तीत्यनसूयवः

"One who takes a vow to satisfy Shiva or who follows such principles will certainly become an atheist and be diverted from transcendental scriptural injunctions. Those who vow to worship Shiva are so foolish that they imitate him by keeping long hair on their heads. When initiated into worship of Lord Śiva, they prefer to live on wine, flesh and other such things." [Bhagvatapuran 4/2/28-29]

On the other hand the Shaivite scripture Saur purana has this response to give to the Vaishnavites

चतुर्दशविद्यासु गीयते चन्द्रशेखरः

तेन तुल्यो यदा विष्णुः ब्रह्मा वा यदि गद्यते

षष्टिवर्षसहस्राणि विष्ठायां जायते कृमिः

"Fourteen sciences sing the praises of Shiva. A person who puts Brahma or Vishnu on an equal level to Shiva, it incurs him a grievous sin on account of which he will suffer for 60,000 years as an insect." [Saur Puran 40/15,17]

Continuing the tirade, Padma Puran says,

तस्माद् विष्णोः प्रसादो वै सेवितव्यो द्विजन्मना,

इतरेषां देवानां निमल्यिं गर्हितं भवेत् .

सकृदेव हि योsश्नाति ब्राह्मणो ज्ञानदुर्बलः

निर्मल्यिं शंकरा दीनां स चांडालो भवेद ध्रुवं

"Dwijas (Brahmin, Khatriya, Vaishya) should only eat the Prasad offered to Vishnu, not of any other deity. If any foolish Brahmin, even once, will consume the prasad of Shiva, it is certain that he will be born as a Chandal (outcaste)."

विष्णुदर्शनमात्रेण शिवद्रोहः प्रजायते ,

शिवद्रोहान्न संदेहो नरकं याति दांरूणम्

Even having a glimpse of Vishnu, is tantamount to being a traitor to Shiva and such a person will be cast into hell.

These warnings are just the poison that comes from churning the ocean in beginning stages.

After more churning in the intermediate stage there is nectar. But the highest stage is when you mix the nectar and poison together and churn them to get fine cocktails. Those delectable treats can only be found in the Brahmavaivarta Mahapuranum..

Lord Krsna said, "O Siva, the best of the intellectuals, you serve me regularly during day and night, for a hundred crores of kalpas. O lord of the gods, you are the best of the ascetics, siddhas, yogis, intellects, Vaisnavas and the gods.

Overcoming death you became eternal. Therefore with my boon you achieve all the siddhis, knowledge of the four Vedas and the knowledge of all the four worlds, with the boon granted by one you would be able to witness the fall of innumerable Brahmas. O Siva, from today itself, you shall possess the intellect, glory, age, prowess, valour and strength like me, because you are dearer to me than my life even and there is no other person more devoted to me than you.

You are greater than my soul even. No one else is dearer to me than you. The sinners, foolish and unenlightened people who denounce you, they suffer in terrific hell till the sun and the moon last. O Siva, you will achieve Prakrti after the lapse of a hundred crores of years.

By repeating the name of Mahadeva thrice or the one who recites his name, all his misfortunes vanish.

The one who breathes our repeating the name of Siva, he is relieved of all the sins accumulated for the last several births and achieves salvation..."

[ras]

As a neophyte, I am just beginning to appreciate higher stages (though I prefer scotch with plain soda)..

[Lord Krsna continued;] "The word Siva denotes welfare and welfare leads to salvation. By reciting the name of Siva, one achieves welfare or salvation. This is the reason why Mahadeva has been given the name of Siva.

The word Siva consists of two letters which means the destroyer of sins and which means the one who bestows salvation. This is the reason why Siva is called the bestower of welfare and salvation. Those who always recite the name of Siva, are deprived of all the sins earned by them in the crores of births."

Lord Krsna, thus speaking to Siva, the holder of Sula, bestowed on him the hymn of Mrtyunjaya (the one that overpowers death) which was like the wish fulfilling tree. He then spoke to Prakrti, Durga who rides the lion. -Brahmavaivarta Mahapuranam, Brahma-Khanda, Chapter 6

[zanardi]

Just remember not to eat anything offered to him, or else.....