Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

"If a person is abused by a priest, is that cause for loss of faith?"

For some it may. See my reply to manasi.

One has to have the faith in the first place in order to lose it.
Two main reasons are papa and aparadha. Theyre preceded by asat sanga.

Earlier I posted this: http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/library/Lauri_Davi.zip

Try asking a real person who has been abused you might then get a real answer not some technical shastra version by a person who knows nothing of the real experience.

You might even send an email to the author of "My Karma My Fault" by Daniel Lutz.

I believe he is available via email, it would be interesting to get a real perspective by someone who is now a self proclaimed atheist.

We all have this real and factual experience. The fact is we all lost faith or experienced some challenges. And it is how we reacted to these challenges that actually builds or destroys our faith. ye yatha mam prapadyante tams tathaiva bhajamy aham: "Whoever surrenders unto Me, proportionately I take care of him." This "proportion" is how you react to things that happen to you, but one important thing to note, is that we have faith in the process of bhakti and that it is sufficient for a perfection. We do not have faith in religious institutions, in other people who practice bhakti, in existence of God. All these things have nothing to do with sraddha proper. It is how we react to these things in the terms of angas of bhakti that makes it relevant, but really the definition of sraddha, or faith, is given in Caitanya-caritamrta (Madhya 22.62):sraddha-sabde-visvasa kahe -- confident, firm faith, favorable to the discharge of devotional service, is called "sraddha" -- that by rendering transcendental loving service to Krsna, one automatically performs all subsidiary activities. Of course there are different kinds of sub-sraddhas, like firm faith in all and every Vedic text, but we do not follow those if they are in a conflict with bhakti-rasa or bhakti-marga. In other words we should accept favourable faith in the process of devotional service and reject any kind of faith that is unfavourable, even if others put all faith in those things. Madhvacarya makes this point based on Brahmanda Purana in his comment to SB 11.3.97 Sraddha devi is a personification of Radharani, who is ultimate bhakti personified. You can get the faith from Her or her empowered representative or a practising devotee who has it, even if you "lost" it.

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]"If a person is abused by a priest, is that cause for loss of faith?"[br]

For some it may. See my reply to manasi.[br]

One has to have the faith in the first place in order to lose it.[br]
Two main reasons are papa and aparadha. Theyre preceded by asat sanga.[/quote]

How does such an explanation of loss of faith fit in with[br]
BG 2.40: "In this endeavor there is no loss or diminution, and a little advancement on this path can protect one from the most dangerous type of fear." -?
[br][br]
And also: Abuse is a material phenomenon; and material phenomena cannot affect the spiritual.[br]
Earlier, I posted a thread on whether turning to God under durress is an act of free will or not (and as such, whether it counts or not), and there we agreed that this durress does not affect ones turning to God, even though it might superficially seem so (because durress pertains to the material, not the spiritual). So it would also seem that durress cannot diminish faith either.
[br][br]
[quote]Earlier I posted this: http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/library/Lauri_Davi.zip[/quote]

To me, this didnt seem to be so much about loss of faith, but rather that this person outgrew one doctrine and took to another.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]We all have this real and factual experience. The fact is we all lost faith or experienced some challenges.[/quote]

But was that truly loss, or was it that the configuration of the modes of material nature changed, and with them (the way we perceive) our faith?

BG 2.40 refers to those who continue on the path. Even if they leave it for some time, theyll reassume it later.

It depends what was the nature of that faith. If it was superficial, then it can be influenced by material circumstances.

Well, she lost her previous faith in God and gained faith in atheism.

[quote][cite] Baker:[/cite][quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]We all have this real and factual experience. The fact is we all lost faith or experienced some challenges.[/quote]

But was that truly loss, or was it that the configuration of the modes of material nature changed, and with them (the way we perceive) our faith?[/quote] There could be both. One can loose faith, as the results of aparadhas as well; yet any progress that you make is your credit for the next life or even due to some good fortune in this life.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]but one important thing to note, is that we have faith in the process of bhakti and that it is sufficient for a perfection. We do not have faith in religious institutions, in other people who practice bhakti, in existence of God.[/quote]

Interesting, as these are precisely what I seem to have faith in![br][br]

[quote]All these things have nothing to do with sraddha proper. It is how we react to these things in the terms of angas of bhakti that makes it relevant, but really the definition of sraddha, or faith, is given in Caitanya-caritamrta (Madhya 22.62):sraddha-sabde-visvasa kahe -- confident, firm faith, favorable to the discharge of devotional service, is called "sraddha" -- that by rendering transcendental loving service to Krsna, one automatically performs all subsidiary activities.[/quote]

I should know this, as I have been working on the question "What is the basis of faith in Krishna consciousness?" (as per BG 2.41) for months.[br]
But somehow, I didnt believe my studies, as I felt overwhelmed by some "just-have-faith" devotees.

Kadamba Kanana Swami wrote a book on faith. You can dl it on his blog.

Thank you, Veda!
I have downloaded it and will read it.

Baker>>But somehow, I didnt believe my studies, as I felt overwhelmed by some "just-have-faith" devotees.

Sraddha or faith is the beginning stage of bhakti if one fails to progress to a deeper stage then over time the sraddha or faith can fail. If you analyze faith it is a very delicate mental state and it rests on a similar level to belief but slightly deeper than belief but it is still subject to the world of duality because it is not full realization or experience. For every belief, we have a corresponding doubt in the basement of our consciousness. That is why it is important to progress beyond belief and faith and enter the realm of experience. So many devotees sit on the faith principle and do not even attempt to progress further. I am convinced this is why many devotees give up the process of bhakti after many years of fustration of sitting at the sraddha stage.

So why would you lose faith? after years of having faith if you get no real spiritual experiences or no deeper spiritual sentiments then it could cause one to lose faith. It is like having a map, the map states at x,y coordinates you will find a particular object and when you get there you dont find it. Except on the map of bhakti what you will find is based on what you put into the process + mercy + previous life sukriti. Some of us are simply not ready in this lifetime...me included. That does not mean we should give up and go back to maya it just means we will not achieve the higher stages of bhakti in one life and from what Krishna says in the bhagavad gita very few do, but we should atleast try and push onto the next stage..anartha-nivritti.

Bhakti is often described as a creeper, the creeper of bhakti is starting to grow in your heart. So Sraddha is the beginning stage where the creeper is starting to grow roots and a shoot, a very important stage that must precede all other stages of growth but a very delicate stage because it is at this stage the creeper is at its most weakest state. As the roots firmly take hold and shoot turns into a mature plant it can withstand so much more.

I cannot comment on physical abuse because I have never suffered it but I did suffer the mental abuse in the late 70s and early 80s inflicted by Iskcon fanatics and sycophants and it did take many years to work this out of my psyche and separate what was Srila Prabhupadas teachings and what was Iskcon sub culture created by these power wielding fanatics that had nothing to do with the teachings. Once I could see the separation it then became easier to continue my faith in the teachings.

Then again - perhaps some people who seem to "lose faith" (and get accused of that, both by themselves and by others), havent actually lost faith, but simply became more cautious, more thorough, more reserved than they used to be.

[quote][cite] Baker:[/cite]Then again - perhaps some people who seem to "lose faith" (and get accused of that, both by themselves and by others), havent actually lost faith, but simply became more cautious, more thorough, more reserved than they used to be.[/quote]

[p]
That is a very good point Baker, very well said.[/p]

[p]
It is easy to get ahead of yourself and start accepting things on face value and blind faith, years down the track your psyche and head can be full of all the theory and little in the way of real spiritual experience. Some people go into shakedown mode, they shake off all of the blindly accepted stuff they have accepted over the years and go back to the core essence. Sometimes after the shakedown they find there is little left and the baby gets thrown out with the bath water.[/p]

Here is a link to a paper written by someone who left Iskcon, and lost faith in Srila Prabhupada, scriptures and the institution. I respect his honesty and candid nature about his feelings and thoughts. Its quite an interesting read.

http://kuruvinda.com/

Here is another essay by Steven Gelberg another person who lost faith.

http://www.surrealist.org/betrayalofthespirit/gelberg1.html

Actually, a while back, I have deliberately looked up accounts of people who have left ISKCON. I did that in an effort to help myself, to see where others might have made mistakes, see if I am making them too, and how I could stop repeating them.
Ive read esp. posts at Gaudiya Repercussions Forum, and at http://surrealist.org/

What seems to be common to some of those people is:
1. at the time when they came in contact with devotees, they were a mess, economically and psychologically dysfunctional,
2. had little idea what they were getting themselves into,
3. basically had an addiction-like "quick fix" approach to spirituality.

It is as if they surrendered while taking themselves out of the equation; as if in a neurotic hope that if they would give in, the pressure they felt from the devotees and the doctrine would cease and they would feel safe. Yet that safety remained elusive.
It seems to me that the atmosphere among devotees in general was (and still is) conducive to such a neurotic, immature approach (perhaps this is simply an aspect of what it means to be a kanistha).

I like to ask myself "What would an Indian aspirant/disciple of Srila Prabhupada (a middle-aged, well-situated, hard-working, honorable man) do?"
In light of this comparison, many Western devotees seem like infatuated, angsty teenage girls doing all kinds of crazy things.

I am not saying this to criticize anyone; I just want to know where people can go wrong when they approach spirituality, so that I may learn something from them, and dont mess up my life even more.

[quote][cite] manasi_seva:[/cite]Sometimes after the shakedown they find there is little left and the baby gets thrown out with the bath water.[/quote]

Yes, this is true.[br]
I think that a big problem is that some people are just too much at the beginning for there to be meaningful communication between themselves and devotees. And that devotees are sometimes quite harsh to those people.

[quote][cite] Baker:[/cite]
I am not saying this to criticize anyone; I just want to know where people can go wrong when they approach spirituality, so that I may learn something from them, and dont mess up my life even more.[/quote] I would suggest one thing "dont rush". Your actions and surrender in Krishna consciousness should be built on conviction, not a sentiment or a social pressure. Better if you base everything on convictions based on your realization from the scriptures.

Sure. But this leaves me far behind everyone else!
I honestly dont know how to survive this, what appears to be, long, dark and lonely period of my life.

Baker>>Sure. But this leaves me far behind everyone else!

Ones own development is in relation to ones ownself and god, it leaves you neither behind nor infront of anyone.

Baker>>I honestly dont know how to survive this, what appears to be, long, dark and lonely period of my life.

Long well I guess eternity is a long time but dark and lonely it cannot be, there is no darkness on the spiritual path and with Gaudiya Vaisnavism it is important to establish your own unique relationship with Krishna so you can never be lonely in spiritual terms. There will be some loneliness on the path as you may find devotees that you can personally relate to are not always readily at hand but that is also a part of the search to find devotees that inspire you and that you can relate to.

What is important is to get your own deities as soon as possible and establish a personal repoir with them, this action alone will draw you so much deeper into Krishnas realm.

Baker>> like to ask myself "What would an Indian aspirant/disciple of Srila Prabhupada (a middle-aged, well-situated, hard-working, honorable man) do?"

Most have their own deities in their house so they center daily thoughts around their Ishta Devata (The god of their heart) Krishna is so merciful he himself has so many forms that cover all of the relationships with his devotees.

>I honestly dont know how to survive this, what appears to be, long, dark and lonely period of my life

Use your intelligence to form your association, do not associate with aparadhis, dharma-dwajis and mayavadis. It is better to have a solid start, than be an up-star. Once you start practising you will see how Krishna provides what you lack and preserves what you have.

That all makes perfect sense, CCD, but doesnt address my problem, at least it doesnt seem to.

When I sit down to chant, or seriously read scriptures, I get images of angry devotees (real memories) in my mind. It is as if they are standing between me and God, saying "You may not go any further unless we approve of you." And it seems that in order for them to approve of me, I would have to disappear, stop existing, this is how wrong they think me. That the best thing, the only thing that could please them, is if I wouldnt be. It seems that the very fact that I exist is an offense to them, and I therefore go down as a Vaisnava offender. And who am I to say they are not Vaisnavas or anything less than uttamas.

May I suggest if you see images of devotees like that, offer them some flowers and garlands. That should sort them out. Yes there are devotees like that, but they act on the basis of false ego, so the false ego needs to be addressed here... ;-)

How should I offer them those flowers?
I mean, should I go and visit those devotees (although some live far away); or in my mind; ...?

In your mind obviously. I am not suggesting spending so much money on real flowers;-) The reality is that many act in the devotional service with the sole motive of an ego-trip, one kind or another, and it is often a game of seeing how much their ego is inflated by the weeds surrounding the bhakti plant. In any case one needs to satisfy the ego of others, flowers is just a nice mental image, there are other ways, such as words, smiles. What would you not do to please other devotees? And if someone is seen as an enemy it is as important for you to stop seeing them that way as it is important for them to stop acting in this role.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]In any case one needs to satisfy the ego of others[/quote]

This is way beyond my scope!! [br]
I have never thought that way about my problems with devotees, or people in general.[br]
People people have always been a mystery to me.[br]

A while back, you said I should praise you, give you garlands and such. Im not sure whether you meant that in jest or not, it just struck me as really awkward that such things could really have a pro-ego effect on anyone, that they could raise anyones self-esteem.[br][br]

[quote]What would you not do to please other devotees? [/quote]

"Pleasing" anyone, myself or devotees, doesnt even register in my awareness. I dont normally use this concept to begin with.[br][br]

[quote]And if someone is seen as an enemy it is as important for you to stop seeing them that way as it is important for them to stop acting in this role.[/quote]

I dont see someone as an enemy, more like an obstacle.

Generally people and devotees too are not free from false ego. False ego tells them they are special and require special treatment. I might have said (did I?) something like that in a jest. But reality is that if you DO have difficulty with devotees you want to please or satisfy others. It is rather obvious, that if you think you can interact with others without "having it on a register of awareness" (I know it is not an exact quote) you will be prone to enter a trouble. I think one thing I suggested, and that one really works, is to serve devotees prasadam, feed them nice sweets or at least help doing so. It really helps. Than you will see that others are no mystery at all, they are just like everyone else (maybe a little different from you, no doubt, and may have a different diet). You dont have to like prasadam sweets to give it to others, you just have to like others. "The International Society for Krishna Consciousness has been established to facilitate these six kinds of loving exchanges between devotees"

Serving prasadam to devotees is very powerful devotional service. Aradhananam sarvesam... tadiyanam samarcanam.

Serving devotees prasadam is not possible for me.

I am not just being negative.
It was explained to me that only initiated devotees, or those who chant sixteen rounds may prepare and handle the prasadam.
At the nama-hatta here, only a few appointed devotees have this service, and nobody else.
As far as I have come to know them, I would not dare ask them for anything, least of all to hand me the container with the prasadam so that I may serve it.

And also, Veda, CCD - would either of you accept anything that came through my hands?

At home everyone can cook bhoga, offer it to Krsna and handle His prasadam. One can offer it to devotees and its up to them if they accept it or not (some have higher standards than others).

"Prasadam: (20 minutes)
You can also be involved in the prasadam distribution along with the volunteers, to every one."
http://www.newtalavana.org/bhaktivrksha/week-64.htm

In namahatta group Id rather encourage everyone to bring their own offerings and share with others and also distribution of mahaprasadam from the temple as far as possible (priti laksanas). Anyone can do it. Its prominently done in Jaipurs Govindaji mandir.

> would either of you accept anything that came through my hands?

Yes. Otoh, I wouldnt accept anything from enemies of Krsna, sastra, guru and sadhu.

--Ditto--

Back to the faith issue, many devotees lost faith or were perceived to have lost faith when they no longer viewed the institution as being important. I know many devotees now that are Institution independent they seek out devotees they can relate to that inspire them without any thought of their institutional membership.

So you can lose faith in what others view as important yet still have strong faith in the philosophy and the acharyas.

I suppose it is easy to renounce the institution once one has already obtained from it what one needs for spiritual advancement (namely initiation) ...

One obtains initiation from a Guru not from an Institution according to Bhagavad Gita, however one might question that in Iskcon where the Guru is appointed by the institution.

I dont think it has been easy for any of these devotees. The institution at the time was the community, the family, your home so losing your home and everything that goes with it is never easy. For many that left the institution it was the end of everything, they lost complete faith and vanished, went back to their lives pre-Iskcon. Some made the separation between Institution/management and the philosophy.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]It is rather obvious, that if you think you can interact with others without "having it on a register of awareness" (I know it is not an exact quote) you will be prone to enter a trouble.[/quote]

Just to be clear: Where I come from, the focus is on "doing the right thing", even if this means that some people might disapprove or have their egos bruised; the focus is not on "pleasing others". I suppose that in a conservative monoculture, such an approach works well enough - but perhaps not elsewhere.[br]
You can see that I still operate from such an approach, as is evident by how I tend to formulate my questions.[br][br]

[quote]Generally people and devotees too are not free from false ego. False ego tells them they are special and require special treatment. I might have said (did I?) something like that in a jest. But reality is that if you DO have difficulty with devotees you want to please or satisfy others.[/quote]

To me, this sounds a bit like instructions on how to appease an angry dog, and this is also my scope of awareness of this issue.[br][br]
(In fact, once in the forest, I met a dog. He was a heap of teeth, muscle and claws, barking angrily and was no doubt ready to bite me. I was petrified with fear. Fortunately, I heard that somewhere far outside of the forest, someone seemed to be calling a dog, and I vaguely recognized whose the dog might be. So a brilliant idea came to me, namely, that the dog got lost, didnt hear well, and that I could make myself useful by leading him out of the forest and home. Which I did. I said "Come doggy, good doggy, lets go home" and made that gesture with hands on thighs. And the dog actually followed. And so I got him home.)

[br][br]
[quote]I think one thing I suggested, and that one really works, is to serve devotees prasadam, feed them nice sweets or at least help doing so. It really helps. Than you will see that others are no mystery at all, they are just like everyone else (maybe a little different from you, no doubt, and may have a different diet). You dont have to like prasadam sweets to give it to others, you just have to like others. "The International Society for Krishna Consciousness has been established to facilitate these six kinds of loving exchanges between devotees"[/quote]

Except that I am not a devotee, so I am exempt from such exchanges.

IMHO "this is just to increase your desire for Me, because the more you hanker for Me, the more you will be freed from all material desires." -- not sure this is the answer to your other question about faith. So you say because you are not a devotee you are exempt from "such exchanges" . Huh. Maybe you will reconsider and we can continue the discussion later.

What is there to reconsider?

There are the devotees, and then there is everyone else.

No. There are devotees, and there are asuras. Everyone else can align himself accordingly.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]IMHO "this is just to increase your desire for Me, because the more you hanker for Me, the more you will be freed from all material desires." -- not sure this is the answer to your other question about faith.[/quote]

What does any of that matter, when the reality of associating with devotees is that I need to subject myself to whomever is in any way above me in the hierarchy, or who is louder, bigger or angrier than me ...[br][br]

[quote]So you say because you are not a devotee you are exempt from "such exchanges" . Huh. Maybe you will reconsider and we can continue the discussion later.[/quote]

I am sorry if I sounded harsh. But just remember how often you yourself have changed your mind about whether I am a devotee or not. Do you think it is easy for me to live with devotees being so undecided about me, yet expecting my obedience.

You learn to see yourself as a devotee by engaging in devotional service. It is not a social definition, if you are all alone, without others looking or judging you, that is the time when you should be a devotee. It has nothing to do with hierarchy, just you and God. If you accept that relationship you are a devotee, if not you are not.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]No. There are devotees, and there are asuras. Everyone else can align himself accordingly.[/quote]

[p]This sounds very fundamental, more like what George Bush would say (they are either with us or against us)[/p]

[p]It strikes me just like the Christians, they define within their own teachings the Satan, then they start to point the finger at who they think is the Satan worshiper, how ironic[/p]

[p]Jagai & Madai were killers and rapers of women, they were more darker than you can possibly imagine, and Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu converted them both to devotees and demonstrated that no one is beyond redemption[/p]

[p]Everyone is a jiva and they have the potential of reconnecting with the divine principle. No one is all bad, most people in the world are not devotees but they are not asuras either, with your dark analysis of the world are we to condemn anyone who does not wear tilak and a dhoti/sari?[/p]

[p]I prefer to think that there is a potential devotee in everyone, even in me! No ... I am wrong everyone is a devotee its just a matter of re-awakening the original relationship[/p]

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]You learn to see yourself as a devotee by engaging in devotional service. It is not a social definition, if you are all alone, without others looking or judging you, that is the time when you should be a devotee. It has nothing to do with hierarchy, just you and God. If you accept that relationship you are a devotee, if not you are not.[/quote]

Could you provide a scriptural reference for this, please?

>> No. There are devotees, and there are asuras. Everyone else can align himself accordingly.

> This sounds very fundamental, more like what George Bush would say (they are either with us or against us)

Yet its Padma Purana - visnu bhakta smrto daiva, asuras tad viparyayah. Similarly SB 6.12.20, 7.1.9 etc.

> It strikes me just like the Christians, they define within their own teachings the Satan, then they start to point the finger at who they think is the Satan worshiper, how ironic

One doesnt become a Satan worshiper just by labelling.

> Jagai & Madai were killers and rapers of women, they were more darker than you can possibly imagine, and Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu converted them both to devotees and demonstrated that no one is beyond redemption

Thats Lords lila of mercy. Mahabhagavatas sometimes perform it as well. SB 11.12.3-6.

> Everyone is a jiva and they have the potential of reconnecting with the divine principle.

Potential and practice are two different things. SB 11.2.46 speaks of a discrimination among three types of persons and a prescribed approach to them meant for madhyama devotees.

> No one is all bad, most people in the world are not devotees but they are not asuras either, with your dark analysis of the world are we to condemn anyone who does not wear tilak and a dhoti/sari?

Both Adi Sankaracarya and Madhvacarya gave a similar definition of asura - one who enjoys the movements of asu (prana). Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.9 speaks about atmas purification from the five pranas.

Its not about condemnation by others, it happens in the heart of every person. Tilak, dhoti, sari etc. are external.

Many people in Iskcon have displayed asura actions. The only demons in this age are the ones running around in our own heads, we are all capable of raising or lowering our consciousness.

Regardless of what justification you can find if you start with such heavy discriminations such as asuras, karmis and demons (us and them) you will inevitably end up hating or at the very least disrespecting those that you are asking for support from or the very people you are trying to convert. People are not so stupid they can quickly detect the vibration of discrimination. Never forget most western devotees came from the very backgrounds that you are classifying as asura and very few if any have conquered it completely.

Iskcon was and still is heavily into this type of thinking, rather than portraying the mood of humility and non-judgement it often portrays a mood of arrogance and shows that they do not see with equal vision. This often has an opposite effect of pushing people away.

Sri Chaitanya gave the most superior spiritual examples as did Christ and that was to embrace all regardless of position, caste, creed or actions. True spiritual examples that we can all relate to.

Krishna says himself in BG 5.18 "The humble sages, by virtue of true knowledge, see with equal vision a learned and gentle bruc0u257 hmanu803 a, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater"

No ones book is fully written ... a devotee today may fall off the path into darkness and someone in darkness may become a devotee.

I prefer to see everyone as a devotee, some have simply fallen into a dream state of forgetfullness and a few are in the process of waking up.

> Many people in Iskcon have displayed asura actions.

People anywhere means nothing. Its the heart attitude.

> Regardless of what justification you can find if you start with such heavy discriminations such as asuras, karmis and demons (us and them) you will inevitably end up hating or at the very least disrespecting those that you are asking for support from or the very people you are trying to convert.

I dont start, sastra does. The rule is hate the sin, not the sinner. Conversion is done by Krsna.

> Sri Chaitanya gave the most superior spiritual examples as did Christ and that was to embrace all regardless of position, caste, creed or actions. True spiritual examples that we can all relate to.

Yet He wasnt preaching everything goes.

> I prefer to see everyone as a devotee, some have simply fallen into a dream state of forgetfullness and a few are in the process of waking up.

This is the vision of mahabhagavatas. Adopting it artifically wont help. Itll enable those things you criticize - a child abuser is a devotee, no need to do anything about him.

[quote][cite] manasi_seva:[/cite][p]This sounds very fundamental, more like what George Bush would say (they are either with us or against us)[/p][/quote]

It was Jesus himself who said it:[br][br]

Matt. 12.30: "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."[br][br]

See parallel translations for clarification: http://bible.cc/matthew/12-30.htm

[quote][cite] manasi_seva:[/cite]Regardless of what justification you can find if you start with such heavy discriminations such as asuras, karmis and demons (us and them) you will inevitably end up hating or at the very least disrespecting those that you are asking for support from or the very people you are trying to convert. People are not so stupid they can quickly detect the vibration of discrimination. Never forget most western devotees came from the very backgrounds that you are classifying as asura and very few if any have conquered it completely.

Iskcon was and still is heavily into this type of thinking, rather than portraying the mood of humility and non-judgement it often portrays a mood of arrogance and shows that they do not see with equal vision. This often has an opposite effect of pushing people away.[/quote]

As far as I know, there is no _obligation_ that everyone who is in any way related to ISKCON is supposed to be an uttama adhikari.[br]
Therefore, it cannot be held against one if one is not on this level.[br][br]

Perhaps some of use Westerners are simply being softies, weaklings, idiot pacifists. Perhaps I should take up martial arts, get a (big) dog or something like that, just as a counterbalance. Being demure and delicate is not for this age.[br]
Its a dog-eat-dog world, and its blamable naivete to try to blind oneself from that. In fact, such blinding is yet another subversive attempt to lord it over material nature, presuming this world is all there is to human existence (hence the need to make ot, or at least see, as the best possible world there is).

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]
This is the vision of mahabhagavatas. Adopting it artifically wont help. Itll enable those things you criticize - a child abuser is a devotee, no need to do anything about him.[/quote]

I agree. Such artificial adaptation manifests as what the Buddhists sometimes call "idiot compassion".

Baker>>I agree. Such artificial adaptation manifests as what the Buddhists sometimes call "idiot compassion".

Sometimes? or just when fools fail to give references to their quotes? Sounds like a pile of mental speculation from a pseudo intellectualist. More idiotic/ignorant comments without any specific references. Are we to accept you as some sort of a expert on Buddhism inside a Vaisnava forum? If so then please insult us no more by providing atleast a single quote or better please quote a Gaudiya Vaisnava it may have little more weight and acceptance in here.

Tibetan Buddhist master Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche called acting nice and kind '93idiot compassion.'94 This is where a person for instance makes acts of Philanthropy and then publicizes such acts so all can see how compassionate he or she is thus inflating ones ego.

This is miles apart from seeing everyone as a potential devotee, maybe you should study your subject before being so quick to criticize?

Baker>>Perhaps some of use Westerners are simply being softies, weaklings, idiot pacifists. Perhaps I should take up martial arts, get a (big) dog or something like that, just as a counterbalance. Being demure and delicate is not for this age. Its a dog-eat-dog world, and its blamable naivete to try to blind oneself from that. In fact, such blinding is yet another subversive attempt to lord it over material nature, presuming this world is all there is to human existence (hence the need to make ot, or at least see, as the best possible world there is).

A complete pile of inane dribble.

I suggest only that all jivas are potential devotees, how could it be otherwise? Is Gaudiya Vaisnavaism sectarian in that it only works for some jivas and not for others? Srila Prabhupada did not hold such judgements, he even travelled to the capital city of the asuras (New York City) and made such asuras his main disciples and gave them the big opportunities for service and yet some chose to ignore that opportunity and again returned to their asura tendencies which demonstrates his mercy, his acknowledgement of their potential but ultimately they demonstrated their own free will.

Baker>> Matt. 12.30: "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."

Like most people you pull one little piece of text out of context to support a zealots point of view. Matthew Chapter 12 is Jesuss showing how foolish the Pharisees were enedlessly quoting their scriptural laws and injunctions yet thinking that any person who follows these rules on the sabbath is a saintly person. Jesus points out they are nothing more than sheep.

Most people were not with Jesus, he had very few followers while he was alive ... that would leave alot of people against him or not on his side, yet he forgave anyone their sins and accepted anyone who so believed in him.

Maybe you should study and then practice the faiths that you preach and leave judgment to God.

A nice KC site developed by a devotee friend of mine that shoud improve everybodys faith! :)

http://bhakti-lata-zine.blogspot.com/

Enjoy! :)

One of the names of Krishna is "bhava-grahi", or one who is appreciative of the sentiment. In either success or failure, if our sentiment is to serve with pure love, Sri Krishna will accept that and bless us with His devotional service.

I am sorry, but this is just a truism.

Where is the instruction, a reference to something one can do _intentionally_?

I could not follow you. What is the truism? The fact that Krishna is "bhava-grahi" and sees only the good in your endeavour, your sentiment? What reference do you require?

"As confirmed in Bhagavad-git'e4 (2.40), svalpam apy asya dharmasya tr'e4yate mahato bhay'e4t: "Even a little advancement on this path can protect one from the most dangerous type of fear." The Supreme Personality of Godhead is known as bh'e4va-gr'e4hi jan'e4rdana because He takes only the essence of a devotees attitude. If a devotee sincerely surrenders, the Lord, as the Supersoul in everyones heart, immediately understands this. Thus even though, externally, a devotee may not render full service, if he is internally sincere and serious the Lord welcomes his service nonetheless. Thus the Lord is known as bh'e4va-gr'e4hi jan'e4rdana because He takes the essence of ones devotional mentality." SB 8.23.2.Purp

Some examples of truisms:
"If you are sincere, you will advance on your spiritual path."
"Build on a good foundation."
"In either success or failure, if our sentiment is to serve with pure love, Sri Krishna will accept that and bless us with His devotional service."
This is all self-evident, obvious, or at least something accepted apriori, nobody disputes it.

What is not obvious, or self-evident in the above examples, is how to be sincere, how to know one is being sincere; or what that good foundation is; or what the sentiment of serving with pure love is, how one can recognize it in oneself, how one can deliberately act with the desire for pure love.

When, for example, I am told I should be sincere, what exactly does this mean, practically? How can I know, in terms of particular actions, whether I am being sincere or not? How can I deliberately be sincere, especially about something about which I have a lot of uncertainty and doubts?

If you ask me what I had for breakfast today, I have some idea what a truthful answer would be (cream cheese with sour cream, raisins, dry plums, sugar, cinnamon, and cooked wholegrain wheat).
But when I sit down to chant, what is the truthful answer about my desires and sentiments? I could make a long list. Which items on this list can really be considered "mine" or "the true ones", which ones are false memories, lies, mistakes and illusions? Given that the list is possibly incomplete, what is the point of making it to begin with?

In spiritual life, sincerity is the first qualification. Arjavam. Arjavam saralaksa (?). Arjavam. Satyam saucam arjavam. These are the brahminical qualifications. One should be very sincere. Duplicity may be very good qualification for this material world, but duplicity in spiritual life is no qualification. (710822in.lon)

So sincerity is the opposite of duplicity.

In Melbourne, during his 1975 visit, Srila Prabhupada was asked, '93How can I become sincere?'94
His answer: '93How can you become a drunkard? If you want to become a drunkard, you associate with drunkards. If you want to become sincere, associate with these devotees. They are sincere.'94 (Bhurijana dasa, As They Surrender Unto Me 16)

more: http://veda.harekrsna.cz/bhaktiyoga/bhaktiyoga-7.htm#1

Desires and sentiments should be disregarded while chanting. One should listen to the holy name.