When I myself was a Gaudiya Vaishnava, I often thought that it is like two religions mixed together. You have Radha and Krishna, as the sources of all love and beauty – They are the highest goal, and when you reach Them, you will not have anything to fear or concern yourself, for you will be naturally Theirs, and They also will be naturally yours, and in this situation, all of you will enjoy the highest bliss and happiness. But on the other hand, there is a much more strict (and much more often exposed to) approach. You are an insignificant speck, who has to serve and eventually surrender, subjugating all your own desires and own goals, even own interests for the sake of the Absolute, Supreme Lord, Vishnu. (Here the relation is somehow becomes feudalistic, dependent, even the terminology is that of a power hierarchy; like a subject and a sovereign). These two conflicting approaches could alone form at least two different religion, but yet they still compressed together as one.

Have you ever asked yourself why should one become the servant (a subjugated one) of Vishnu, a Lord, in order to attain prema towards Radha and Krishna? Why should you be a Vaishnava, applying a Vishnu symbol on your body, subjecting yourself to so many rituals and rules?

Can you really love someone Who is so much over you; someone who requires so much servitude and dependence? Someone who is on a much higher position in a strict hierarchy? Or can this Someone really love you, that little speck under His feet?

Ever thought why so much threats in the Scriptures? (If you eat/do/say/avoid this and that, in this time and that place, and (don't) eat/do/say/avoid something/anything/everything other besides that, you will surely fall in the hellish realms and become a (insert unfavorable condition here) in your next lifetime(s).) Are that fearful and strict approach beneficial to develop spontane love to Radha-Krishna? If not, why should one still follow these injunctions?

These were the questions which always troubled my mind – and also troubled some of my fellow Vaishnavas, as I could hear that sometimes, from what they said/wrote. As I'm not a literalist, and I'm also a very materialistic person, I wasn't content with the standard sastric/traditional explanations I got. For this reason, I concocted a theory on what I read in mundane scientific papers and other places, and what I felt/thought/realized. And I will post it here, for it certainly uses some (if admittedly little) academic knowledge; it is also eclectic; and it has a chance to stir up some controversy . I reached the conclusion that Gaudiya Vaishnavism seems like two distinct religions, because it is indeed two, mixed together by the storms of history.

Why do (some) Vaishnavas worship Radha-Krishna?
The first people we know to be Vaishnavas were the Aryans – the Indo-European population of North India. Their origins is uncertain; Aryan Invasion/Immigration Theory teaches that they started from Afghanistan (although their original homeland wasn't there), through Kashmir, and they expanded to the south and east. Immigrationists believe that this happened in the time when Rigveda was written down.

From Rigveda, we know that firstly Aryans weren't particularly Vaishnavas in the beginning. They worshipped many distinct (demi)gods, amongst them Indra was the principal. While Vishnu is also frequently mentioned, doesn't seem to be near as prominent as Indra. The Vedas don't speak about Vishnu having distinct avataras; they also don't speak about Radha-Krishna. Vishnu seems to be connected with the sun. The worship of the (demi)gods was assciated with very strict rules and regulations, especially regarding purity (something surprisingly frequent in semi-tribal societies), and appeared as sacrifices.

Later – after the Rigveda, but well before the Mahabharata – there was a social and religious reform among the Aryans. The already existing caste system solidified, became rigid. In the same time, Indra was replaced by Vishnu (after some tryings with Brahma and Prajapati, as it seems from some hymns) in the post of god-in-charge. The worship of Vishnu became an exclusive right of brahmanas, and it associated with the same standards inherited from the sacrifices.

Before Indo-Europeans reached the area now known as Vraja, (well, if you accept the theory, as I do), the territory was populated by people whose own name we don't know. Although archeological researches show that the area was populated before the Aryan invasion, very few traces remained. Either they didn't know writing, or their writings were destroyed by later immigrants, together with their buildings and other remains. Rigveda calls them Abhiras; they are mentioned as people who raise cattle (or protect the cow, if you want ), and they were described as sinful, demonic people (this notion is present even in the Bhagavatam, where Abhiras are lumped together with kiratas, hunas, andhras, pulindas and other people, who despite being very fallen and devoid of any Aryan qualities, still can be brought to the path of devotional service by a bona fide spiritual master). Sri-Sri-Radha-Krishna-ganoddesa-dipika also associates the word Abhira with certain inhabitants of the Vraja area. (Note: These Abhiras are most certainly aren't the same as the later ones after the collapse of Maurya Empire.)

In my theory, Abhiras were the first who worshipped Radha-Krishna. Maybe they used other names for Them, which now can't be reconstructed – maybe Kana was their original term for Krishna. They didn't worship demigods; didn't sacrifice (at least not animals). Probably there was not a liturgical stratification (this is the term I use for the lack of better - I think of clergy and generally, people, who have greater "access" to God than non-clerics; like brahmanas in caste system), and from that they worshipped both Radha and Krishna, it seems that both genders enjoyed equal rights. They worshipped the Divine Couple without complex rituals and without fear.


How did Radha-Krishna worshippers became Vaishnavas?
And then, Aryans came – either as their invading forces rushed through the whole subcontinent, or just slowly expanding by the population growth, and then just reached Vraja. Aryans attacked – maybe for the cattle, maybe for the territory. They occupied the Vraja area, probably after a fierce fight. The attack happened long after the Rigveda was written down, but maybe before even Vishnu-worship gained prominence.

In the following times, surviving Abhiras were enlisted in the castes, and when Vishnu-worship became the main religion among Aryans, Krishna was merged with Vishnu. Probably that had something to do with the process known nowadays as „Sanskritization”: Abhiras wanted to integrate in the occupiers' society, so they began to cling to the rites and rules prescribed by the Aryan Brahmins – today some low-status sub-castes frequently do this, rising in caste rank by accepting stricter life rules. Merging of gods of the conqueror and the conquered also happened among Semitic tribes (especially Mesopotamians) and among the native tribes of Central and South America; moreover, the practice is also continuing now, when Native American tribal main gods get identified with certain saints of the Catholic Church (and this also happened in Europe, in the times of the Church expansion). This merger makes surrendering easier for the conquered, as it covers away the cultural differences. An other well-known Indian example for that phenomenon is Buddha. Maybe all the ten principal avataras (except Kalki?) were tribal gods previously, and became incorporated with Vishnu. Abhiras (and later Aryans as well) began to worship Krishna as Vishnu – and Krishna-worship became Vishnu-worship in its standards, rules and regulations. Interesting, that in Padma Purana, the person Radha worships and desires is called also sometimes Vishnu, as a synonym with Krishna:



The Aryan society was strictly patriarchal (as religions with strong purity prescriptions tend to be, just like Jews, Muslims, and some European Gypsyes) - Abhiras also became patriarchal, and the ideological base of today's ISKCON marriages was born. For the same reason, Radha's figure was heavily disenfranchised.. The philosophical and theological positions, which are accepted today by followers of Madhva and Ramanuja, exemplify the situation Radha-Krishna worship has fallen into. These two schools do accept Krishna, as one of the many forms of Vishnu, and worship Him with awe, reverence, rules and austerities. But Radha lacks the place worthy of Her – Madhvaites either don't believe Her existence whatsoever; or think that She is an apsarA. Nowhere do we found Radha as Krishna's equal – She is not of the same substance as Krishna; She is always just His female servant. While Her mind is always focused to Him, She is rarely an important thought in His mind. She is even defined by Krishna ("You know, She is the girl besides Krishna.") At the same times, histories of Abhira life before the Aryans, and stories about Radha and Krishna found their ways into holy scriptures of Aryans, and spread throughout India. But the original Radha-Krishna worship, with its joyful, peaceful, loving attitude, was destroyed by strictness of the tribal Vishnu religion.

Worshipping Lord Vishnu as a servant is an expression of *devotion* to Him. It is another type of rasa. In Sri Vaishnavism for example "surrendering" to Sriman Narayana is something beautiful- it is done by those who feel they have no other recourse to reach Lord Narayana (the object of their LOVE) other than if He uses His own strength to pull the suffering soul out of samsaara and put him or her at His feet. It is a love relationship. He does not need anything from His devotees, but to serve Him is the saranagatha's pleasure and bliss. (Think Hanumanji's bliss at the feet of Lord Rama)

Perhaps the rasa of "servitude" has been forced in some cases. But surrendering in this case means surrendering to Sri Hari (Narayana IS Krishna here), and to gentle teachers who want to guide the soul to the object of devotion with love and care. Not to just anybody!



Who says you have to? The servant wishes to sujugate himself in bliss to the feet of the Lord. If someone does not wish to do that, then that is just a difference in rasa.

I felt the same. On one hand love, acceptance, unconditional emotions, and on the other hand millions of extremely rigid and often illogical rules and regulations, and threats like "if you do this you go to hell, if you don't do this you go to hell". This was an antagonistic contradiction to me, personally. If we take out the raganuga part, it is a wonderful thing. But as I see, you cannot take it away, if you want that, all the other stuff comes with it.

Satyabhama, I don't attack your or others' devotion to Vishnu who is Krishna, and don't question the blissfullness and effect of your/their service. Nor Gaudiyism, nor other types of Vaisnavism are monolithic blocks of uniform followers. I just always felt that these two paths in that type of GV I practiced were somehow conflicting - and I also felt that the strictness and uptightness I mentioned was somehow associated with Vishnu, and the other to Radha-Krishna.

I'm not so sure on this. Just the border is in some other place than the distinction between vaidhi and raganuga.

Regarding the vidhi-enforcement, you could perhaps rather write on the influences of Judeo-Christian religions on the religious moods of ISKCON. Writing on Gaudiya Vaishnavism as a whole with experience of ISKCON alone, which with all due respect is rather isolated from the rest, including its mother-organization Gaudiya Matha, which again is a rather isolated cell in the body of the tradition, may not give the tradition a very fair treatment.

Otherwise, interesting seedlings of a theory there. What a pity that so little survives of the old cultures of India.

Speaking of illogical rules and the rest, care to demonstrate some? Perhaps in a separate thread in this section, so we can go over them? Many rules remain illogical if you miss the point they are there for.

I admit that I generalized a bit, when I treated Gaudiya Vaishnavism as a homogenic entity. Vaidhi enforcement -and many other things - certainly varies case to case. ISKCON is not the same as Gaudiya Matha, and Gaudiya Matha is not the same as you (Oh, the wonders of English language! I mean the plural "you", of course.), and even "you" are not all on the same philosophical background. Although I'm not sure that relying heavily on vaidhi is so special to ISKCON - is it so strange and particular compared to other Gaudiya denominations?

I didn't say that these rules are en bloc illogical - that was Openmind. In a certain logic, they are very much support each other. But I collect some to contemplate on - slowly, because I'm not so strong neither in English, neither in knowledge of the Scriptures.

On a second thought, here is something I read a time ago. I know the mechanics behind these questions, but it is a good example also to the things I wrote.

(Advaitadas answering Openmind's question on Deity worship)

Evidence for and against the Aryan invasion theory can be found at Wikipedia.

I personally agree that somehow more than one religion became mixed together here, however that may have happened. Such an origin is in fact common to many religions, if not all. My class in the Anthropology of Religion delved heavily into how religions are created and change over time. I am sure most adherents to any religious belief system would prefer to see only the Divine origin of their religion as told in their scriptures, but we see religions change significantly over time, around the world. Religion both reflects the culture it comes from and is affected in turn by cultural changes. For example, Christianity today, in all of its many branches, looks very little like early Christianity.

The sincere believer can either refuse to consider the evolution of their religion, or can simply see that however it came to be it serves their need for connection with their God or Goddess (or both).

Archaeology in India is a work in progress and someday we may know much more.

Thank you, Chanahari, for articulating this viewpoint, and in another language than your own, no less.

Hmm... I don't think Sriman Narayana's love is any more conditional than Radha and Krishna's. Ok, Lord Rama scares me a bit with His strict rules of dharma- but then again He has promised to protect *anyone* who seeks His shelter.

"If you don't do this you go to hell," is not the same as trying one's best to worship with discipline. I don't think the threat of hell is a good way to motivate people (at least not a healthy, loving one). I would certainly not equate lord Vishnu with this kind of thinking. I doubt He would approve of scare tactics being used to goad and prod His saranagathas into worshipping Him. If you "love" someone out of fear of what will happen if you don't, that is not at all love.

Though I appreciate the premises that Chanahari is trying to point out, I would say that to apply historical causes would be fallacious. It is true that different peoples have their own character and their mixing tends to result in hybrid civilizations. But to credit them uniquely to history is inadequate as an explanation. In fact, this leads to a kind of blame game--blame the Aryans, the Scythians, Muslims or the British, etc.

The fact is you can take almost any duality and say it is disrupted by a conquering people that is not exactly the same as the conquered one. And how could it be--the invaders are likely to have a marauding martial philosophy of life, self-confidence, superiority complex, etc., and a religion that reflects that. The conquered peoples are often settled, peaceful, agrarian, sedentary, etc., with a religion that reflects those values.

But except for extremely simple societies, any pluralistic society contains within it multiple value systems, and all great religions accomodate these multiple value systems to allow as much diversity in unity as the society can handle. Each culture has its own genius for finding such accomodation. Sometimes there are dualities that exist in constant tension--tensions that can be either creative or disruptive.

The argument you make is heard sometimes in relation to the Gita--that the Gita is a hodgepodge of conflicting ideas cobbled haphazardly together. It is a synthesis that does not withstand rational scrutiny, etc., etc. But they say the same of Christianity and its mixture of Jewish and Greek elements (but what about its Roman, Germanic, etc.), and you can do the same with almost any culture.

The distinction between mystics and priests seems to be the one that troubles you here. The fact is that this divide exists in almost every religion, and it's almost always the priests who win, and the mystics who are marginalized. And yet, without the mystics, who are the source of the religion's life and revitalization, the priests are soon helpless. And yet, if the priests were not their to hold the fort, the mystics would soon be lost. It's like those education systems where the students are all supposed to discover everything for themselves. They finish their education not knowing very much at all. And finally, many mystics end up coming out of the ranks of the priests.

So don't divide human nature too sharply and say that one half is good and valuable, the other not. This is your half-a-hen logic. We have to see that you need two (and maybe more) wings to fly.

I don't necessarily "blame the Aryans" with this theory - although I indeed feel sad that the (supposed) original form of that culture (in which I may project my own naive, idealistic desires) has changed so heavily. I find that what happened was a form of cultural evolution - the society of Abhiras, in order to survive, acclimatized to the "mainstream" of that age, while trying to conserve as much of their own as they could. They conformed to a priestly society and they survived, although they fared not too well in the previous stages of co-evolution - the centralized, better equipped, more quickly advancing people robbed them of their independence. Had they had better resources or better technologies, maybe they would have invaded the Aryan mainland (and I would now yearn for the heroic, warlike, patriarchal culture of the long destroyed Aryans )... or their supposed egalitarian religion would have been dissolved by the stratification of the society caused by their own economic advancement...

There are many other possibilities as well, which never occurred. That was just a consequence of the Darwinian law governing not only the distinct species, but human societies, cultures and religions as well. The same laws rendered Jainism or Zoroastrianism nearly extinct by now. The change of mystic/priest ratio is one of the most frequent evolutionary changes (I know, you are specialized in one of them - Kheturi), and generally, "priestliness" brings along more stability and order - and makes more people able to follow it, while "mysticism" seems to make joining easier, so it enhances the survival chance of the given religion. (Sorry for these invented words which I find out using the logic of my own agglutinative language - I just lack the words I want to say.)

It is true of course, that persons with a tendency to become fanatics of some cause may find such perspectives appealing as a cause to embrace and try to purge their religion from the alien ideologies which contaminated it - those are who make the "blame game." But I don't seek to purge Gaudiyaism from the Aryan influence.

Dear Chanahari,

There are a number of things that I like about what you're saying; or, let's say that I like your thought processes. One of the objectives about Gaudiya Discussions is to become a part of Gaudiya Vaishnava history by thinking freely about it.

As Westerners, we are ourselves undergoing a significant historical phase of Gaudiya Vaishnavism: we are adopting or have adopted a set of religious materials, which have, in effect, been grafted onto our Western psyches.

Fundamentally, we are not grafting the "reality" of Gaudiya Vaishnavism as much as we are its ideals; in other words, the intangible "ideal" vision of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. For, to the extent we are seekers, we are seeking that "ideal" Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Some of us are endowed with a faith that a suitable ideal can be found there--and indeed, one of my own talking points is that a successful universal religion tends to have a rich enough symbolic language that it can accomodate multiple personality types, i.e., who have varying ideals.

In that respect, Vaishnavism cannot be divorced from Hinduism as a whole because it [as a Hindu sect] tries to restrict personality types to some extent (through its emphasis on Radha and Krishna and madhura rasa), while accepting the fact that this is a taste that may not appeal to someone more attracted to Shiva or Shakti, for instance.

Nevertheless, all religions have their various intellectual and devotional streams. As our Western intellectual heritage flows into the Vaishnava bhakti heritage, something new is created. Each informs the other. We see parallels in Western theisms, psychological and philosophical systems that can inform and enrich our understanding of Bhakti and make it amenable to the [our own] Western mind. At the same time, our insights into the Deity, psychology, human society, etc., will be oriented by the fundamental meaning of our experiences with Bhakti.

My base point is this: A transformative experience took place known as conversion. This reoriented our brains around the Vaishnava symbol system and vocabulary, a meaning orientation. Everyone is different, and since there are many books in the Vaishnava library, and since the intensity of the experience (samskara) differs for everyone, with the result that different people will feel different degrees of implication in that personal synthesis. But just like Aryans and Abhiras (you got this from Bhandarkar? directly or indirectly?) engaged in some kind of synthetic process 2000 or more years ago, so are we today.

The thing is to analyze in yourself and your own religious experience for what is meaningful to you about Krishnaism, and see how far you can cultivate that in the context of the tradition as a whole. Engage intellectually with that aspect of the tradition, since that is the porition of it that you find meaningful. Accept the de facto situation that this symbolic language (i.e., that of Radha, Krishna and all the rest) has invaded your consciousness in some way, and that your mission in finding God [yasmin vijJAte sarvam eva vijJAtaM bhavati] lies on the path that they show you.

Jai Radhe!

I find this to be a very appealing presentation of how one can approach Gaudiya Vaisnavism in the Western world in the 21st century. But it could be said that this limits the practitioner to remaining at the "conversion" stage for ever.

Elsewhere (at http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.ph...ndpost&p=20291) Jagat has written



So how can these two approaches be reconciled, particularly in the context of diksa only being available through highly developed personalities grounded in the Indian cultural context?

With regard to understanding any tradition and adapting it. This all depends upon the individual's criteria. Ultimately everything gets filtered through our minds and the acceptance and/or rejection of certain things is based upon our applying that personal criteria. Naturally everyone thinks that their own approach is "right" at least for themselves, if not also for others.

As the post quoted from Jagat above mentions, there are basically two main approaches. (And of course this does not necessarily invalidate any other approaches)

1. Modern Scientific approach

2. Traditional Sastric (Literal) approach

These two approaches are seen by some as in conflict and by others they are reconciled to a certain extent.

The question has been asked before in this forum.

To what extent can Vaisnava philosophy and practice deviate from the traditional system and still considered valid?

Or perhaps I should not say "valid" because obviously everyone thinks that the way they follow is valid.

Perhaps the question should be what makes (Gaudiya) Vaisnavism, (Gaudiya) Vaisnavism? In other words what distinguishes it from other traditions.

Keshava

I think that my approach is based in a conviction that there is a core revelation in any symbol system that speaks to us. These symbols are at the center of a superstructure of rituals, theologies and mythologies that all comment on and interact with those symbols. We are connected to the core by the channel of grace, but though we may find ourselves guided by the various aspects of the superstructure, our real interaction is with God Himself, who is mediated by a small constellation of basic elements.

I hope I am not being obscure.

God is One. He appears to all humanity in different ways. Everyone is seeking God in some way, shape or form. Not everyone is called to a specific religious life such as the Vaishnava one. As such, though our Radha and Krishna, our Mahaprabhu, are like lightning rods attracting our minds when they look for God, there are other perspectives on the Deity that may inform (or challenge) our understanding.

So, what I am saying is that we must analyze ourselves and see where our core faith lies (or at least where the core faith-tension lies, i.e., where the emotional core of our religion lies). Our task is to follow the direction that leads us and to understand it as completely as we can, using the tools that we have at our disposition.

The main tool is, of course, sadhana, and this comes through the channel of grace. Without it, the other becomes mental speculation--like wheels turning in mud, there is no traction or forward movement.

I like what you both have said - Jagat and Keshav. I would like to add to Keshava's a 3rd approach (which I may be one of the few to represent) is the experiencial approach - what I mean by this is something that alot of people like to think they are doing - and God bless everyone of us! is to immerse oneself in a deep, authentic 24/7 practice for many, many years; hopefully in the company of greatly realized Saints of ones tradition. There is no replacement for direct realization. It is an inconcievable state of existential grace ones lives in all of the time - independent of outside circumstances. I know this sounds egotistical - especially comming from someone like me who has so little experience, but I feel I have to represent this side of Gaudia Vaishanavism as many people here represent the mental/philosiphical side - which is commendable. I know its hard to imagine what I am saying - most of us here have had mabe a few hours a day for 2-4 months at a time with great realized Sadhus while doing 24/7 practice, but it can be done and is worth setting ones life up to arrainge that type of life for one's self, even if one can only do it for 1 or 2 years. I am sorry for writting this - as I am sure to get all kinds of reproaches - but the main thing is that I wish everyone do their best in Bhajan Sadhana and attain the inconcievable compassion and grace of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Sri Radha-Krsna as a deeply living realization that softens our minds and hearts so that we feel joy most all the time. Sorry.

Sriman Mahaprabhu's policy is first of all taste the nectar of the Holy name and with your sanctified mind you see the same texts differently. Strong controversies usually take place in the academic/scholar way of thinking using their material/ dualistic minds to understand interrelations and conclude, Dvaraka is a fiction, Kuruksetra an analogy, the vedas made up by different fairytale writers. And for a material mind this is certainly full of logic and even backed up by so called scientific evidence.

In this age of Kali the path of jnana is very difficult and the Vedanta illustrates it this way (taken from Vol. III of Sri Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita, 24 August, 1882): A babu is lying in a room in the dark. Somebody gropes in the dark to reach him. His hand touches a couch and he says, '˜No, this is not he.'™ Then he touches the window. This too is not he. Then he touches the door and again says to himself, '˜No, not he.'™ '˜Not this, not this, not this.'™ At last his hand does touch the babu. Then he says, '˜That's it. He is the babu'™ - it means that he has realized that '˜the babu is'™. He has reached the babu but hasn't known him intimately.

Certainly not directly. Bhandarkar, as far as I know (which is not too much ), he used the word Abhira to one of the splinter state after the Maurya Empire collapsed. I saw this word used in a (not too scholarly) article on sulekha.com, where someone whose name I don't remember tried to give evidence that Hindus "adopted" Radha from them. I knew that the word Abhira is also used somewhere in the Rigveda (as a non-Aryan group), and in the Sri-Sri-Radha-Krsna-ganoddesa-dipika too, so I decided to use that name for the lack of a better. The word Aryan, I just use that as the abbreviation of "Indo-Iranian".



This is very similar to what I did so far. As I found out that in the core, I'm a staunch materialist, I just tried to abandon the whole thing altogether - and I found that I just can't abandon Radha and Krishna, for They don't want to abandon me. But I didn't know (and still not sure) how much can one go in "de-Hinduizing" the relation with Them. Like Keshava asked:





These questions - if, for the sake of exactness, we substitute the word "Vaishnavism" with "Radha-Krishna worship" (I know that these two are mostly used by us as synonyms*) - were exactly the same as I thought of. How much of our Westernness can we mix to the "ideal Gaudiya Vaishnavism in order not tu dilute it completely? Until the time I began to drift away from that variety of Gaudiyism I knew, I never thought that I'm a "Westerner" - I suppose that I didn't have anything to compare with. For me, the term "Westerner" meant cca. "one who hasn't other goal of life than consuming", and I didn't consider myself such a person. And then, after a relatively long time in ISKCON, I realized that I have a strong sense of individuality, "rationality" and... materialism - and I realized that the two first ones (and even the third) strongly characterize the European civilization. Only that in ISKCON, there wasn't a possibility to "merge" my Western identity with the ISKCONian one (in spite that ISKCON itself is very much a mix of the two cultures).

And how much Hinduism should we mix to it to get it work? Radha-Krishna Themselves, Their lilas, Their friends, kins etc. are meditated on and thought about endowed with the fullest Hindu imagery - even the caste identity of their companions are given in the sastras, although we know that castes are a result of historical processes; They worship the Hindu demigods in the lilas, so, at least in the Rupanuga version, one takes with Them much Hinduness (the things I would call Aryan heritage). How much should we here in the material world embrace Hinduism to get together with Them? Most of those who try to get to Radha-Krishna would suggest that (at least one) guru is needed; many of us would argue for the importance of manners and custom by which men and women interact; even fewer (but still existing percentage) of us would even suggest embracing varnashrama and what not.

Of course, we go towards the same goal; even we all (except Tapati ) call them most frequently as Radha and Krishna, but we see Them from strongly different angles, so we see Their qualities very differently. Maybe there are seeming differences even between, for example, your and Madhava's mental image of Radha-Krishna, but still these two images are very similar; both of them can be placed in one field called Gaudiya Vaishnava. I also saw Them, like the lightning rods in your example, but my starting point was different - I weren't in the same segment as you two. I feel that the Gaudiya Vaishnavism is a segment of an imaginary round around Radha-Krishna; maybe many of you feel that it is the name of the innermost round in the same round.

Why did Krishna give us the mind, if not for use it? Why did He built such a "trouble-making device" in us if it is so dangerous that it can make one a materialist - or why don't he turns it off, if someone tries to be a faithful devotee? I don't have an other type of mind, only that materialistic one, which is predisposed to think materially.

How can I see how my soul and mind differ? I can't see any difference. Where are my desires, where are my thoughts, and where are my wills - in my mind, or in my soul? If all these are in my mind, what else will remain of me, if I lose my material mind in becoming a pure devotee (maybe there is a chance ) ? If some of them (the material ones) are in my mind, and another ones (the spiritual ones) are in my soul - how can then it be, that I feel I use the same device regardless I think either of Radha and Krishna (sometimes it just happens ) or just a juicy speculation on some mundane academic work? What defines me, what makes me different from any other souls, if the soul is so similar in all living entities?

I chant or sing harinama since seven years - well, I don't have an initiation, so it maybe doesn't work for me at all; somehow, I don't have so much literal faith... Can you believe that the earth is a very very big flat round, comprised of seven coaxial islands? If so, harinama must have made a tremendous work on you.

You surely understood quite a few things so far, otherwise you wouldnt try to come to deeper understanding of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. May be you feel that there is something true about for example - there must be a soul in every living entity. Or that offering our food is a higher consciousness than eating without consideration. Spiritual life has so many aspects and it is the greatest gift when we have realized just a little and gradually like a sunrise we naturally understand more and more. We have a material mind because we need it to find a clever job to make our living and have more time for advancing spiritual life, otherwise the mind becomes realy a "trouble making device" and keeps us thinking we are materialists .....


Even in front the Indian parlament you find vegetables being sold - simple living, high thinking...

Sorry to disagree but I don't see the experiencial approach as a 3rd alternative. We all have lives filled with experiences however it is how we interpret and react to those expreriences that differs. One man's miracle or mystic experience is another man's everyday run-of-the-mill occurence.

So again I submit that all our experiences are filtered through the mind and colored by our conditioning and reasoning that basically take the form of judging things according to 2 approaches the Scientific and the Sastric. Of course there are an infinite number of shades of rationale from Extreme Atheistic Science to Extreme Sastric Literalism and everything inbetween.

As far as trying to re-invent the wheel and make up our own form of religion based loosely on traditional Vaisnavism there is no need to do this. If one finds that one's materialistic tendencies procludes one from Gaudiya Vaisnavism there are other forms of Vaisnavism out there that allow for and accept the role of all the purusarthas, including economic development and sense gratification, albeit in a regulated and sastric manner. Hedonism is not restricted to the Western countries nor is it a defining trait of Western civilization. There is no reason in my mind why the "prosperity" evangelism of the modern protestants cannot be adopted by Vaisnavas.

Also consider ISKCON as cult. A cult is inherently geared toward the benefit of the organization and to the detriment of the individual. Ostensibly such organizations are designed with the welfare of the individual members in mind, but that overriding principle of the organization coming first and foremost inevitably eradicates any such benefit. The net result: The individual who strives to achieve perfection by increasing their sAdhana is subsequently derided for such efforts and is either coerced into abandoning those efforts or is driven out of that tight knit and closed society. What is encouraged is all activities that feed the unquenchable thirst of the monster that has been created in the form of a cult. The doctrine of surrender and servitude is just a ploy to get cooperation out of the members. Even though that ideal is part of a mode of worship, it serves that ulterior motive perfectly nonetheless.

Although that outcome may not have been intended by most of the participants, it is still a fact of life. It happens in all sorts of organizations, not just relgious groups.

When I speak about materialism, I don't speak about hedonism or any other form of tendency to seek material enjoyment - although I don't have a problem with neither of them. For me, materialism is the philosophy that states the perceivable (=material) world is governed by knowable material causes, instead of living, personal beings. In that sense, I call myself a materialist.

So, a Vaisnava (a non-Gaudiya, of course, as Caitanya Mahaprabhu seemed to refuse the four purusharthas) can be a hedonist, but - because he is a Vaishnava, and he believes that the world is governed by Vishnu, he can't be a materialist in this philosophical sense..

Even the most orthodox follower of a belief system still practices his or her own religion. For whatever understanding one has, that is one's own understanding. Can one have that of another?

Practicing what one believes to be an authorized or sastric religion may increase faith in the correctness and validity of one's views, but it never terminates one's own understanding. Unless, perhaps, one becomes someone else.

-ek

I am going to say something that may sound radical to some. About 40 years ago, Harvey Cox came out with a book called "The Secular City." Some of the old-timers here may remember Cox's name, as he was one of the first theologians to take an interest in the Hare Krishna movement and speak of it somewhat favorably in a later book "The Seduction of the Spirit."

Cox was a important theologian in presenting the idea of secularization as a positive development for religion. The idea (which is entirely my paraphrase and not to be taken as authoritatively representing his ideas) is that modern society is fragmented and thus liberating, in the sense that it does not impose ideology from above. As such, people are free to seek their own truths and create voluntary associations of like-minded people. So, though society as a whole may operate with certain basic principles and ideologies, inasmuch as a belief in personal rights and freedoms is an ideology, it does not militate against belief systems, as long as they are not destructive to the collectivity.

In a sense, this is closer to the Hindu model of religion and society, where society operates by one set of rules and religion another, meeting only in the place where they mutually confirm each other. One has to render to Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's.

What I am getting at here, though, is that Cox's idea leads to a kind of psychologization of religion that is basic to Hinduism. In other words, the idea of voluntarily accepting a world view as a way of finding meaning and human intimacy.

I have been saying lately that all of us are not a single person, but a collection of multiple personalities, which we manifest according to our circumstances--in the work place, with our wives, with our same-sex friends, etc. Each of these roles is accompanied by a certain fantasy world, partly created by other's impressions or projections and partly by something emanating out of our core.

Degrees of intimacy with others come from the ability to share the psychic world of our core self, which in my opinion is the Self-in-relation-to God. Why? Because God represents Ultimate Meaning. A religious association is one that shares rituals, intellectual acitivity, etc., revolving around a common sense of the Ultimate Meaning.

What "the secular city" does is frees us from the necessity of universalizing or imposing our belief system, or even having the illusion that we one day shall be able to. We can freely say, "We believe such and such and you don't have to." Society represents a kind of objective reality, where wider-held common ideals are shared. Some of these reflect what is in our core, but often do not. In a free society, they at least do not interfere with or impose on the culture of the core identity.

The fear is, of course, that one becomes indifferent to the greater collectivity, but it is my feeling that this fear is somewhat unfounded, at least in the case of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, because compassion to all creatures, etc., are traits that are built in to its core ideals, and so form a part of its culture.

Since Gaudiya Vaishnavism is a culture of love, which matures in the company of the like-minded, it is inevitable that this love should percolate out from that center. Or rather, should form a subsidiary culture within the complex. Thus, values like non-violence, etc., which are shared with other subcultures, can mature into universal values held by society in general.

What is radical about the above is its subjectivity. The idea that we can actively choose a vision of God (or, perhaps more correctly say we are inspired from within by God Himself to choose) that is aesthetically as well as intellectually satisfying. It is almost Kierkegaardian or existential--I choose to give my life meaning by adopting this concept of God.

And, of course, this concept is also one that is in constant evolution, and that is something that we need not be afraid of. Our tradition gives us the basic insight, but in the dialectic with history and the world around us, this insight grows.

God is infinite, I am a blind man touching the outside of an elephant. How can I know God, or reality, or the creation, or even the most miinute part of this creation? But somehow, within this infinity, I must find a vision that gives harmony and meaning to my own existence. That God sits in my heart, the core of my being--the God who has come down from elephant size to heart size, or to human size, to orient my being towards love.