Bhagavad Gita Chapter 4 Text 8

Transcendental Knowledge

pariträëäya sädhünäà
vinäçäya ca duñkåtäm
dharma-saàsthäpanärthäya
sambhavämi yuge yuge
pariträëäya—for the deliverance; sädhünäm—of the devotees; vinäçäya—for the annihilation; ca—also; duñkåtäm—of the miscreants; dharma—principles of religion; saàsthäpana-arthäya—to reestablish; sambhavämi—I do appear; yuge—millennium; yuge—after millennium.

TRANSLATION

In order to deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I advent Myself millennium after millennium.

PURPORT

According to Bhagavad-gétä, a sädhu (holyman) is a man in Kåñëa consciousness. A person may appear to be irreligious, but if he has the qualifications of Kåñëa consciousness wholly and fully, he is to be understood to be a sädhu. And duñkåtam applies to one who doesn't care for Kåñëa consciousness. Such miscreants, or duñkåtam, are described as foolish and the lowest of mankind, even though they may be decorated with mundane education; whereas another person, who is one hundred percent engaged in Kåñëa consciousness, is accepted as sädhu, even though such a person may neither be learned nor well cultured. As far as the atheistic are concerned, it is not necessary for the Supreme Lord to appear as He is to destroy them, as He did with the demons Rävaëa and Kaàsa. The Lord has many agents who are quite competent to vanquish demons. But the Lord especially descends to appease His unalloyed devotees, who are always harassed by the demonic. The demon harasses the devotee, even though the latter may happen to be his kin. Although Prahläda Mahäräja was the son of Hiraëyakaçipu, he was nonetheless persecuted by his father; although Devaké, the mother of Kåñëa, was the sister of Kaàsa, she and her husband Vasudeva were persecuted only because Kåñëa was to be born of them. So Lord Kåñëa appeared primarily to deliver Devaké, rather than kill Kaàsa, but both were performed simultaneously. Therefore it is said here that to deliver the devotee and vanquish the demon miscreants, the Lord appears in different incarnations.

In the Caitanya-caritämåta of Kåñëadäsa Kaviräja, the following verses summarize these principles of incarnation:

såñöi-hetu yei mürti prapaïce avatare
sei éçvara-mürti ‘avatära’ näma dhare
mäyätita paravyome savära avasthäna
viçve ‘avatäri’ dhare ‘avatära’ näma.

"The avatära, or incarnation of Godhead, descends from the kingdom of God for material manifestation. And the particular form of the Personality of Godhead who so descends is called an incarnation, or avatära. Such incarnations are situated in the spiritual world, the kingdom of God. When they descend to the material creation, they assume the name avatära."

There are various kinds of avatäras, such as puruñävatäras, guëävatäras, lélävatäras, çaktyäveça avatäras, manvantara-avatäras and yugävatäras—all appearing on schedule all over the universe. But Lord Kåñëa is the primeval Lord, the fountainhead of all avatäras. Lord Çré Kåñëa descends for the specific purposes of mitigating the anxieties of the pure devotees, who are very anxious to see Him in His original Våndävana pastimes. Therefore, the prime purpose of the Kåñëa avatära is to satisfy His unalloyed devotees.

The Lord says that He incarnates Himself in every millennium. This indicates that He incarnates also in the age of Kali. As stated in the Çrémad-Bhägavatam, the incarnation in the age of Kali is Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who spread the worship of Kåñëa by the saìkértana movement (congregational chanting of the holy names), and spread Kåñëa consciousness throughout India. He predicted that this culture of saìkértana would be broadcast all over the world, from town to town and village to village. Lord Caitanya as the incarnation of Kåñëa, the Personality of Godhead, is described secretly but not directly in the confidential parts of the revealed scriptures, such as the Upaniñads, Mahäbhärata, Bhägavatam, etc. The devotees of Lord Kåñëa are much attracted by the saìkértana movement of Lord Caitanya. This avatära of the Lord does not kill the miscreants, but delivers them by the causeless mercy of the Lord.

IceRocket Tags: Nollmeyer,human rights,ethics,censorship,environment,political philosophy,political economy,iskcon,christianity,ritvik,law,powereality,homeland security,journalism,corporate history,university of california,janet napolitano

Bhagavad Gita Ch. 3 Text 1

arjuna uvaca
jyayasi cet karmanas te
mata buddhir janardana
tat kim karmani ghore mam
niyojayasi kesava

arjunah—Arjuna; uvaca—said; jyayasi—speaking very highly; cet—although; karmanah—than fruitive action; te—your; mata—opinion; buddhih—intelligence; janardana—O Krsna; tat—therefore; kim—why; karmani—in action; ghore—ghastly; mam—me; niyojayasi—engaging me; kesava—O Krsna.

TRANSLATION

Arjuna said: O Janardana, O Kesava, why do You urge me to engage in this ghastly warfare, if You think that intelligence is better than fruitive work?

PURPORT

The Supreme Personality of Godhead Sri Krsna has very elaborately described the constitution of the soul in the previous chapter, with a view to deliver His intimate friend Arjuna from the ocean of material grief. And the path of realization has been recommended: buddhi-yoga, or Krsna consciousness. Sometimes Krsna consciousness is misunderstood to be inertia, and one with such a misunderstanding often withdraws to a secluded place to become fully Krsna conscious by chanting the holy name of Lord Krsna. But without being trained in the philosophy of Krsna consciousness, it is not advisable to chant the holy name of Krsna in a secluded place where one may acquire only cheap adoration from the innocent public. Arjuna also thought of Krsna consciousness or buddhi-yoga, or intelligence in spiritual advancement of knowledge, as something like retirement from active life and the practice of penance and austerity at a secluded place. In other words, he wanted to skillfully avoid the fighting by using Krsna consciousness as an excuse. But as a sincere student, he placed the matter before his master and questioned Krsna as to his best course of action. In answer, Lord Krsna elaborately explained karma-yoga, or work in Krsna consciousness, in this Third Chapter.

 

Technorati Tags: Nollmeyer,human rights,ethics,censorship,environment,political philosophy,political economy,iskcon,Krishna,ritvik,law,powereality,homeland security,journalism,corporate history,prabhupada

Hridayananda Writes GBC

April 11, 2009
ISKCON Philadelphia

Dear GBC members,

Please accept my obeisance's. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I am writing in reference to this resolution passed by the GBC this year:

317. Action and Public Statements of Hridayananda Das Goswami

The GBC has carefully reviewed the recent action (giving blessings) and the public statements of Hridayananda Maharaja concerning homosexuality. These remain controversial and divisive in ISKCON, and the GBC does not endorse or support them.

Teaching obligations have kept Hridayananda Maharaja from attending the GBC meetings this year, so the GBC has not been able to discuss this issue with him. A GBC delegation will soon meet personally with him to discuss this issue and attempt to reach a common understanding.

In compliance with that resolution I have flown to Philadelphia and on April 11, 2009 met with H.H. Bir Krishna das Goswami and H.G. Ravindra Svarupa dasa, the GBC delegation.

We have a common understanding, which I had already expressed prior to the Mayapura GBC meetings, in a dialogue with some GBC members.

I am writing to reaffirm that I uphold the Krishna conscious principle that sexual union is for procreation within marriage, and that no spiritual leader should encourage or endorse any other form of sexual relation.

I regret that I acted and spoke in such a way as to give many an impression to the contrary. I am sorry.

Your servant,

Hridayananda dasa Goswami

http://www.dandavats.com/?p=7166

 

Technorati Tags: hrdayananda,iskcon,irm,humanrights,journalism,same sex,censorship,homeland security,political philosophy

ISKCON Bangalore Wins the Court Battle

BY: NIMAI PANDIT DAS

Apr 16, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK (SUN) — In breaking news on April 17th 2009, in the Trial Court of Bangalore the Judge finally passed an order in the matter of ISKCON Bangalore vs. ISKCON Mumbai. He ruled in favor of ISKCON Bangalore Society, giving it ownership to the Hare Krishna Hill and the famous temple atop it. He thereby once and for all put to rest all allegations of wrong doing or corrupt family dealings among the leadership of ISKCON Bangalore.

This ruling again reiterated the fact that ISKCON Bangalore, under the leadership of Sriman Madhu Pandit das, is on the path shown by Krishna, separate from the corrupt ISKCON Mumbai Society and its GBC leadership. This result will further enhance and deepen the quality of service of all the residents of Hare Krishna Hill to Sri Sri Radha Krishnacandra for the benefit of all humanity, without unnecessary influences.

This ruling is further proof that what Krishna promises in the Bhagavad-gita, that "My devotees will never perish", is a hundred percent true even though we may not know His workings most of the time.

Thanks goes to devotees worldwide who stood by the ISKCON Bangalore devotees in their decade long struggle to reinstate Srila Prabhupada in the center of ISKCON in spite of severe hardships.

A message to HH Radhanath Swami, HH Jayaptaka Swami, HH Gopal Krishna Goswami and HH Bhakti Caru Swami:

Please take this result, which has come in spite of immense funds sacrificed by you all (to the tune of many millions of dollars) and repeated confidential assurances by Doyaram das, as Lord Krishna's indication that NO ONE CAN DISTURB THE SERVICES OF HIS SINCERE SERVANTS. Hence please desist from further prolonging the case in Bangalore or supporting the dirty cause of Varada Krishna das, who is trashing devotees in a tabloid manner through some websites.

Please call for an end to all hostilities being undertaken by means of your underlings in Bangalore, and let us concentrate on preaching in our own areas and services given to us by Srila Prabhupada. Only pure devotional service rendered for the benefit of the conditioned souls will help us at the time of fast approaching death. Let us preach by our own strengths depending on Srila Prabhupada and Krishna, and then LET THE RESULTS SPEAK.

http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/04-09/editorials4386.htm

 

IceRocket Tags: IRM,prabhupadanuga,iskcon,ritvik,political philosophy,censorship,clergy abuse,jayapataka,interfaith,journalism,reformation

Bhakti Vikasa and Hridayananda

Letter to the GBC
BY: HH HRIDAYANANDA DASA GOSWAMI
Apr 15, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, USA (SUN) —
ISKCON Philadelphia

Dear GBC members,

Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
I am writing in reference to this resolution passed by the GBC this year:
317. Action and Public Statements of Hridayananda Das Goswami
The GBC has carefully reviewed the recent action (giving blessings) and the public statements of Hridayananda Maharaja concerning homosexuality. These remain controversial and divisive in ISKCON, and the GBC does not endorse or support them.
Teaching obligations have kept Hridayananda Maharaja from attending the GBC meetings this year, so the GBC has not been able to discuss this issue with him. A GBC delegation will soon meet personally with him to discuss this issue and attempt to reach a common understanding.

In compliance with that resolution I have flown to Philadelphia and on April 11, 2009 met with H.H. Bir Krishna das Goswami and H.G. Ravindra Svarupa dasa, the GBC delegation.

We have a common understanding, which I had already expressed prior to the Mayapura GBC meetings, in a dialogue with some GBC members.

I am writing to reaffirm that I uphold the Krishna conscious principle that sexual union is for procreation within marriage, and that no spiritual leader should encourage or endorse any other form of sexual relation.

I regret that I acted and spoke in such a way as to give many an impression to the contrary. I am sorry.

Your servant,
Hridayananda dasa Goswami

http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/04-09/editorials4383.htm

All the Trappings of a Gay Marriage
BY: HH BHAKTI VIKASA SWAMI
Apr 15, INDIA (SUN) —

Dear Hridayananda Maharaja, Please accept my obeisances. Jaya Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your reply.

> > 1 Earlier this year, it became public that you had "blessed" a "gay
> > union." 2 The "gay union" you "blessed" had all the trappings of a
> > religious marriage: a ceremony conducted by a religious minister at a
> > religious venue (in this case, a preaching center overseen by yourself)
> > in which two persons (in your words) "commit themselves to each other."
> > Relatives and friends were invited. The blessings of God were invoked on
> > the couple. The event was reported in a magazine (in this case, Chakra)
> > that covers the affairs of the concerned religious institution.
>
> A few minor corrections: The event did not take place at an ISKCON
> facility.

However that the event was presented and seen as an ISKCON event is clear from the following:
"One hundred family members, friends and ISKCON devotees celebrated... Santa Barbara ISKCON temple president Sarvatma das officiated. Govinda's of Los Angeles served prasad. H.H. Hridayananda das Goswami conferred this blessing"

Does the fact that the event did not take place at an ISKCON facility make a significant difference to what transpired?

> It did not have 'all the trappings,'

As mentioned above, it certainly had "many" of the trappings of a religious marriage. According to the description on Chakra, those in attendance, unless specifically informed otherwise, presumably would have understood that the event was to solemnize what was tantamount to what has come to be known as a "gay marriage."

> especially not a marriage vow

The report stated that they "committed to a loving relationship at a Blessing Ceremony." In other words, the crux of the ceremony was your blessing -- in which you specified that "they commit themselves to each other." What is the nature of that commitment that makes it radically different from a "marriage vow" between gays -- that you profess to disfavor?

> the event was not reported in an ISKCON publication

True; Chakra is not an official ISKCON publication. It is a pro-gay site that reports almost exclusively on ISKCON and clearly intends to influence attitudes and policies in ISKCON, and which has for years prominently voiced your opinions, which are in tandem with its propaganda.

By pointing out that the event did not take place at an ISKCON facility and was not reported in an ISKCON publication, you have stressed that this was not an official ISKCON event. Why have you stressed the unofficial nature of this event, and what significant difference do you feel that this makes to what transpired and your leading role in it?

You are of course fully aware that as an ISKCON sannyasi, guru, and GBC member, all your actions, especially formal public actions, are liable to be considered representative of and endorsed by ISKCON, and fully in line with Srila Prabhupada and the parampara.

> It was not my idea to publish the report, and I had no knowledge a picture
> would be posted.

If you would have known that a report with a picture was going to be posted, would you have acted differently, and if so why?

> > Of course, the outstanding difference between this and a traditional
> religious
> > marriage was that the "union" was between two males: Joshua Norman
> > Einhorn and Stanley Earl Harris.
>
> A further 'outstanding difference' is that they chose not to marry, and
> did not make a marriage vow.

Their becoming "committed to a loving relationship" was meant to be solemnized by the "Blessing Ceremony." If not, then what was the purpose of the ceremony and what was it that "one hundred family members, friends and ISKCON devotees celebrated"? And what is the crucial difference between a a marriage vow and a religiously sanctified "committ[ment] to a loving relationship"?

> For the last few years, I have not 'so strongly endorsed and defended' gay
> unions.

Please explain how your "blessing" of a gay couple's becoming "committed to a loving relationship" is not "serious, formal and public recognition and appreciation" of and not a strong endorsement of "gay unions."

> By your logic, Prabhupada 'strongly endorsed and defended' meat
> eating since he many times urged people that could not or would not give
> up meat to eat a less important animal and not the cow.
> I spoke of a gay mongamous commitment precisely in the way that
> Prabhupada spoke of eating the flesh of less important animals.

A crucial difference is that Srila Prabhupada never advocated or practiced that Vaisnavas should bless meat-eating, nor hold a formal religious ceremony in celebration of it. Your blessing a "gay union," and its celebration by persons reported to be Vaisnavas, gives an aura of religious sanctity to homosexuality, the tendency toward which our founder-acarya describes as "demoniac" and the act of which Manu describes as sinful.

To encourage grossly sinful people to eat chicken rather than beef, or to stick to one homosexual partner rather than flitting around, should be accompanied by making it clear that such activities, although an improvement, are still inherently sinful and punishable by the laws of nature, and have to be given up if one is serious to attain the ultimate goal of life, pure love of Krsna.

But you have extolled Stanley Harris and Joshua Einhorn's "true love for each other," "such true spiritual love," as "in the spirit of God's love for them" and "blessed" them that "their relationship lead them ... back to our real home in the spiritual world." However that "love," that relationship, is homosexual, which our sacred authorities describe as demoniac and sinful; nowhere in sastra is it stated that homosexuality can lead to the spiritual world.

This topic remains "controversial and divisive": you clearly feel your actions to be in the best interests of ISKCON, whereas others feel that your actions are seriously flawed. As this issue deserves to be intelligently scrutinized and understood by the broader body of devotees, who it certainly affects, I am forwarding these texts beyond this conference, thus also affording you further opportunities to clarify your perspective. Clear, unambiguous responses to my points (given above) would be appreciated.

Hoping this meets you well,
your servant,
Bhakti Vikasa Swami

http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/04-09/editorials4384.htm

Technorati Tags: marriage,bhakti vikasa,hrdayananda,prabhupadanuga,iskcon,humanrights,social science,psychology,homeland security,censorship,morality

Bhakti Vikasa Requests Clarification Between Gay Union and Gay Marriage

Bhakti Vikasa Maharaj

Hridayananda Maharaj

Submitted by krishna-kirti on Sat, 04/11/2009 - 16:32.

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

New Text 48304 (59 lines)
From: Bhakti Vikasa Swami
Date: 11-Apr-09 10:48 -0400
To: Tridandi Sannyasa
Subject: "gay marriage" and "gay union" -- what is the difference?
------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded Message ----------

Answer 48300 (47 lines)
From: Bhakti Vikasa Swami
Date: 11-Apr-09 10:45 -0400
To: Hridayananda Dasa Goswami
Reference: Text PAMHO:17289512 by Hridayananda Dasa Goswami
Subject: "gay marriage" and "gay union" -- what is the difference?
------------------------------------------------------------

Sri Sri Guru Gaurangau Jayatah

Dear Hridayananda Maharaja,

Dandavat.

Four years ago, you publically announced that it was in ISKCON's best interests to offer "serious, formal and public recognition and appreciation" for "gay monogamy."1 Earlier this year, it became public that you had "blessed" a "gay union."2

The "gay union" you "blessed" had all the trappings of a religious marriage: a ceremony conducted by a religious minister at a religious venue (in this case, a preaching center overseen by yourself) in which two persons (in your words) "commit themselves to each other." Relatives and friends were invited. The blessings of God were invoked on the couple. The event was reported in a magazine (in this case, Chakra) that covers the affairs of the concerned religious institution.

Of course, the outstanding difference between this and a traditional religious marriage was that the "union" was between two males: Joshua Norman Einhorn and Stanley Earl Harris.

In an email of 5 April 2009, sent to multiple receivers and conferences, you wrote:

"I have repeatedly clarified that I am not in favor of gay marriage."

Maharaja, it is not clear to me, so kindly clarify once more: what is the significant difference between "gay union" of the type that you so strongly endorse and defend, and "gay marriage," which you disfavor? What is the crucial factor that makes them so markedly different as to evoke your wholly different attitude toward them?

dasa, Bhakti Vikasa Swami

=====================================================

Footnotes:

1. "Vaisnava Moral Theology and Homosexuality" Hridayananda Goswami - http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/dandavats/homosexuality.pdf
You have written: "I have repeatedly clarified that I am not in favor of gay marriage."

2. "Hridayananda Das Goswami Blesses Gay Male Couple"
http://chakra.org/announcements/persFeb01_09.html

(Text 48300) -----------------------------------------------

------- End of Forwarded Message ------
(Text 48304) -----------------------------------------------

Bhakkti Vikasa Petitions GBC

Submitted by krishna-kirti on Sat, 04/11/2009 - 16:27.

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

Comment 48301 (6 lines)
From:      Bhakti Vikasa Swami
Date:      11-Apr-09 10:06 -0400
To:        Hridayananda Dasa Goswami
To:        Tridandi Sannyasa
Reference: Text PAMHO:17289512 by Hridayananda Dasa Goswami
Subject:   From the GBC resolutions
------------------------------------------------------------

For the benefit and clarification of the worldwide body of devotees, I request the GBC (via the GBC members on this conference) to make a clear statement of whether or not "gay unions," "gay monogamy," or "gay marriage" may under any circumstance be allowed within ISKCON or by ISKCON members (and if so under which circumstances), and whether or not it is acceptable that an ISKCON leader bless or publicly approve such unions.

------- End of Forwarded Message ------

http://www.siddhanta.com/

Technorati Tags: Bhaktivinoda,Bhakti Vikasa,ISKCON,ritvik,humanrights,gay marriage,political philosophy,social science,censorship,homeland security

Mukunda Mala Stotra

TEXT 6

divi va bhuvi va mamastu vaso
narake va narakantaka prakamam
avadhirita-saradaravindau
caranau te marane 'pi cintayami

SYNONYMS

divi--in the abode of the demigods; va--or; bhuvi--on the earth, the home of human beings; va--or; mama--my; astu--may be; vasah--residence; narake--in hell; va--or; naraka-antaka--O killer of the demon Naraka; prakamam--however You desire; avadhirita--which have defied; sarada--of the fall season; aravindau--the lotus flowers; caranau--the two feet; te--Your; marane--at the time of death; api--even; cintayami--may I remember.

TRANSLATION

O Lord, killer of the demon Naraka! Let me reside either in the realm of the demigods, in the world of human beings, or in hell, as You please. I pray only that at the point of death I may remember Your two lotus feet, whose beauty defies that of the lotus growing in the Sarat season.

PURPORT

As stated before, a pure devotee of the Lord has nothing to do with mundane religiosity, economic development, sense gratification, or salvation, nor is he concerned whether his standard of material existence is the highest or the lowest. To him, heaven and hell are of equal value. He is not afraid of going to hell for the service of the Lord, nor is he glad to live in heaven without the service of the Lord. In any circumstance his consciousness is fixed on the Lord's lotus feet, whose beauty defies the most beautiful lotus flower of the mundane world.

The defiance is due to the transcendental position of the Lord's form, name, qualities, pastimes, and so on. The sruti mantras declare that although the Lord has no hands He can accept anything we offer Him with devotion, although He has no feet He can travel anywhere, and although He has no mundane eyes He can see anywhere and everywhere without hindrance. The Brahma-samhita describes each of His senses as omnipotent. The mundane eye can see but not hear, but His eyes can see, hear, eat, generate offspring, and so on. The sruti mantras say that He impregnates material nature with the seeds of living beings simply by casting His glance at her. He does not need any other kind of intercourse with mother nature to beget the living beings in her womb and become their father.

Therefore any relationship the Lord has with His many devotees--whether fatherhood, sonhood, or any other--is not at all material. The Lord is pure spirit, and only when the living being is in his pure spiritual state can he have all sorts of relationships with Him. Philosophers with a poor fund of knowledge cannot conceive of these positive spiritual relationships between the Lord and the all-spiritual living beings, and thus they simply think in terms of negating material relationships. In this way such philosophers naturally adopt the concept of impersonalism.

By contrast, a pure devotee like King Kulasekhara has complete knowledge of both matter and spirit. He does not say that everything material is false, yet he has nothing to do with anything material, from heaven down to hell. He fully understands the statement in the Bhagavad-gita that from the lowest planets up to Brahmaloka, the highest planet in the universe, there is no spiritual bliss, which the living beings hanker for. Therefore the pure devotee, being in full knowledge of spiritual life, simultaneously rejects material relationships and cultivates his spiritual relationship with the Lord. In other words, the spiritual knowledge a devotee possesses not only allows him to reject material existence, but it also provides him with an understanding of the reality of positive, eternal spiritual existence. This is the understanding King Kulasekhara expresses in this prayer.

Technorati Tags: Prabhupada,IRM,Iskcon,ritivk,prabhupadanuga,censorship,political philosophy